WEAK POINTS -THAT I'VE FOUND- ON FIGUERA’S ORIGINAL METHOD

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All,

Now, after been working on Figuera's Method for so many years, trying to reproduce it unsuccessfully -as many thousands around the World did as well- after all these attempts...

I find it necessary -and very important- to expose here the weak points that I have found on his design, from an Engineering Point of view comparing it to a Generator, just as Figuera did...
ALL Existing Rotational Electromagnetic Generators basic 'modum operandi' (Method of Operation), since the First Industrial Operating Rotary Generator was ever built...

I will ONLY relate here to the way the Inducing Electro Magnetic Field(s) Operate (Relationship) with the Induced/Output Field.

As Figuera mentions on his 1908 Patent, when analizing the way a Rotary Generator works he cites:

The Inducing Field comes and go...they (inducing Fields) get closer to then go further away...(from Induced coils)

Now, based on this simple observation above, he then developed his design, in order to achieve the way a Rotary Generator works, without the need to physically move any of the Generator Electromagnetic Coils.
Meaning, that by adding -progressively- resistance to the Inducing Field will reduce its currents, therefore, the Field would start a process of attenuation or a decrease of its strength, in other words, the Field would "shrink"...as this will "mimic" an effect of the Field "moving away", according to Figuera's concept developed on his Patent.
As the contrary cycle would take effect -on Figuera's order sequence- from this Field State of retraction to an expansion, by simply starting to take off resistance as then gaining higher currents...hence strength.

So far this is a "good start" to develop his Patent...except, that Figuera left a very important part of the Generator Rotary Cycle out...

The part not considered by Figuera -according to the drawing presented on Patent- is that when the Induced Field(s) are approaching the Induced Coils, (Expanding Phase on his Patent) they RETAIN the same, exact, Electromagnetic Force and Strength...

At NO POINT - on a real rotary generator- during the Operation (Rotation) of the Inducing or Exciting Field(s) (on Rotor), on any Rotary Generator, the Inducing Field loses or gain strength.

Instead, the DC Inducing or Exciting Field -on any Rotary Generator- always keeps it's Currents and Voltage at a 'stable' and 'fixed', completely LINEAR condition during its whole Inducing Cycle.

Like I have said before on this forum, the relationship between Exciting Field and Induced Field is based on a CONSTANT EXCHANGE, based on a DEMAND-SUPPLY RELATIONSHIP where the Inducing or Exciting Field must always be feeding this Induction Process as the "Supplying Part"

Even whenever the Inducing Field appears "to be leaving" the Maximum Area/Angle of Induction, to then approach to the next induced coil(s) in the succession order, this Field never loses  its Strenght, because it was simply a Spacetime displacement on the Rotary Generator.

On Figuera's Method only Two Times per a full cycle or one Revolution, the Induced Fields reaches a maximum strength or potential, when they (both sides) are at max currents or a so called "Full expansion mode". As this takes place exactly at commutator contacts 1 & 16, then again at 180 degrees at contacts 8 & 9.
While the rest of this time -other than the two max state points -the Inducing Fields are "Equalizing strength" on the in-between contact points- however, never reaching max Fields potential during this time period- through a gradient of resistance variations.

If we go to the old original drawing, specifically to the commutator and the'R' Box, we can see this observation very clear:

Now, when the Brush is exactly between contacts 4 & 5 (exact middle of a half cycle) both Inducing Fields are sharing exactly the same resistance, therefore, same currents as same strength.
And this is exactly where Figuera's weak points resides...as this event takes place again within the same cycle or revolution when brush is in between contacts 12 & 13.

Why are these the weak points?

Because exactly here, there is a huge drop of the INDUCING Field Strength (on both Fields N & S) simply because both Fields are not near a Max Strength, then the INDUCTIVE SUPPLY FORCE DROPS...and so the Output Fields will also decay/drop as an IMMEDIATE RESPONSE, reflected as a HUGE VOLTAGE and AMPERAGE DROP in our Loaded Output Closed circuit(s).

Again, on a real Rotary Generator, the Exciting or Induced Field(s) never loses strength, therefore, these two weak points never take place and so the Supply-Demand exchange never have a drop on the output side. As the only thing that would take place is that the exciting field on the rotor would become stiffer as the RPM's would drop momentarily, until the governor accelerates the Prime Mover or the ICE.

If Figuera's Method would be successful with these weak points...then we could have added a "momentary exciting field reduction of strength" circuit, right on the continuous slip rings, before rotor approaches next induced coil-field...to only apply max strength once they are 'fully aligned'...then we would not have a 'stiff' rotor..., so "goodbye Lenz Law" and so, any electric motor could rotate any generator out there...then ICE would have been discarded a long time ago...

But that quoted idea above is NOT REAL...it would never take place as the Inducing Field -on any rotary generator- is always outputting the same strength, in order to have a Robust Output.

As my further and deeper development into the Figuera's Method in what I called 'Method Two' where I built a series of coils 'bridging' from the Two Main Inducing Coils (N & S) but keeping the same Figuera commutating sequence for only the positive brush, here I finally 'decoded' or 'debunked' the failure on his method.
I kept the same, exact original electrical circuit, where there are Two Fixed Negative points in between the Center Positive 'wiper' brush.
Even though these tests lead to a much higher output voltage than Input voltage, once output was loaded, there was an excessive voltage drop.

This was the main reason I moved into the Linear-Series Model design...where the Field keeps its strength all the time during its operation.

(to be continued)

Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All,

Ok, so, if you all notice I have started this Topic back on January...and now, due to a recent analysis sent to me, I feel it is time to publish it.

Originally I called it "The Flaws that I have found on Figuera's Method"...but I decided to be a bit more specific (technically speaking) as to name them "Weak Points"...

And this conclusion I based it on the Thousands of hours that I have dedicated to study the Figuera's Methods, which -of course- also includes the further developments and patenting of Buforn.

As I have mentioned on my previous post here, the 'Critical Point' that took me to these conclusions are not based on simple speculations and theories, but on Real Lab Testing work on the many prototypes I have developed around Figuera's original idea and invention.

The Final Development that I have built, I called it "Method 2" and this served as "the final prediction" about my conclusion(s) here.

The Basic and Main (summarized) weak points that I have found on Figuera's Original Patent is simple:

1- Not being able to sustain a steady, fixed Inducing Field Strength throughout the Generating Induction Process.

This fact simply generates a 'weak induction process' resulting in voltage drops at the time to load output on the secondaries.

These GAPS of decaying Field Strength, generates this weak results.

And here is the main reason I started the Development of the LINEAR-SERIES SYSTEMS, where at no point during the whole process, there would be a MAJOR DECAY of Inducing Field Strength.

Next post I will add the pdf member @kampen sent me regarding also another Figuera Analysis to discuss it here in detail.


Ufopolitics 



 

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All,

So, here is the Full Analysis Article pdf document (transfered to PNG) titled:

"This is actually the key to demystifying the whole Figuera story."

Please note I have uploaded the original pdf format file at the bottom of this post.

Next I will be discussing this article.

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All,

LET'S FIRST NOTE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A TRANSFORMER AND A GENERATOR.

First, a Transformer works only on an AC Input to their Primaries.

However, there are specific and a minority of transformers that work based on a "Pulsating DC Current". But these are NOT the majority of Transformer on the market, on the industry or on any home appliances.

If we Input straight, linear DC currents on the Primary of any existing transformer...it will NOT output not a single volt, no matter how many volts we input.

So, why transformers only work on AC Input to Output AC on their Secondaries?


1- Transformers Induction is denominated as "Flux Linking".
2- Generators Induction is denominated as "Flux Cutting".

As there is a Radical Difference between the two forms of induction. However, if we all look at the differences online, it will tell us:

Induction by linking (often called flux linkage) and induction by cutting (flux cutting) are two methods of producing an electromotive force (EMF) based on Faraday's Law of Induction, differing mainly in how the magnetic flux interacts with the conductor. Induction by linking involves changing the amount of magnetic field passing through a fixed coil, while induction by cutting involves a conductor physically moving across magnetic field lines.

I highly disagree with above description, merely because whenever we feed the Input of a Transformer with AC Currents we are NOT CHANGING ANY AMOUNT OF MAGNETIC FIELD passing through a fixed coil.

Example: If we are feeding transformer with exactly 120 Volts and 1 Amp in AC Currents...we are NOT changing ANY FIELD AMOUNT!
It is a Field fed by a FIXED AC INPUT of 120V/1A.
So, the only thing that "CHANGES" here is the fact that AC Currents constantly are REVERSING FIELD POLARITY on every single Frequency Cycle....that's all!!
However "the AMOUNT" of Field  (understood as Field SPATIAL VOLUME and STRENGTH) REMAINS EXACTLY THE SAME.

Now, related to "FLUX CUTTING" our Sciences will always take us all into the "requirement" to ONLY PHYSICALLY MOVE the 'conductor' and as well its steel core...as the "one and only existing method(s)".

Which I -obviously- disagree as well...

Now, let's remember that Figuera's Method does not REVERSE the Field currents at any given point.
However, it does change the SPATIAL AMOUNT of Field based on its Volume, whenever Figuera's Fields Expands or Retracts alternatively on the SAME SPATIAL-TIME RESTRICTED AREAS.

So, whenever one of Figuera's Field (N or S) Expands to a Max Point, it actually 'TRAVELS' on Spatial Volume Increase, where its flux now 'SWEEPS' or 'CUTS' over the Secondary 'y'' Spatial Area.

Therefore, on this first part conclusion -on my end- I do agree that Figuera (as the original 1908 Patent describes) is a type of "Hybrid" between both:

1- A Transformer, because it changes the amount of Field whenever it expands-retracts over the Induced (secondary)
2- As a Generator as when Field 'Grows/Expands' as whenever it Retracts/Shrink, it also cut the flux lines by the secondaries conductors on this Spacetime displacement. even though the displacement takes place on a restricted area.

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

'Obvious' conclusions:

1- On Figuera's Method, he does uses an Alternated way to convert DC to a Fluctuating or Varying Currents to feed the Inducing Coils.

HOWEVER, at any point does Figuera REVERSES the Magnetic Field, by reversing the current flow, like it takes place on an AC Transformer.

2- On Figuera's Method, he Expands and Retracts the Field Physical Volume by resistance control.

At any point the AC feeding a transformer primary does what Figuera's Method obtains, meaning Expanding-Retracting Field Spatial Volume.

Figuera was the "Pioneer" on developing these Field effects and obtaining an EMF Induction at the secondaries, which resulted on AC.

Again, like I have insisted for such a long time...

We can NOT just merely look at "flux" when it comes to analize such complex Spectrum, as is the Magnetic Field.

Ufopolitics