My interpretation of the 1908 patent
First I want to advice to everyone tha this page contains my own interpretation of the 1908 patent. The literal translations of the patents are available for everyone in order to try to build this generator. Those documents are exactly what Clemente Figuera included in his patents. If you do not want to be biased by my opinion, please just read the patents and skip this page.
This is just my own interpretation of the 1908 patent, no. 44267, and I do not want to persuade anyone to believe that this is the real key for the patent to work. It is just my own and personal interpretation according to my study and deep reading of the patents, especially the 1908 patent.
All Figuera patents have one common feature: all his devices are built with two electromagnets located one in front of the other (called “a” and “b” in the picture below) , and one “induced circuit”, as called by Figuera, in the center between both electromagnets (called “c” in the patent from 1902); In the 1908 patent he called the electromagnets “N” and “S”, and the induced circuit was called “y”.
My idea is that Clemente Figuera did not defined explicitly the real polarity of the electromagnets in his patent of 1908. While he named them as “rectangle N” and “rectangle S” he never told to be North or South. For me it was just a patent notation trick to hide the real polarity. Let´s see how he defined literally the device in the patent document:
In the description of the 1908 patent:
SUPPOSE THAT THE ELECTROMAGNETS ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE RECTANGLES “N” and “S”
In the claims (the part with legal validity):
” The system is characterized by two series of electromagnets which form the inductor circuit. “
Nowhere in the patents are mentioned the words “North” or “South”. Figuera named the electromagnets “rectangle N” and “rectangle S”, as he could have named them as “rectangle A” and “rectangle B”. Figuera got a patent who legally protected the design with all possible pole configurations: North-South, North-North or South-South, because he did not state explicitly the real polarity. You may read the patent and at first you may think that he was using for sure the option North-South, but this is only an association done by your brain with the letters “N” and “S”. For me this is the trick to solve this puzzle. Anyway, if you decide to build this system is quite easy to test one possibility or the other. You just have to interchange the electrical connections of the electromagnets to test different polarities.
It is curious that Buforn in his later 5 patents did exactly the same. He just named them “N” and “S” again. The same in all his 5 patents filed between 1910 and 1914. The very same in his 5 patents: just “N” and “S”. This reinforce my view that there is something weird, something hidden behind our perception of the letters N and S. We have a mental tendency to associate them with North and South when speaking about magnetism. But patents are a legal documents and they just protect which is really written and described in them, not what our subconscious tell us at first sight.
It is also curious that the patent from 1902 no. 30378 mentions that the “poles of contrary name are at small distance”. Is it a trick to avoid defining explicitly the polarity in scientific terms? Was he refering to the two poles of the same electromagnet?, or to the confroted poles of the two electromagnets?. Or, Is it just a different design to the 1908? For me this is still the main question to know. Take into account that the 1902 patents were filed to be sold to a banking union. This could have influenced the contents of those patents.
For me, Figuera hid the real pole orientation to avoid easy replications of the machine while at the same time getting the protection of the device with the patents that he filed.
I think that Figuera really used poles in repulsion to build his generator: similar poles facing each other. The aim was to swing both magnetic fields back and forth. As in any repulsion system the magnetic lines collide in the center and are expelled from the intermediate induced core. Those magnetic lines are swung back and forth as consequence of the two unbalanced signals exciting each electromagnet, and during their movement the lines cut the wires of the induced coil and create induction (flux cutting induction). For me the real aim of the device is to create a “virtual motion” of the magnetic lines. I think Figuera tried to emulate the movement of a common generator, but in this case instead of moving any part of the machine he changed the two opposing magnetic fields in order to moved the Bloch Wall where both fields collide.
Induction in all generators is always done by flux cutting the wires: it requires relative movement (v) in order that the flux lines cut the induced wires ( E = v·B·Length ). On the other hand, induction in transformers is always done by flux linking two coils: it just requires a changing magnetic field (B) in time (dB/dt), but does not need movement, nor that the flux lines cut the wire ( E = -Area·dB/dt ).
TRANSFORMERS (Flux Linking Induction) : E = -Area·dB/dt (Faraday Law)
GENERATORS (Flux Cutting Induction) : E = v·B·Length (Lorentz Force)
Using poles in repulsion in Figuera´s generator induction is done by flux cutting, as in all generators and dynamos. This is not a transformer. All this is explained in deep in the next very important video. You may also download the slides explained in the video:
(If you want to see the video in spanish please click here)
See the slides into an embeded presentation:
In order to get this effect Figuera just needed to excite each electromagnet with a different signal. He used two signals. When one was increasing the other was decreasing. Later, the contrary, when the second signal is increasing the first signal is decreasing. Therefore when one magnetic field is at maximum intensity, the other is at minimum. Later, the contrary: when the second field is at maximum, the first is at minimum. Both signals are changing in strength inversely. They are always above zero, they do not reverse its polarity. Both signals are opposite, and they work in conjunction to get the magnetic lines moving along the longitudinal axis of the induced coil and therefore cutting its wires.
See how induction by flux cutting is achieved:
Now instead of moving the coil you just need to move the two magnetic fields back and forth to get flux cutting induction in the wires of the intermediate coil.
Finally, as a summary, the next image represents the concept of moving the magnetic lines (fields) in order to get flux cutting induction in the wires while keeping the whole system motionless and without any dragging / braking force, the force that exists in current generators:
Even Figuera in his 1902 patents mentioned that instead of moving the coils he wanted the lines of forces to cross the induced wire to get induction without moving the coils. I think that this is the essence of this generator:
Quote from patent 30376:
“Everyone knows that the current generated by a dynamo is produced
because the induced coils cut the lines of force of the magnets.”
Quote from patent 30378:
“Those who subscribe, think that it is exactly the same as the induced coils
cut the lines of force, or that these lines of force cross the induced wires.”
The magic of the Figuera generator is that makes possible to convert two variable magnetic fields in time in the electromagnets (dB/dt) into a variable magnetic field in space (in the induced coils), as happens in all generators ( emf = v · B · Length ) moving back and forth the magnetic lines, and, therefore creating induction by flux cutting the wires ( by creating a virtual relative velocity “v” between the magnetic lines and the induced wires). And maintaining a high “magnetic pressure” all the time between electromagnets to keep an optimized induction in the intermediate coil.
In the next table you can see a comparison between: transformers, generators and the Figuera generator, explaining why the Figuera motionless generator has no apparent Lenz manifestation as the other two:
As a final idea I want to remark that the Lenz effect exists into the Figuera generator. The induced wires while being cut by the magnetic lines are exposed internally to the Lorentz force as in any other system. Thus is why those wires have to be packed tighly to avoid any movement/vibration. But in this case just the massless magnetic lines are moved, so the force to move them is almost null if compared to common generators where the heavy coils are moved. Figuera found a way to create induction by motion (“v”) but without moving any heavy part of the generator. There is no apparent dragging / braking since nothing moves.
There are many well-known scientists who also manifest that induction is a result of transformer induction (change in time in the magnetic field, B) and the motional induction (as consecuence of motion in space between the field and the wire) proposing that both are two completely different phenomena:
- William J. Hooper , in his book “New Horizons In Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational Field Theory” describes that his experiments showed that there are different electric fields with very different properties. In his book, Hooper defines three electric fields with distinct characteristics: the electrostatic, which is very familiar, the motionally induced electric field, which is the product of relative motion between a conductor and a magnetic field, and the transformer electric field, which is produced by a changing magnetic field intensity. A table on page 15 of his book shows the major differences in the properties of these three fields. He tested that the motional induction can not be shielded by metals while the other fields can be neutralized.
Note: Also the Weber Electrodynamics theory propose a force adding the effect of three terms: Weber proposed an elementary force between electric charges consisting of three terms dependant on the distance, the velocity, and the acceleration of one charge relative to the other. The first term is nothing more than Coulomb’s law (electrostatic electricity), the second is related to the motional induction (generators), while the third accounts for the phenomenon of induction as result of a changing current (transformers). Weber’s and Ampere’s Electrodynamics postulates the existance of longitudinal forces between charged particles, while current Maxwell electrodynamic not. Why current theory doesn´t include longitudinal forces if they have been proved by many experiments?
- Joseph Henry, on his essay “No. IV – On Electro-Dynamic Induction (Continued.)” in the section II “On apparently two kinds of Electro-dynamic Induction” included in the book “Contributions to Electricity and Magnetism” describes his findindings about a second kind of induction, generated by motion, which can not be shielded by interposing metallic plates in contrast to the case of induction done by a changing electric current.
- Richard Feynman, in his essay “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume II, Chapter 17: “The Laws of Induction”. Please watch carefully this revealing video with a recording of Feynman´s voice about two Physical Induction Laws to describe two different phenomena:
“But the other case represents a new Law: when we move the magnetic field or change the magnetic field. Together the two laws, the two effects, form one beautiful rule. That is: No matter how the flux changes, either you move the coil or because you change the field, you get an “emf”. And that is a very beautiful general principle. This is the only place in Physics that I know where a beautiful general principle, which is accurate, requires for its real understanding to be analyzed as two different things in cooperation, and two different phenomena, and two different cases. Usually we represent a beautiful generalization as being the deepest principle. The beautiful generalization here is that no matter you move the coil or the magnetic field, the “emf” in a wire is always the rate of change of the flux. Nevertheless we cannot let it go at that and say: “That´s the Law”.
We have to analyze this as being two different things on two different circumstances. One: In general the force is the electric field [“E”], plus “v” [velocity] cross the magnetic field, “B” [ F = E + v × B ]. When we move the wire is the velocity of the wire that comes in here, in the field, and this part of the force is generating the “emf”, for that part of the “emf” which is produced by that wire in motion. What happens when the field is changing is… nothing to be with the field “B”. It is due to the existence on an electric field “E” which has nothing to do which whether the wire were there or not. If you have one region of space in which the magnetic field is changing, there is an electric field generated even though there may be no wire. “
Quote from “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume 2, Chapter 17 “The Laws of Induction”, Section 17-1:
” So the “flux rule”—that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit—applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both). The two possibilities—“circuit moves” or “field changes”—are not distinguished in the statement of the rule. Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases — v × B for “circuit moves” and ∇ ×E = − ∂B / ∂t for “field changes.”
We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena. Usually such a beautiful generalization is found to stem from a single deep underlying principle. Nevertheless, in this case there does not appear to be any such profound implication. We have to understand the “rule” as the combined effects of two quite separate phenomena.
We must look at the “flux rule” in the following way. In general, the force per unit charge is F / q = E + v × B . In moving wires there is the force from the second term. Also, there is an E-field if there is somewhere a changing magnetic field. They are independent effects, but the emf around the loop of wire is always equal to the rate of change of magnetic flux through it.”
- George I. Cohn, in one of his scientific papers manifest the following:
The flux linking law, ε = – dΦ/dt , and the flux cutting law, ε = B·v·L , often erroneously are considered as merely different ways of expressing the same phenomena. This article attempts to dispel the confusion surrounding the subject of electromagnetic induction.
- Konstantine Meyl, in one scientific essay “Faraday or Maxwell?” includes the next image about the differences between the induction in generators and the induction in transformers. This author also proposes the existance of longitudinal waves (scalar waves) as complement to the electromagnetic transversal waves described by current theory. Tesla was the first to support the existance of longitudinal waves (the ones that he used in his wireless power transmision system)
- Gennady Nikolaev and Stefan Marinov who proposed an extra magnetic field after finding experimental validation of the existance of longitudinal waves (scalar magnetic field) as well as the currently accepted vector magnetic field (transversal waves). Marinov found in Nikolaev´s theory the answer to many inconsistencies of the current theory.
“…in the space where the total vectorial magnetic field of two magnets is equal to zero, the total value of scalar magnetic field of two magnets is maximal. “
- Hertz, in his Hertz Electrodynamics Theory, postulates that the total induction must take into acount two terms into the equation: the transformer induction plus the motional induction. Hertzian electrodynamics solves the existing asymmetries in Maxwell´s equations. Those asymmetries where tried to be solved (patched) by the Special Theory of Relativity. But under the Hertz electrodynamics the electromagnetic equations are invariant under Gallilean Transformation and the theory of relativity is not needed anymore to patch the problems in current Maxwell equations . See these links: Hertzian Electrodynamics , and , Lorentz´s Force