BUILDING A 'GRAVITY FIELD' COIL

[kampen]

This table condenses the results into a clear side-by-side view
so you can easily compare how gap size impacts β, inductance, and efficiency trend.

[Ufopolitics]

Hello Kampen, hello All,

Excellent work @kampen !!!

And, basically, very interesting results!

Below I will show your last pdf file (Sim_Scalar_PotentialMaps_with_Callouts) converted to png images-sequences, related to the Scalar Potential Map on the frames that it contains, or for 0.01, 1.37, and 5.00 Gap adjustments, respectively:

Now, according to these three different Gap settings:

Gap at 5.00 (Two Full Walls present): Here is where we observe the HIGHEST Magnetic Radiation EXPANDED AREA on the Map, for both Poles, to the point that it gives us a 'CENTER' Spatial Point on this Circular Magnetic Field, that I will name "SINGULARITY POINT".

However, I do realize that on this 5.00 gap, is where we have the lowest L(Inductance) lower β(Flux or MMF) as lower Efficiency trend (%)

As, if we compare the 5.00 gap image with the 'almost zero' (0.01 gap), this is where ALL Main Parameters reach "sky high" or Maximum Levels...However, the Spatial Magnetic Radiation diminishes considerably to 'barely' the Inner Part of the Circular Core!!

And no "Singularity Point" here...

Now, related to "Walls" or better named, the Counterspatial Fields, on a 5.0 gap, we have Two Full Counterspace Fields, which 'justifies' the Expanded Potential Map.

Which is the complete opposite to what we see on a close to zero gap...where only one Counterspatial Field (Wall) would be at the 0.01 Gap.

And yes, this simulation gives us a "sweet gap opening" of 1.37, where we have an average between Max and Min Gaps or a more stabilized version...

@kampen : please, do not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong, if my interpretation of your simulation tests is somewhere incorrect, please do !!

Great job Alex!!

Regards to All

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

VISUALIZING THE 'INVISIBLE': THE WAY A COUNTERSPACE GEOMETRY WILL LOOK LIKE...THANKS TO KEN L. WHEELER'S BOOK

On Page 126 of the book "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" (shown above) is shown a geometry which mimics the way a Counterspace Field (Bloch Wall) will look like...

I recommend to read and try to interpret all text on this page...it will help in visualizing with 'dynamic movements' of this Counterspace Field...

So, actually, there is a "Counter Geometry" to a Sphere Geometry, (please, do not waste your time on searching it on google or in any AI...it will NOT have this)

This Counter Geometry of the Sphere must be seen as an 'Implosion' (Ken defines it as "Voidance") which would start at both 'Center Poles' of Sphere, at the instant time, with an 'Inward Force' towards the Equator Outer Line of the Sphere...and this description will look like below image, taken from page 126:

Now, from the Equator Line, the Implosion Forces will move then towards a very Center Point of that Circular Equatorial Plane (not shown on image, to see this, it needs to be constructed with a transparency mapping, with all these curvilinear forces shown)...And I will make that image further on, on a 3D Image Model.

Imagine this: The above Geometry is the way a Counterspatial Field (or Bloch Wall) will 'look' like...but this is a 'Void', it is a Voidance Field, it has no representation on our real Spacetime.

Regards to All

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Love the way you framed it.

Here is a compressed read on what your three gap regimes are showing
and how to interpret the "singularity point," and what You can do next.

What the three gaps SIMULATION are really telling you:
1) Large gap (~5.0 mm) — "two full walls", big spatial radiation

Field topology:
Two strong counter-spatial regions (walls) coexist.
The map shows a wide fringing flux "halo" extending outside the ring.

"Singularity point":
What you're seeing near the geometric center is a field/potential saddle (null) created by symmetry of the two walls.
It's a topological stagnation point, not an energy source—useful as a locator of symmetry, not "free gain."

Electromagnetics:
High reluctance at the gap → low L, weak coupling back into the core, more energy radiates/fringes into space and losses.

Practical result:
Lower efficiency for energy capture.
Good if you want deliberate external coupling (sensing, induction to secondaries), poor if you want compact, efficient storage/recovery.

2) Mid gap (~1.37 mm) — "sweet spot", dual-wall regime

Field topology:
The primary wall (opposite the gap) and the secondary (gap) wall both exist, but the gap wall doesn't fully dominate.
Your map shows tighter confinement than 5 mm, without collapsing entirely into a single-wall system.

Why it feels stable:
You're near the zone where the MMF drop across gap and core are comparable (what we've been calling β ≈ 1).
That's where wall migration slows, and the dynamics are easier to tune.

Electromagnetics:
L increases vs 5 mm, flux is more core-bound, flyback recovery improves, switching waveforms calm down.

Practical result:
Best trade of controllability + observable wall dynamics + usable efficiency.

3) Near-zero gap (~0.01 mm) — single wall at the gap, flux packed inside

Field topology:
The system collapses into a single dominant wall at the gap; the opposite wall disappears.
External radiation shrinks; flux is confined to the core path.

Electromagnetics:
L is highest, current ramps slow, peak B is localized near gap edges (watch for saturation/edge hotspots).

Practical result:
Highest electrical efficiency, cleanest energy accounting, but least external field and least "dual-wall" behavior to study.

A note on β (to keep us consistent)

We've been using β ≡ MMF_drop(gap) / MMF_drop(core).
With that definition:

Bigger gap ⇒ bigger β (gap reluctance grows, so the gap "takes" more MMF).

β ≈ 1 is your balanced-walls zone (the "sweet" dual-wall regime).
If your table shows the opposite trend, it's likely β was defined differently in that line (e.g., core/gap rather than gap/core).
Let's just stick to one convention going forward: β = gap/core.

What to do with this??

If your priority is research on looping/self-feedback dynamics:

Start at g ≈ 1.3–1.5 mm (β ≈ 1) where two walls coexist stably.

Step the gap in ±0.1 mm increments and log:
Pin, Pout, I_pk, duty, wall location (Hall probe), spike amplitude, temperature.

If your priority is efficient energy capture:

Move toward smaller g (≤ 0.5 mm effective) while watching peak B at gap edges and switch OFF spikes.

Expect higher L, slower current ramp, and cleaner flyback into your recovery cap/load.

If you want strong external coupling (field "radiation" into a pickup):

Use a larger gap (2–5 mm).
Know you're trading away L and recovery efficiency for field reach and a pronounced center saddle ("singularity" point).

Bench Cues to confirm the maps.

Wall migration:
scan around the ring with a small Hall probe while stepping gap.
You should see the zero crossing move toward the gap as you close it.

L vs gap: measure L at 1–10 kHz; it should rise monotonically as gap shrinks.

OFF-edge behavior:
at large gaps, expect bigger V_sw spikes and more fringing heating near the gap at small gaps, tighter plateaus and less EMI.

Saturation watch:
near-zero gap focuses B at the edge—monitor with Hall and IR; back off I_pk if B spikes or temperature runs.

Recommended next steps quick plan.

Pick your operating intent (research vs efficiency vs coupling).

Set initial gap:

Research: g ≈ 1.37 mm

Efficiency: g ≤ 0.5–0.8 mm (but avoid literal zero)

Coupling: g ≥ 2–3 mm

Record a 6-plot set at each gap: L (LCR), Pin/Pout, I_pk/Duty, V_sw & I_coil (scope), Hall scan, Temps.

Map β by computing β = R_gap/R_core from your measured L (or via short calibration) so your data indexes cleanly to gap physics.