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

[kampen]

Reply to message #9

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Very interesting addition, especially your emphasis on the symmetrical expansion from the Bloch wall and how Figuera deliberately sized the 'y' secondaries to sit entirely within the expanding pole region.

That design choice is quite revealing, because it suggests that Figuera was not just relying on flux variation, but on controlling how a single-pole field spatially sweeps across the secondary region.

Your point about Buforn's chain configuration is also very intriguing.

Closing that chain into a toroidal or circular structure would indeed eliminate the "edge losses" at the ends, but it also raises a deeper question:
Q: Would a fully closed magnetic path (toroid) actually preserve the intended induction effect... or suppress it?
In a toroidal core:

• The magnetic flux is largely confined within the core
• External field interaction with conductors is minimized
• Flux distribution becomes highly uniform along the path

So if Figuera's effect depends on spatial expansion interacting with the secondary conductors, then enclosing the system into a toroid might actually reduce the very field gradients needed for induction.

Unless, of course, the secondary is also integrated within that toroidal path in a way that still experiences a non-uniform, time-varying flux distribution.
This brings up what I think is the key point behind your observation:
Is the induction mechanism in Figuera's system driven primarily by:

• Total flux variation (classical transformer view),
   or
• Spatial field gradients moving across the secondary conductors?

Because your description of symmetrical expansion from the Bloch wall suggests that what matters is not just how much field exists, but where and how it is distributed over the secondary at each moment in time.

Regarding the toroidal idea, I am curious:
Do you think closing the chain would:

• Enhance continuity of the field and reduce losses,
   or
• Remove the directional field displacement needed to generate EMF?

Because if the effect depends on a linear gradient across the secondaries (as in Figuera's layout), then converting it into a circular symmetry might fundamentally change the behavior.

Very interesting line of thought, especially because it touches on whether the system depends on open-field interaction vs confined flux paths.

Looking forward to your thoughts on that.

Best regards,
Alex

[Ufopolitics]

Reply to message #9

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Very interesting addition, especially your emphasis on the symmetrical expansion from the Bloch wall and how Figuera deliberately sized the 'y' secondaries to sit entirely within the expanding pole region.

That design choice is quite revealing, because it suggests that Figuera was not just relying on flux variation, but on controlling how a single-pole field spatially sweeps across the secondary region.

Your point about Buforn's chain configuration is also very intriguing.

Closing that chain into a toroidal or circular structure would indeed eliminate the "edge losses" at the ends, but it also raises a deeper question:
Q: Would a fully closed magnetic path (toroid) actually preserve the intended induction effect... or suppress it?
In a toroidal core:

• The magnetic flux is largely confined within the core
• External field interaction with conductors is minimized
• Flux distribution becomes highly uniform along the path

So if Figuera's effect depends on spatial expansion interacting with the secondary conductors, then enclosing the system into a toroid might actually reduce the very field gradients needed for induction.

Unless, of course, the secondary is also integrated within that toroidal path in a way that still experiences a non-uniform, time-varying flux distribution.
This brings up what I think is the key point behind your observation:
Is the induction mechanism in Figuera's system driven primarily by:

• Total flux variation (classical transformer view),
   or
• Spatial field gradients moving across the secondary conductors?

Because your description of symmetrical expansion from the Bloch wall suggests that what matters is not just how much field exists, but where and how it is distributed over the secondary at each moment in time.

Regarding the toroidal idea, I am curious:
Do you think closing the chain would:

• Enhance continuity of the field and reduce losses,
   or
• Remove the directional field displacement needed to generate EMF?

Because if the effect depends on a linear gradient across the secondaries (as in Figuera's layout), then converting it into a circular symmetry might fundamentally change the behavior.

Very interesting line of thought, especially because it touches on whether the system depends on open-field interaction vs confined flux paths.

Looking forward to your thoughts on that.

Best regards,
Alex

Hello dear friend,

You are completely right on your conclusions related to using a Fully closed Toroidal or Circular structure will reduce the flux (Field Lines) within only the steel core.

However, on Figuera's as well as Buforn, their systems could perfectly work with 'Air Gaps', even just using a thin sheet of insulation that separates each steel element.

Not so on Transformers, that in order to generate a robust Induction, it requires a Fully Closed E-Frame, as well as the Toroidal Transformers are also on a fully closed structure.

Therefore, whenever we fracture/separate -into sections- each primary and secondary, and separate them through a thin insulated gap, then the Magnetic Field Expands Spatially like it takes place on a Generator...or a Motor.

Simply because once we fracture the steel into elements, we cut the Internal Flux flow through the inner steel laminated cores, then Field expands into its surrounding space for each inducing-Induced element separately.

Even on the Armature of a Motor, we can have right next to each other a North Pole and a South Pole separated by just the gap between salient tooth, as not interacting between them, but with the front set stator coils through an air gap...because Magnetic Fields interacts stronger in a Directional fashion (Pole Center to Pole Center).

And that was the way I meant, when I suggested that Buforn design could be on a closed chain...

Remember when I was designing my Figuera Closed Toroidal Structures that I also made the 'Joining C Steel Clamps" to bolt elements together?

Because besides offering an easier way to wind them separately, it also fractures/separate elements through thin insulators serving as 'gaps'...not to have a Full Monolithic Steel Structure.


Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

[...]

METHOD 2 or INDIRECT INDUCTION:

Where induction is achieved by just approaching the Magnetic Field to a Coil with a steel core built within.
As it is also ruled by the same factors cited on Method 1, when it comes to increasing the EMF.
This type of induction I call it 'Indirect' because as we approach the Magnetic Field to the Coil & Steel Core, the Field ONLY PROPAGATES to the Steel Core, momentarily magnetizing it.



As we must realize that on this approach there are higher magnetic losses/lower induction due to many factors.

• Purity of steel core material
• Steel Properties to rapidly demagnetize (avoiding saturation)
• Strength of Field must be much higher than Method 1, in order to transfer (influence) the steel core with stronger magnetic properties.
• There will always must be an Air Gap in between Inducing and Induced, which must be as closed as possible.

Now, on this Method 2, the Magnetic Field could approach the Steel Core-Coil from different spatial directions:

• Frontal approach, like shown on image above, making a reciprocating movement.
• Approach from the sides, running horizontally related to the center of steel core.
• Approach from the sides, running vertically related to the center of steel core.

On the Approach #1 (Frontal) it could be built a "Linear-Reciprocating" mechanical method to achieve this Field 'approach and retract' to the Steel Core-Coil(s).
As this frontal approach is also similar to the way Transformers generate an Induction, except that here the Field does not 'move physically' but just changes its Magnitude as it also Reverses its magnetic polarities as a result of their AC at Input (Primaries).
[...]

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Now, going back to Figuera's Design...and applying it to my previous Induction Classification Types...

We can categorize Figuera's Design into the Method 2 (Indirect Induction) using the Frontal, Linear Approach #1.

Except, that on Figuera's Design the Field does not move physically but by altering its Magnitude (strength) as Spatial Volume "in situ".

Induction takes place whenever one of the Two Exciter/Inducing Coils with steel core Magnetic Fields, enters into the Expanding Stage, where the Field Lines sweeps over the center secondaries 'y'.

And as @kampen and I cited previously, we can compare it to the way Transformers generate an Electromagnetic Induction...

Except:

• Figuera's is ruled by Induction based on Spatial Expansions and Contractions of the Field, and NOT by Flux Flow changes in magnitude within the closed laminated steel core, like it does with Transformers.
• All Figuera and Buforn Designs can work perfectly well with an Air Gap into fractured steel cores separated by a small gap into elements, which Transformers can not operate under such design.
• Also considering that on Figuera's Method the Field does not reverses its magnetic polarities,
• Because Figuera's Primaries  Input are fed by Dual Alternating DC sinewaves, that only travels on the High Side (Positive, above zero).

Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All,

And now, when categorizing my Linear-Series Design Method (Inspired by a 'Fusion' of Figuera's Design plus one of  Faraday's first experiments cited previously), it turns out a bit more complicated...:

• The Spatial Displacement of the Magnetic Field takes place within the very Center of the Linearly disposed Steel Core, where there is also wound the Main Secondary (green wired coil).
• Based on above characteristics where Field moves in a reciprocating way within the COMMON Steel Core for the Inducing Sequencing Coils and the CENTER Induced Main Coil, it directly classify on Method 1 (Direct Induction).

However, when we analyze the way the Second Secondaries Coils at each extreme of the linear steel core generate an Induction as the result of Field displacement...

• The Two End Inducing Coils (thicker brown wire) generate an Induction whenever the Field approaches in a frontal encounter to either one alternatively .
• And based on this characteristics cited above, this type of Induction for each end Inducing Coils classifies with Method 2 (Indirect Induction) & Frontal Approach #1.

CONCLUDING:

• For the Main Center Induced Coil, it generates an Induction based on Method 1.
• For the Two End Coils, or Second Secondaries, the Induction is based on Method 2, Frontal Approach #1.

So, like I said previously about the way Quantum Mechanics would interpret these two processes...:

The Type of Induction Classification above is directly related as 'How each Induced Coil "sees" and "reacts" accordingly to the Field Displacement/Change...

Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All,

Ok, I have made some Graphics Diagrams to Analyze -in depth- the Weak Areas on Figuera's Inducing Method:

So, above is a Graphic of Field Strength (based on Current variations) over Time (based on one Revolution or 360º) on both Inducing Coils N & S.

It shows how both Inducing Fields are completely opposite or alternating its Peaks and Lows at the same fraction of time...

However, most here are very familiar with the way Figuera's Inducing Sinewaves work for both Inducing Fields.

And what I wanted to mainly show here, is the Shaded Area that I marked here.

This Shaded Area shows exactly the Time, during One (1) Revolution (1 RPM) that BOTH Inducing Fields are not reaching a Maximum (Peak) Strength.

The whole Inducing Field Area would be better represented by a Field Color Gradient, like they show on Field Strength Charts from Red (Stronger Field), Orange, Yellow to light blue and daker blue (Weakest Field), like shown below:

Where:

• RED represents the STRONGER FIELD
• DARK BLUE represents the WEAKER FIELD

You can see this Mid to Low Field Strength runs approximatedly on a 90% of the time.

As if we cut off and DELETE ALL shaded Lower Areas plus all their respective points and just leave the Peak, Top Field strength...will result on a very wide apart peak sineswave:

This inconsistency of not maintaining a higher percentage of peak Field Strength, is where I believe results in a weaker Induction reflected at the Output of the Induced Coils by huge Voltages and Amperage drops when connected to heavier  loads.

By Peaks being so far apart by huge time intervals or very wide angles on total rotated circumference areas (I calculated about 160º not peak angles out of 180º, then 320º out of the total 360º, that's only a 40º Total Peak Field Strength per Revolution) So it would not matter how much we increase the speed or frequency, with this characteristics it would be very hard to keep up with Induced Strength Demands by heavier loads.

We will never even approach to a "Flat Line" (constant Field strength) Induction like on a typical Generator Inducing Field Strength operates...a perfectly flat, straight line.

Regards

Ufopolitics