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

[Ufopolitics]

Another wrong -chronological- conclusion on this Article:

Page 2 on the pdf article:

Why this mattered historically

In 1908:

• Transformer theory wasn't as widespread among inventors.
• The idea of simulating mechanical motion with magnetic variation sounded revolutionary.

CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY  FACTS:

Electrical transformers were first introduced to electrical grids in the mid-1880s, with the first practical alternating current (AC) systems utilizing them emerging in 1886 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. William Stanley developed these practical transformers for Westinghouse, enabling efficient long-distance power distribution, rapidly replacing DC systems by the 1890s.

• Early Development (1878–1884): Early transformer forms were pioneered in Hungary (Ganz Works) and by Gaulard and Gibbs in Europe, with experimental systems tested in Italy in 1884.
• The First Functional Grid (1886): William Stanley built the first practical transformer for AC distribution, implemented by Westinghouse in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, to power lights over a distance.
• Commercial Adoption (1890s): By 1890, roughly 10% of central stations used AC, and by the end of the decade, it reached 43%, making transformers indispensable for expanding grids.
• Key Technological Shift: The innovation allowed "stepping up" voltage for transmission and "stepping down" for safe consumer use, making AC more efficient than Edison's DC systems.

So, we have to travel back in time to Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla's AC winning over Thomas A. Edison/ General Electric on DC Power grids, way back on the late 1800's...on the so called "War of Currents"...

Therefore, by 1908 (28 years later from 1880), Transformers as AC Grid Systems were perfectly well known and recognized all over the World. (the war of currents was over by then... )

And so, were Figuera and Buforn knowledgeable about transformers as AC Grids...

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Something to really think about and ask ourselves...inspired by this Article section quoted below:

From Page 2 of pdf Article:

The big reveal: what disappears

Once you analyze it this way:

The idea of "energy appearing from nowhere" disappears.
Because:
• The output power comes from the input current energizing the primaries.
• When load increases, input current must increase.
• Back-EMF appears just like in any transformer.

So, on the above 'conclusion' from the article based on a Transformer operation comparing it to Figuera's Method...is very "logic" as it sounds perfectly well conceived because:

• A transformer is always going to require an Electrical Input.
• Therefore, as output load increases the input currents most increase as well.

Now, please let's go and make the same comparative analysis on a Generator Head, only attached mechanically to a shaft to an Internal Combustion Engine...

• The Generator Head does not require ANY Electrical Input.
• The Generator Head is NOT connected to any other type of Electrical Source, as is a Battery.
• All the Generator Head requires is to be Rotated at a specific Speed/Torque by the ICE.
• Just that, a simple rotation of the Inducing Field Rotor within the Generator Head.
• And so, it still produces an Electrical Output whenever the Field is moved through the rotating shaft.

And here then I ask the same question as before on the analysis...

Where is this Electrical Energy -at Output- coming from on this Electrically Isolated Generator Head?

And, please, do not start by bringing here -the well known theory- that is just a "Conversion from Mechanical Energy to Electrical Energy"...
because that answer as being so general, does not answer the real question here referring to Electrical Energy Generation on a completely ISOLATED ELECTRICALLY Generator Head?

So, come on, we can do much better than just answer a question with a simple and general statement: "Mechanical to Electrical Conversion"...so, be more "creative".

As another example to compare, except it does require an initial electrical input: The Alternator on any Vehicle:

• It does require an External Electrical Supply (the car battery) to start generating Electric Energy back to the car system as to recharge battery lost energy at the cranking stage.
• Now, once the car started, we can simply "disconnect" the battery terminals, and the vehicle will keep running as alternator will be feeding all electrical supply on vehicle.
• The ICE on vehicle through belts and pulley will keep a constant rotation of the Alternator shaft, and so the AC Exciting Fields.

However, the Generator Head does not require any electrical input...

The answer is very simple...yet we complicate it with general -and well stablished- explanations...

JUST BY MOVING THE MAGNETIC FIELD (by rotation or any other method, like linear, reciprocating, etc) WE GENERATE ELECTRICAL ENERGY.

This is so Simple, Beautiful as Real.. that by just moving the Magnetic Field (Physically or Virtually) within the right developed environment...we generate electrical energy.

And...out of where this electrical energy comes from?

From Electromagnetic Induction (Faraday 1835)

And it is only "up to us' to be able to move the Field without requiring the ICE to do it for us...

Regards

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Hello dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you for the detailed clarification. 
This is a very interesting direction, especially your distinction between polarity reversal and spatial field expansion.

I would like to focus on one key point where I think the discussion becomes critical.
You mention that in a transformer, when we apply a fixed AC input (e.g., 120V / 1A), the amount of magnetic field does not change, and that only polarity reverses.
 
From a field perspective, I am not sure this holds strictly.
Even with a constant RMS input, the instantaneous current and therefore the magnetizing field are continuously varying over time.
That implies the magnetic flux magnitude is also varying (not just its polarity), passing through zero twice per cycle. 
So the system is not maintaining a constant field magnitude, but rather a continuously changing one.

Which leads to my key question:
If AC already produces a continuous variation in both magnitude and direction of the magnetic field, then how fundamentally different is that from Figuera's "expansion and contraction" of field volume?

In other words, it is Figuera's method:

• Physically distinct in terms of field behavior,
   or
• An alternative way of generating a time-varying flux without polarity reversal?

Regarding your hybrid interpretation (transformer + generator), I find that particularly interesting, especially your point that field expansion could result in a form of "flux cutting" without mechanical motion.

But this raises another critical point:
From Maxwell/Faraday's perspective, induction depends on dΦ/dt (rate of change of flux), regardless of whether that change comes from:

• physical motion (classical generator), or
• time-varying fields (transformer)

So I am wondering if what is being interpreted as "flux cutting" via spatial expansion might still be fully describable as flux linkage with a time-varying distribution, rather than a fundamentally different induction mechanism.

That said, your idea of field displacement within a confined spatial region is very compelling, especially if the induced EMF depends not only on magnitude change but on how the field is redistributed across the secondary.

One more question I would be very interested in:
In your prototypes, when you achieved field expansion/retraction, did you measure the total magnetic flux through the secondary region as constant with redistribution, or did it actually vary in magnitude over time?

Because that distinction might determine whether we are dealing with:

• true constant-field displacement (closer to a rotating machine analogy),
   or
• conventional time-varying flux (transformer-like behavior with a different implementation)

Looking forward to your thoughts. 
This is getting into the most interesting part of the discussion.

Best regards, 
Alex

[Ufopolitics]

Hello dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you for the detailed clarification.
This is a very interesting direction, especially your distinction between polarity reversal and spatial field expansion.

Hello dear friend,
Thanks, and yes, I think clarification is needed in order to later on understand my future developments...

I would like to focus on one key point where I think the discussion becomes critical.
You mention that in a transformer, when we apply a fixed AC input (e.g., 120V / 1A), the amount of magnetic field does not change, and that only polarity reverses.
 
From a field perspective, I am not sure this holds strictly.
Even with a constant RMS input, the instantaneous current and therefore the magnetizing field are continuously varying over time.
That implies the magnetic flux magnitude is also varying (not just its polarity), passing through zero twice per cycle.
So the system is not maintaining a constant field magnitude, but rather a continuously changing one.

Which leads to my key question:
If AC already produces a continuous variation in both magnitude and direction of the magnetic field, then how fundamentally different is that from Figuera's "expansion and contraction" of field volume?

Yes, you are completely right, I overlooked the 'ascending' plus 'descending' portions of the AC Sinewave!
So, it is perfectly correct that Field varies (on Spatial Volume) on both AC sines, positive and negative.
Great observation!

In other words, it is Figuera's method:

• Physically distinct in terms of field behavior,
   or
• An alternative way of generating a time-varying flux without polarity reversal?

Well, on the AC Sine (transformers) there are a constant change of currents that increases on both ways, negative and positive...therefore, the Field also reverses polarization constantly.
While on Figuera's method the currents only flow (ascending-descending) on the positive side direction, hence Field never reverses polarity.
So, that's the main difference I see related to AC sinewave and Field effect.
That is the reason I conceived Figuera as a 'hybrid'...
However, the fact that Figuera alternates these positive sines from two extreme ends related to secondary 'y', which is on the center, 'sandwiched' in between, that is what creates an AC at output.
Different from the transformer Spatial positioning related to the Inducing and Induced coils, determining a different configuration of Fields Spatial distribution and interaction.
Now, on a Generator, is where we have a much similar approach to Figuera, related to this matter (Induced & Inducing Coils spatial positioning), which derives on the Field Spatial way of generating the Induction.

Regarding your hybrid interpretation (transformer + generator), I find that particularly interesting, especially your point that field expansion could result in a form of "flux cutting" without mechanical motion.

But this raises another critical point:
From Maxwell/Faraday's perspective, induction depends on dΦ/dt (rate of change of flux), regardless of whether that change comes from:

• physical motion (classical generator), or
• time-varying fields (transformer)

So I am wondering if what is being interpreted as "flux cutting" via spatial expansion might still be fully describable as flux linkage with a time-varying distribution, rather than a fundamentally different induction mechanism.

Again, like I explained on my previous response, that has to do with the way the Inducing & Induced Coils are Spatially positioned.

On a Transformer, Both Coils are 'typically' wound, one on top of the other and on the center of the double 'E' Laminated Frame, so the Field travels around the whole E Frames, more likely on the outer side, and no 'air gap'. That is basically the 'linking' attribute of transformers induction.
As on a Generator, the Induced Coils are typically set on the outer housing and stationary frame, while the Inducing Coils are set at the rotor as there are an 'air gap'.

Again, I see that Figuera's method follows more the Structural Configuration of a Generator, based on coils spatial positioning (hence Field behavior) than of a transformer.

Now, as an example, let's get a small single phase brushed generator and modify the Induced outer coils to be only set across at 180º and not distributed all along the circular frame.
Then let´s disconnect the two rotor exciting/inducing coils (that are normally connected in series as just one coil, to build a single DC Field with each polarity on each side of rotor)
Let's turn/set rotor facing both outer stator coils.
Out of the rotor we have now Four terminals, two for each rotor coil, we then joint two ends of each coil and that would be our common DC negative.
So, the other two terminals we are just going to connect them to a Figuera Commutator ends or N & S (Max Positive Points on my first Figuera diagram here, Page 1).
Here you will need to check magnetic polarization when powered with straight DC, making sure you have on one side a North as on the other side a South.

Now, apply positive DC to brush and turn on the small motor...leaving the generator rotor shaft securely fixed.
And we will get an Induction on the Output Induced coils...
Now, we will need to apply the same Voltage and Amperage to rotor coils as those Inducing Field Coils were getting when generator was fully running and output loaded.
So, now we have a Figuera Machine.
Only difference here from the original Figuera design is that now we have the Inducing Coils on the center, as the Induced on the outside as two coils instead of just one like Figuera's.
But, we have simply converted a Generator into a Figuera Machine without major structural changes (note I did not called it generator, but 'machine'  )
You can not do that  rather simple "transformation" with a Transformer...and get a "Figuera Demo Machine".

Additional Note: To make this conversion test, you must have a PSU which outputs 200V and at least 2.0 Amps, as that is the typical running power on a single phase generator head, of course, depending on total wattage output these parameters could vary.
I have done these measurements on a 5000 Watts Gen head, while running, loaded and it was around 180V @ 2A for exciting coils...this test was a very long time ago.

That said, your idea of field displacement within a confined spatial region is very compelling, especially if the induced EMF depends not only on magnitude change but on how the field is redistributed across the secondary.

Great that you brought that on here!
If you have noticed on Figuera's Patent Diagram, the secondaries 'y' are much smaller (in length) than each N & S Coils...
As this is another 'weak point' I also noticed on Figuera's design...however, this is supposed to be like that so whenever N or S expands, it covers completely the Field Spatial Volume. over all secondaries 'y' coils.
And I specify 'confined spatial displacement' because different from my Linear-Series design, Figuera's Inducing Coils does not cause the Field to travel through a full spacetime displacement, as Figuera's Field remains within the same Spatial positioning, as Field only Expands and Retracts "on site".

One more question I would be very interested in:
In your prototypes, when you achieved field expansion/retraction, did you measure the total magnetic flux through the secondary region as constant with redistribution, or did it actually vary in magnitude over time?

Because that distinction might determine whether we are dealing with:

• true constant-field displacement (closer to a rotating machine analogy),
   or
• conventional time-varying flux (transformer-like behavior with a different implementation)

Looking forward to your thoughts.
This is getting into the most interesting part of the discussion.

Best regards,
Alex

Great question dear friend!
Yes, output varies on Magnitude over time/driving speed until it reaches a constant speed, then it remains constant (while loaded)
Ok, so on the latest design I have tested -before entering into the Linear-Series Design- was what I called 'Method 2' and yes, Field displaced completely from one end to the other of the steel core length. So, it was a true constant Field Displacement as also a 'reciprocating' movement.
However, that design had some 'flaws' which I recalled them all on my Figuera main Topic...

• Primarily, the currents distribution between N and S were wrong (opposite to Figuera) meaning:
• When N or S were expanding (max points) they used more sequence series coils, then added more resistance causing lower currents and Field strength drop.
• As on the contrary, whenever N & S were retracting, they had lesser series sequence coils , then currents increased, as Field strength.
• completely opposite of what I was looking for:
• Like Figuera,:Field expansion= Higher Currents= Stronger Field
• Field retraction= Less currents= weaker Field strength.
• Also the fact that I could not change that configuration, because the DC Input, related to All Inducing coils connection was in Parallel, not in Series. (Two common Negatives and one center 'wiper' Positive)

On top of all those errors, I could never reach the max (operational speed) I needed with 16 elements or 3600 RPM's cause brush and contacts started to fail when over 2000 RPM's.

Thanks for all your input !

Regards dear friend

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Adding on the Figuera's Field Expansion Stage

On Figuera's Method, when either one of N & S Coils are expanding:

We must realize that Magnetic Fields does this expansion on a completely SYMMETRICAL WAY, which means BOTH POLES expands from exactly its 'gravitational center', or Bloch Wall, on a perfect straight line in opposite directions from center of electromagnet.

Now, when we go back to Figuera's Diagram on 1908 Patent, we noticed that all 'y' secondaries coils are much shorter than  the N & S Coils (in length), and that is done on purpose to get All the expanding Single Pole over the 'y' secondaries coils at each N & S Expansion Stage:

Then on Buforn later design, he started to joint all these N & S Coils into a 'Chain, that way using BOTH POLES of each Inducing Coils, so, only the Two Ends were not using this benefit.

And here I have no idea why Buforn did not think of closing this chain into a Toroidal or Circular Structure...if He would have done it... He would have had the greatest surprise of his life.

But, it is what it is...

Regards

Ufopolitics