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

[kampen]

Reply to message #18

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Thank you for the detailed breakdown. 
This is a very interesting way of classifying the behavior of the system, especially distinguishing between the center coil and the end coils.
I think your observation that the center secondary and the end secondaries "see" the field differently is absolutely correct, and your diagram makes that very clear.

However, I would like to explore one point a bit further.
You are classifying:

• The center coil as Method 1 (direct induction, due to field displacement within the core)
• The end coils as Method 2 (indirect induction via frontal approach)

From a geometric and field-distribution perspective, that distinction makes sense.

But from a classical electromagnetic standpoint, I wonder if both cases might still reduce to the same underlying mechanism:
a time-varying magnetic flux linkage through each coil, determined by how the field evolves in space and time.

In other words, the difference may not be in the type of induction, but in:

• The spatial gradient of the field
• The rate at which flux changes locally at each coil position
• And the orientation of the conductors relative to that changing field

For example:

• The center coil experiences a more distributed and continuous flux variation as the field moves across it
• The end coils experience a more localized and asymmetric flux change as the field "approaches" and "recedes."

So the "frontal approach" effect you describe could be interpreted as a steeper local dΦ/dt, rather than a fundamentally different induction process.

This leads to a question I find very interesting:
Do you think Method 1 and Method 2 are truly different physical mechanisms?
Or could they be different spatial manifestations of the same underlying induction law, depending on field distribution and coil placement?

Also, regarding your statement:
"how each induced coil 'sees' and reacts to the field displacement"

I think this is actually a very powerful way to describe it because it suggests that the system behavior is governed by field topology and observer position, rather than distinct induction principles.
Which might mean:

• Your Linear-Series system is not introducing new induction types,
• But rather engineering the field distribution so that different regions experience different effective induction behaviors.

That, in itself, is a very significant insight.

Looking forward to your thoughts, especially whether you see these as fundamentally different mechanisms, or as different expressions of the same field dynamics.

Best regards, 
Alex

[kampen]

Reply to message #19
 
Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Thank you for putting together these diagrams. 
They are very helpful in visualizing what you mean by the "weak zones" in Figuera's method.

Now I see clearly the point you are making:

• The two inducing fields (N and S) are always in opposite phases
• The system spends a large portion of the cycle away from peak field strength
• And therefore, the "effective" inducing condition appears weak most of the time

That is a very intuitive and compelling way to look at it.

However, I would like to challenge one key assumption in your interpretation because I think this is where the core of the issue lies.
The assumption that maximum induction corresponds to maximum field strength (peaks)

From an electromagnetic standpoint, induction is not proportional to the absolute value of the field, but to its rate of change:

• At the peaks, the field is momentarily not changing → dΦ/dt ≈ 0
• At the midpoints (steep slopes), the field changes fastest → dΦ/dt is maximum

So paradoxically:

• The regions you shaded as "weak" (mid-gradient zones)
   may actually be where induction is strongest

And:

• The "peak-only" diagram (where only the maximum field is kept)
   would actually produce very little induction, because it lacks variation

This leads to a very interesting reinterpretation of your graphs:
Instead of:

• "90% of the time = weak induction"

It might be:

• "90% of the time = active induction region"

And only a small portion of the cycle (near peaks) contributes little to EMF generation.

This could explain why, even with a non-flat field strength, induction still occurs effectively because what matters is continuous variation, not a constant maximum field.

Now, where I do think your argument becomes very strong is here:
The discontinuities and asymmetries introduced by the stepwise commutation
Those could create:

• Non-uniform dΦ/dt
• Local collapses or distortions in the field gradient
• And therefore, real inefficiencies under load

So perhaps the "weak point" is not that the field is not at peak most of the time, but that:
The field variation is not smooth, continuous, or optimally distributed in time and space.
Which ties directly into your Linear-Series approach:

• More segments → smoother gradient → more uniform dΦ/dt

One final thought:
When you compare this to a generator having a "flat field," I think the key difference is:

• In a generator, the motion creates a continuous spatial change of flux linkage
• In Figuera, the system must synthesize that change electrically

So the challenge is not achieving a flat field —
 but achieving a continuously shifting flux distribution.

Your diagrams actually highlight that challenge very well.

Really excellent work here, this is getting into the heart of the mechanism.

Best regards, 
Alex

[Ufopolitics]

@kampen

Hello dear friend,

Even though I feel sorry to say this... I must, because it will result -if you agree with me, of course- in a much better dialog ending on a final agreement...
which is exactly what I am looking forward to achieve.

So, it is very obvious -based on reading you in many of your responses to my posts- That we "see" the Induction Process (in general) from different points of views.

You see Induction Processes basically, as a merely "flux change" residing basically on the variation of flux over time.

I do not.

You see either "flux cutting" or "flux transferring".

I do not.

I have dedicated decades to just study the Magnetic Field, I have made many, many videos related to the way I see how Fields really are.

I have read many books about Magnetism.

I have conducted thousands of Experiments in real time, and I have recorded them all.

I have on this Forum a Free to download and to read book...The Ken Wheleer's : Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism

I would like you to read it...then come back here and tell me if you agree with this book?

Point is, that Magnetic Fields have a coefficient of Internal and external 'curling' effects.

These 'Vortexing' capabilities-properties of a Magnetic Field have higher influences as the Field is closer to the Induced.

And I want to make a clarification here: I am NOT saying that the Field "Spins" on its own.

I am saying that a Field, as it approaches to a coil, it starts exciting-influencing a 'flow' of electricity within that coil, at a ratio that comprehends each wire loop of that coil.

To finally 'render' a Total added value of 'spins' of all loops on that coil.

This is NOT my idea.

Maxwell mentioned these Field Properties on most of his books.

Minkowski (Einstein Math and Physics Professor) compares the Magnetic Field to a "Cork Screw"...on his book "Spacetime".

Maxwell developed the "Curl Calculus" as so did Edward Minkowski, in order to calculate Magnetism in depth.

It was completely disregarded, becaming obsolete, after Lorentz came up with Lorentz Force Law(s)...

Therefore, I do not see Field Induction as a merely "flux cut" or "flux transfer' or "flux change, over time"", believing that evaluating it this way, would respond to the way Induction Generation works.

Magnetism is NOT made of any 'particles' that 'flow' as they decided to call them "flux" (Means Flow)

Magnetism is a Force, a Spiral Effecting Force.

And it can be clearly seen with MANY instruments and tools, like:

• CRT Color and B&W Screens.
• Magnetic Viewing Film.
• Ferrocells

I also have done these tests and uploaded videos about my analysis.
And, please, do not take me wrong, you make all your analysis based on what the extent of your knowledge gets, based on what actual Science have taught us.

But I went beyond that limited knowledge, long time ago...

If You really want to build an Overunity Machine, you will need -at least- to start 'doubting' about what thay have taught you.

If you want to keep building 'Underunity' Machines, please keep going your way.

It is very simple.

So, if we are not sync on the same knowledge about magnetism...we will always be debating here, without reaching a Final Agreement.

As you would not understand what I am referring to...as I am trying to use "your magnetism theories" to justify my thoughts and designs...but they can simply would not do "the job".

However, I will try, the best I can, for you to understand me, on my answers, based on my learned knowledge plus all my experiments...which will -most of the time- will differ to the way you "see" it.

Sincerely

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Reply to message #18

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Hello dear friend,

Thank you for the detailed breakdown.
This is a very interesting way of classifying the behavior of the system, especially distinguishing between the center coil and the end coils.
I think your observation that the center secondary and the end secondaries "see" the field differently is absolutely correct, and your diagram makes that very clear.

However, I would like to explore one point a bit further.
You are classifying:

• The center coil as Method 1 (direct induction, due to field displacement within the core)
• The end coils as Method 2 (indirect induction via frontal approach)

From a geometric and field-distribution perspective, that distinction makes sense.

Great!, I am very glad that we agree (up to here though)

But from a classical electromagnetic standpoint, I wonder if both cases might still reduce to the same underlying mechanism:
a time-varying magnetic flux linkage through each coil, determined by how the field evolves in space and time.

Of course, if you classify it based on such general "classical electromagnetic standpoint", based on a 'time varying magnetic field', then, it is definitively a "yes".

As it would always be like that, since ALL Inductions takes place from such a "GENERAL" standpoint...then it would not be ANY differences from Induction on a Transformer or a Generator...

Everyone would be included there...no differences at all.

Right?

In other words, the difference may not be in the type of induction, but in:

• The spatial gradient of the field
• The rate at which flux changes locally at each coil position
• And the orientation of the conductors relative to that changing field

For example:

• The center coil experiences a more distributed and continuous flux variation as the field moves across it
• The end coils experience a more localized and asymmetric flux change as the field "approaches" and "recedes."

So the "frontal approach" effect you describe could be interpreted as a steeper local dΦ/dt, rather than a fundamentally different induction process.

This leads to a question I find very interesting:
Do you think Method 1 and Method 2 are truly different physical mechanisms?
Or could they be different spatial manifestations of the same underlying induction law, depending on field distribution and coil placement?

Definitively not the same, I do believe they are complately different mechanisms.

And I am basing my answer on all my experiments with Magnetism.

Every Magnetic Field have a CENTER, called Bloch Wall, due to the last name of his discoverer, Felix Bloch.

Plus many other Scientists through history which wrote books, expanding this center wall properties.

Do you agree and believe on the existence of a Center, thin Wall, which divides North Pole from South?

Well, I do, as we all can "see" it clearly with, magnetic viewing film, CRT's, Ferrocells.

NOT with iron shavings sparkled over the magnetic Field...you will NOT see it. (I have a video -uploaded years ago-  just about this)

Well, from that "standpoint" (Bloch Walls) I will try to explain the Two Methods huge differences: (I did not wanted to enter on this "territory", but I believe it would be the best way to demonstrate it)

• Method 1 (Inducing Field is Moving WITHIN Induced Coil)

• Here (related to Bloch wall positioning) Bloch Wall displaces right at center of induced coil, moving inside of it.
• This generates a much stronger Field Forces on the induced, simply because whenever we load that induced coil, ANOTHER Field would be generated on induced coil, (agree up to here?) as it would be opposite in directions to induced Field (Lenz).
• These Two Fields Bloch Walls will be within the same spatial plane
• Second, these Two Fields are 'sharing' the same steel core.
• This common steel core to both, Inducing + Induced fields will now 'hosts' Two Fields of opposite properties, but, forced to 'exist' within the same plane
• Therefore, the Induction here would be MUCH more dense, more compact, more robust.
• Reason why I call it 'Direct Induction'.

2- On Method 2 (Indirect Induction ( Both Bloch Walls analysis again)

• The fact that the Inducing Field is 'just approaching' the Induced Coil with its own steel core.(no matter directional approach)
• The Inducing Field Bloch Wall will only "move forward" but within Field.
• As Inducing Field Nearest Pole to Induced Core will 'elongate' towards that steel core.
• Again, once we load the Induced coil, it will generate its own Opposite Field.
• Now, this loaded Induced Field Bloch Wall (as Poles), would be on the center of its own steel core.
• Both Bloch Walls would be separated away from each other's, on separated steel cores. (either by an air gap or not)
• This fact, will lower Induced Energy density, compactness, robustness.
• Plus this -separated Bloch walls, not at the same plane- settings would allow the Induced Field to develop more strength to fight its opposite Inducing Field.
• The Induced Field would only get 'penetrated' by the frontal pole of Inducing Field (as Bloch move towards Induced core, but still within Inducing core)
• Not Both Poles would be within Induced Space, but only one.

I really hope you get a "grasp" of what am referring to above...However, if you have not made all the required experiments...you would not "get it".
You will just have to believe me.

Also, regarding your statement:
"how each induced coil 'sees' and reacts to the field displacement"

I think this is actually a very powerful way to describe it because it suggests that the system behavior is governed by field topology and observer position, rather than distinct induction principles.
Which might mean:

• Your Linear-Series system is not introducing new induction types,
• But rather engineering the field distribution so that different regions experience different effective induction behaviors.

That, in itself, is a very significant insight.

Looking forward to your thoughts, especially whether you see these as fundamentally different mechanisms, or as different expressions of the same field dynamics.

Best regards,
Alex

Definitively, my Linear Series System is NOT introducing any "new induction types"
I am just using the same concepts tought by Faraday...
Now, apply my previous explanation related to the Bloch Wall Analysis to my Setup...and try to locate the Induced Field(s) Bloch Walls for ALL Three Secondaries (Main plus Two Ends) related to the Squential Coils Field Displacement Bloch Wall.
Then (if you picture it correctly) it would resolve your doubts, as answer your questions.

We can never deeply analyze then evaluate much less to come up with conclusions on how electromagnetic induction works... if we have no idea how is the Magnetic Field Structured?
How this Field structure reacts whenever approaching another piece of steel...or another Field...say on Attraction?...or in Repulsion?
Can you tell?


Regards

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Reply to message #22

Hello, dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you for your honest and thoughtful message. 
I genuinely appreciate the time and experience you bring to this discussion.

I think you are absolutely right about one key point:
 We are approaching the induction process from different perspectives.

You are focusing on the field as a dynamic spatial structure, with properties such as curvature, distribution, and what you describe as "vortex-like" behavior, especially in how it interacts locally with conductors.
 
I am approaching it from the Maxwell–Faraday framework, where induction is described in terms of flux linkage and its time variation.
However, I do not see these as necessarily contradictory.
In fact, what you describe as:

• field "curling"
• corkscrew-like behavior
• local interaction with each loop

can be interpreted, in classical terms, as the spatial structure of the magnetic field and its curl (∇×B or ∇×E), which Maxwell indeed formalized.
 
So I think we may not disagree on what the field does, but rather on how we choose to describe and model it.

Where I would respectfully differ is here:
Even when we describe magnetism in terms of spatial structure, curvature, or local interaction with conductors, the measurable electrical effect — the EMF — still follows:

• the induced voltage around a loop
• equals the line integral of the electric field
• which is directly tied to the time variation of the magnetic field.

So from my perspective, the "flux change" description is not a limitation, but rather a compact mathematical expression of those deeper field behaviors you are describing.
 
That said, I find your emphasis on:

• spatial field distribution
• proximity effects
• and how each loop "sees" the field

very valuable, especially when analyzing systems like Figuera or your Linear-Series designs, where geometry and distribution clearly matter.

Regarding your suggestion about Ken Wheeler's work, of course, I am open to reading it and understanding your perspective more deeply. 
I think that would be a constructive step toward aligning our interpretations.
 
As for "overunity" vs "underunity," I would prefer to keep focused on:

• what we can model
• what we can measure
• and what we can reproduce consistently

Because ultimately, that is where we can both meet on common ground.
 
I do believe we can reach a meaningful agreement, not necessarily by adopting identical viewpoints, but by finding a shared framework where both interpretations can be compared against experimental results.

I am very interested in continuing this discussion and in better understanding your experimental observations, especially how you interpret them in terms of field behavior.

Sincerely,
 Alex