FIGUERA'S AETHER MAGNETIC FIELDS LINEAR PUMP, REVIVED

[Ufopolitics]

Complete Parts List — 4-Coil Small-Scale SSD Test Unit

1. Coil / Magnetic Section

Part	Spec	Qty
Coils	90 turns, AWG18, identical	4
Magnetic cores / bobbins	25 mm spacing type, non-shorted laminations preferred	4
Tap terminals	N0, N1, N2, N3, N4	5
Magnet wire	AWG18 enamel copper	as needed
Silicone hookup wire	16–18 AWG	2–3 m
Base plate	Acrylic, FR4, HDPE, or plastic	1

[...]

RESISTANCE PER COIL, PER GROUP (WINDOW)

Hello my dear friend,

I see on your new Test Development to just check current behavior, as check on smooth transitions while measuring all possible parameters.

I have absolutely nothing to object about all your electronics setup, plus all your measurements on this test.

However, I do have to mention my concern about the Four Coils that you are planning to build (Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4)

Since the objective is to reduce the number of coils to simulate a smaller window of series coils.

However, to keep a SIMILAR Relationship between FULL Eight Coils Window within the 15 Coils in Series, versus a Total of Four Coils and a Window of just Two Coils.

As per the Coils Spec's you have cited on above quoted text, you would be using 18 Gauge and only 90 Turns per coil...But you do not mention the RESISTANCE that EACH Coil would have?

In my opinion, using a Higher Gauge (18) than the Original Setup (23), while reducing the number of coils on a Window (Group) will give you TOO LOW Resistance, which will definitively INCREASE the amount of Currents (Amperage) to run the Window (Group) at the required simulating voltage (12V?)

The Original Setup Window of Eight Coils @ 6.25 Ohms each, will give you a 50 Ohms Total Resistance per Group.
Increasing Resistance at the Transition Stage when there are Nine Coils ON to 56.25 Ohms which will slightly Reduce Currents a bit on this transitioning stage.

To make this post shorter, I conclude that if you are reducing the Window (Groups) to Two Coils, then you should consider Rising the Resistance to get closer to the Original Setup.

So, instead of using 18 Gauge , I highly recommend to use a MUCH FINER Gauge to INCREASE Resistance per Coil as per Group of the Two Coil's Window.

With a 90 Turns of 18 gauge, no matter if you set PSU at Current Limiting (like you are suggesting), you still, will get TOO LOW Voltage, resulting on a very weak Magnetic Field.

Then according to the Voltage that you are planning to use on this Test for the Coil's excitation, which is -I believe 12V- then you will need to Calculate the Resistance required to run at a lower amperage (currents) for each coil as for the Total Window of Two Coils, while keeping the FULL 12 Volts.

According to the V/A Ratio to obtain a good strong, but smaller Field, you will need for 12V not to go above 0.5 Amp.

Then you will need approx 24 Ohms (12V/0.5A) for each Two Coils in Series, or 12 Ohms per Coil.

According to your Total wire on above chart (I don't know if this refers to your wire length per coil) is 2-3 meters.

Where 3 meters = 9.84252 feet

And based on the Resistance Calculator by length of wire and gauge...your total resistance would be -per coil- of 0.063 Ohms and on Two Coils in series would be 0.126 Ohms.

So, in order to run those two coils at 12V you will need 95 Amps...So, if you use current limiter on PSU, then set it for say, 0.5 Amps...then voltage will drop to millivolts.

Concluding that Resistance Compensation versus running Voltage and Amperage -for coils and groups- is crucial for your test on these simulations of much reduced number of coils to be successful.

SIMPLE RULE: If you are Reducing the Total number of Coils interacting, then Resistance MUST Increase per coil, per Group, trying to 'align' to spec's of Original Model.

Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

INDUCTANCE PLUS FIELD STRUCTURE

Hello again dear friend,

Now, the Second part that I am concerned related to your future simulation test, based on the nice 3D Image you have provided above.
    1- I noted you do not have a Steel Core within all the Four Coils...this will reduce the Inductance per coil, per group. As I can see a very fine like Copper wire inside where Steel Core should be.
    2- Also the Four Coils are Separated by a notable big  Spatial Gap. This Gap will reduce (brake) the Field Structure whenever Two Coils are turned ON (Group) it will create Two Fields, instead of One (1) Field.

Coils are too far apart!...This will generate Separated Spatially Fields and I believe All these issues will affect your Test Results.

Plus, I also noticed you have a wire or a straight black conductor connecting all Nodes?....I hope you are not joining ALL Nodes again here?...as this will short all coils.

It is that I just get concerned your tests will not result as you expect, if these issues are not properly addressed.

Regards

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Reply to message # 715

Hello my dear friend Ufopolitics,

First of all, thank you for your detailed analysis. 
I really appreciate the time you took to go through the resistance implications. 
Your point about maintaining the electrical relationship between the original 8-coil window and this reduced 2-coil window is very well taken.
 
My Current Design Intent (Clarification)
For this 4-coil prototype, my primary objective is slightly different at this stage:

Code Select Expand

👉 Validate switching behavior (make-before-break)

Code Select Expand

👉 Confirm continuous current flow

Code Select Expand

👉 Observe spatial current distribution / displacement
So initially, I am not trying to replicate the full electrical equivalence of the original system, 
yet especially in terms of absolute field strength or efficiency.
 
Your Key Point (Agreed)
You are absolutely correct that:

• Using AWG18 + 90 turns → very low resistance
• Leads to:
  
  • High current demand
  • PSU current limiting → voltage collapse
  • Weak magnetic field under limited current

👉 This is a real issue for field-based measurements, especially when trying to observe magnetic effects.
 
My Approach (Planned Adjustment)
Based on your feedback, I will adapt the design in two stages:
 
Stage 1 (Current build – switching validation)

• Keep AWG18 coils (already prepared components)
• Use low current (0.1–0.3 A) operation
• Focus only on:
  
  • waveform behavior
  • node voltages
  • transition smoothness

👉 Accept that the magnetic field will be weak in this phase
 
Stage 2 (Improved electromagnetic test)
Here, I fully agree with your recommendation:

Code Select Expand

👉 Increase resistance per coil

Code Select Expand

👉 Reduce current, maintain usable voltage

Code Select Expand

👉 Improve magnetic field quality
Planned options:

• Use finer wire (AWG22–AWG26)
• Increase number of turns
• Target:

Code Select Expand

~10–15 Ω per coil

Code Select Expand

→ ~20–30 Ω per 2-coil window
This aligns closely with your suggestion of:

Code Select Expand

~24 Ω total window @ 12V → ~0.5 A
 
Important Distinction
What I am trying to separate experimentally is:

• Switching physics (topology correctness)
• Electromagnetic performance (field strength & coupling)

👉 Your analysis applies critically to #2, which I will address in the next iteration.
 
Conclusion
Your recommendation is absolutely valid and important for:

• Achieving meaningful magnetic field behavior
• Keeping voltage within usable range
• Avoiding PSU limitation artifacts

I will incorporate this into the next coil design iteration.
 
Next Step
Once I complete the first switching validation, I plan to:

• Redesign coils with higher resistance
• Re-run measurements with proper V/A ratio
• Compare both setups

Thanks again for your valuable input, it helps refine the experiment in the right direction 👍

Regards, Alex

[Ufopolitics]

SELECTOR'S POSITIONING VERSUS WINDOWS-GROUPS

Hello dear friend,

The other issue I see relates to your Selector's Positioning to Trigger into Windows/Groups of Two(2) Coils...:

And as you have described previously, on this Test you will have only a Total of Four Coils (Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4) and Five (5) Triggering Points (Nodes) or N0, N1, N2, N3 &, N4.

Therefore, I honestly does not understand your Selector's Positioning to obtain a Full Sequence between Four Coils on Overlapped Groups of Two...
To my understanding, in order to Turn ON (Energize) Q2 & Q3 , the Negative Selector SR3 should be at Node Three (N3) on your above Diagram?
Therefore, the way I see it, based on the positioning on Selector SR3 on your image above, you will be Turning ON (Energizing) Q2, Q3 + Q4 Coils.
Anyways, my view to understand this setup triggering properly, would be like shown on Image below:

Where we should have Three (3) Overlapped Windows/Groups of Two (2) Coils.

In order that:

• Window-Group 1 will comprehend Coils Q1 + Q2 ON
• Window-Group 2 will comprehend Coils Q2 + Q3 ON
• Window-Group 3 will comprehend Coils Q3 + Q4 ON

So, you will have a Total of Three (3) Transitions there on Half Cycle (moving from Left to Right, or from Q1 to Q4)

Then to complete a FULL Cycle, a Return Sequence from Group-Window 3 back to Group-Window 1.

Therefore, on a FULL Cycle you will have a Total of Six (6) Transitions.

As the way I see the Selector's Positioning is a Total of Five Selectors, at each Red Arrow ^

However, You will encounter an 'issue' here...simply because they are not 'paired' Selectors.Then the conflict would be on Center Selector (N2)

As on the original setup we have Seven Positive plus Seven Negative Selectors, leaving a Center Coil always ON.

Here there are Five Node Total Points, then on Group 1 to  Group 2 Transition there is no issue, BUT when you are triggering Group3 Selector at N2 must turn from Negative to Positive.

Can you do this?...can you convert a Selector from being Negative on previous Two Groups to Positive at Group 3?

So, in order to have a much more closer and cleaner approach to our Original Setup, I suggest to have Five (5) Total Coils on your setup, as Triggering Groups-Windows of Three (3) Coils, instead of Two (2)

As shown on image below:

Now, on this setup, you will trigger Three Selectors on the High side (Positive) on Nodes N0, N1 & N2.
And Three Selectors Negative as Return to Ground on Nodes N3, N4 & N5.
Your Coil Q3 would be the Center Coil "Effect" as we have on our Center Coil #8 on the 15 Coil's Setup.
Still will have Three Transition Points on Three Overlapped Groups-Windows.

Again, I may have your Test Objectives (Goals) completely wrong, based on ALL my suggestions...If it so, then, please do not hesitate to correct me.
As to DISREGARD ALL of my suggestions.

Regards

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Reply to message # 716 Ufopolitics

Hello again, my dear friend Ufopolitics,
Thank you for your continued observations; 
they are very valuable, and I understand your concerns regarding inductance, field continuity, and physical layout.
Let me clarify each point so we stay aligned on the purpose of this stage of the experiment.
 
1. Core / Inductance (Air-Core vs Steel Core)
You are absolutely right:

Code Select Expand

No steel core → lower inductance
In my current setup:

Code Select Expand

👉

Code Select Expand

I am intentionally using an air-core / PA6 (nylon) support
Reason:

• I want to isolate and validate pure switching behavior first
• Avoid:
  
  • saturation effects
  • magnetic coupling artifacts
  • non-linear core behavior

👉 At this stage, I am prioritizing:

Code Select Expand

current continuity + switching physics
NOT yet:

Code Select Expand

maximum inductance or strong flux linkage
 
2. Coil Spacing (Field Structure Concern)
Your observation is correct:

Code Select Expand

Large spacing → weaker field overlap → separated fields
However, in this version:

• Spacing is set to ~25 mm
• There is still partial field interaction, but not maximized

👉 This is a controlled compromise:

• Enough separation to:
  
  • observe discrete behavior
  • simplify measurement
• But still allow:
  
  • some field interaction between adjacent coils

 
Important clarification
I am not yet trying to form a single continuous magnetic structure.
Instead, I am observing:

Code Select Expand

👉

Code Select Expand

how the excitation window moves electrically

Code Select Expand

👉

Code Select Expand

how fields begin to shift spatially
 
3. Future Adjustment (where I fully agree with you)
For the next stage, I will absolutely implement:

Code Select Expand

✔

Code Select Expand

Reduced spacing (near touching coils)

Code Select Expand

✔

Code Select Expand

Optional steel / laminated core

Code Select Expand

✔

Code Select Expand

Stronger field coupling
At that point, your concern becomes critical:

Code Select Expand

👉

Code Select Expand

achieving ONE continuous field instead of separated lobes
 
4. Node Connection (Very Important Clarification)
You mentioned:

Code Select Expand

"a straight black conductor connecting all nodes"
Let me clarify clearly:

Code Select Expand

❌

Code Select Expand

Nodes are NOT shorted together
That black line represents:

Code Select Expand

👉

Code Select Expand

the series connection path:

Code Select Expand

N0 — Q1 — N1 — Q2 — N2 — Q3 — N3 — Q4 — N4
Each node is:

• a tap point
• not electrically common with others

👉 I will improve the render to make this clearer (to avoid confusion)
 
Summary of Current Stage
This version is focused on:

Code Select Expand

✔

Code Select Expand

Switching correctness

Code Select Expand

✔

Code Select Expand

Current path validation

Code Select Expand

✔

Code Select Expand

Make-before-break behavior

Code Select Expand

✔

Code Select Expand

Node voltage evolution
NOT yet:

Code Select Expand

✖

Code Select Expand

Final magnetic structure optimization

Code Select Expand

✖

Code Select Expand

Maximum inductive coupling
 
Conclusion
Your concerns are absolutely valid for:

• field coherence
• inductance
• realistic system behavior

And I will incorporate them in the next iteration (magnetic optimization stage).
 
Next Step
Planned progression:

• Validate switching (current stage)
• Increase resistance (as per your previous suggestion)
• Reduce spacing + introduce core
• Re-evaluate the field structure and coupling

Thanks again for your careful analysis, it is helping guide this build in the right direction 👍

Regards, Alex