FIGUERA'S AETHER MAGNETIC FIELDS LINEAR PUMP, REVIVED

[Ufopolitics]

Hello my dear friend,

On your image of your setup:



I see you have a Total of Five (5) Sequential Coils...

Then, could you brake down the distribution you have?

I am assuming that Q3 would be just the single Center Coil?...correct?
While Q1 & Q2 would be configured by TWO COILS EACH?

Meaning that you are testing the Asymmetrical Setup.

Is this my correct approach & guess?

Now, also assuming that ALL Single Coils have the approximate same resistance, do you have an extra coil and would it fit within, in order to perform a Symmetrical test?

On a Symmetrical test, Q3 will also be configured by TWO COILS (instead of just one, like on previous test)
Therefore, with an identical resistance as Q1 & Q2, then Q3 would have a more Strength balanced Field, considering you would need apply a Higher Voltage than with just one coil structure...correct?

A Symmetrical Test should define better the role of Q3 as a Center Steady, fixed Field related to the other Two Fields.

Now, it would be simpler here to "Balance" Fields, by simply driving Q3 with same Voltage as Q1 & Q2.

Then let's see what difference it would make...related to Main Output.

Also and last:

After you test this Symmetrical Setup, could you Power OFF completely Q3 then run again the test?

Then see if there is a difference on Output?

Thanks so much!

We all really appreciate all the effort, work and time you -and your colleague- are putting on this development!!

Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello again dear friend,



I also noticed on your setup that your Main Output Coil EXTENDS ALL THE WAY, to the OUTER, END Vertical Steel Plates?
Is this correct?
As I see the Two Labels "2.0 Ohms" on each end side...COMPLETELY OUTSIDE of the Sequential Coils EXTENSION?

Are these Two Labels referring to FC 1& 2 Coils?

If these labels belong to end Output Coils FC 1 & 2, then it is correct.

But, is Main extends all the way to both extremes outside of Sequential Coils Length, then it is wrong.

Because you are just INDUCING A VERY LIMITED PORTION of that Main Output Coil. EXACTLY & ONLY where your Five Sequential Coils Extend.

Again, as I have mentioned before, as related to ALL SETUPS:

The LENGTH of the Main Output Coil, MUST BE IDENTICAL to the SUM OF ALL SEQUENTIAL COILS (no matter how many are on the set!

As I see from this image that your extended Main Output Coil reaches -all the way- to the Area where FC1 & FC2 should be mounted?

All this Structural Setup must be modified and set according to what am describing here.

If there is something you don't understand, please let me know.

Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello dear friend @kampen,

According to BOTH Tables related to your Coils Setup:

Now, according to both tables (Microsoft Word and Excel) ALL YOUR COILS SPEC'S ARE AS SHOWN BELOW:

Q1= 7.97 Ohms
Q2= 7.98 Ohms
Q3= 7.95 Ohms

Main Secondary Output Coil= 1.96 Ohms

FC1 Output Coil = 7.98 Ohms
FC2 Output Coil = 8.0 Ohms

**************************************************************************************************************************

And then I just need some clarification about these Coil's measurements...when comparing them to your Image/Picture that you uploaded:

And again, am sorry, but they do not match, nor make sense.

1- I see FIVE SEQUENTIAL COILS on image, therefore, I can not understand how do you get almost IDENTICAL RESISTANCES in ALL THREE Q1, Q2 and Q3??
As there should be SIX Coils there, to make sense.

2- Also, related to Main Output Coil, that have around 2.0 Ohms (1.96), I see this Coil EXTENDING ALL THE WAY to the Extreme End Steel Plates?
Well beyond the Sequential Coils extended spec's?

Please look at image below:

So, it seems to me that you have the arrangement #2 or 2- Incorrect Main Secondary Length (Green Coil).
As this Main Secondary MUST EXTEND ONLY AND EXACTLY to the SUM OF ALL SEQUENTIAL COILS LENGTH ONLY, like shown on Example #1 or 1- Correct Main Secondary Length (Green Coil)

3- As I also noticed there are no END FC Output Coils mounted on this image?...Correct?
However, you mentioned them (FC1 & FC2) on chart as "mounted"...as specifying they were measured separatedly?...
What were those measured results on FC1 & FC2?...

Please, can you explain and/or elaborate further on these Three Questions?

Thanks so much!!

Regards

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Reply to Message #  915 # 916 from Ufopolitics

Hello, dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you very much for looking carefully at our setup and for your detailed comments in #915 and #916.

Your message is very timely because Guido and I have reached a point where we would rather make sure that we are testing the configuration exactly as you intend, instead of continuing to change switching parameters without first confirming the magnetic geometry.

Regarding the five sequential coils you see in the photograph:
Your interpretation is essentially what we need to clarify.

If we define the present arrangement as:
Q1 = two coils | Q3 = one coil | Q2 = two coils
then this is indeed the Asymmetrical 2–1–2 configuration you describe.

We can add another identical coil and make the arrangement:
Q1 = two coils | Q3 = two coils | Q2 = two coils
so that we can perform your proposed Symmetrical 2–2–2 test.

I think this is a very worthwhile comparison, especially because Guido has already made extensive measurements with the present arrangement.
We will then have a good reference for determining what actually changes when Q3 is made symmetrical with Q1 and Q2.

Before we modify it, however, could you please confirm one important detail?
How exactly do you want the two coils belonging to each Q group electrically connected — in SERIES or in PARALLEL?

This is important because two identical coils connected in series or parallel will produce quite different current, resistance and inductance conditions for the same applied voltage.

Therefore, I would prefer not to assume that equal supply voltage automatically means equal magnetic field strength.
We can apply the voltages you specify, but we will also measure the actual currents through Q1, Q3 and Q2 so that we know what magnetic excitation we are really producing.

Your proposed Q3 test is also very interesting.
Once the symmetrical configuration is established, we can perform exactly the comparison you requested:
Symmetrical 2–2–2 with Q3 powered
versus
the identical setup with Q3 completely OFF.

We will keep Q1/Q2 frequency, switching timing, Main load and supply conditions unchanged so that the effect of Q3 can be compared directly.
We will measure both input power and loaded Main output power.

This is particularly useful because in our present measurements a steady Q3 DC bias has not yet produced a clear increase in loaded Main output.
But those measurements were made with the present configuration, so I agree that we should not use them as a conclusion about the symmetrical arrangement you are now proposing.

Regarding your second message about the Main Output Coil, thank you for pointing this out.
I think the photograph may be causing some confusion about which coils you are seeing at the ends.

Before we make any mechanical changes, I will identify the coils and their positions clearly for you.
I understand your requirement to be:
the active winding length of the Main Secondary should correspond to the total active length of the sequential Q1–Q3–Q2 coil section, while FC1 and FC2 remain outside that active sequential section.

Please confirm that this is exactly what you mean.
There is another reason why I think getting these construction details settled now is important.

Guido has meanwhile performed quite extensive measurements of Frequency, Deadtime, Overlap, Q3 bias and different TVS clamp voltages.
So far we see normal and reproducible inductive behaviour, but we have not yet observed an unexpected energy effect.

Higher TVS clamp voltages, for example, clearly affect the voltage spike when the Q1/Q2 field collapses under open-circuit conditions, but with a resistive load we have not so far seen this translate into a corresponding increase in loaded Main output power.

Guido therefore asked a very reasonable question:
is our present physical configuration actually capable of demonstrating the specific effect your concept is intended to produce?

Your latest messages may be pointing us toward the answer: before doing many more parameter scans, we should first make sure that the geometry and Q1/Q3/Q2 field strengths correspond exactly to your intended configuration.

So I suggest that we establish one definitive configuration together first.
Could you please confirm these three points for us:
1. Q1, Q3 and Q2 should each consist of two identical coils in the symmetrical test — correct?
2. Should the two coils within each Q group be connected in series or parallel?
3. Should the Main Secondary active winding length cover exactly the combined Q1 + Q3 + Q2 sequential-coil length, with FC1 and FC2 positioned outside this length?

Once you confirm these points, we can configure the setup accordingly and make the Q3 ON/OFF comparison you requested.

I think this will give us a much stronger experiment because we will then be testing your intended magnetic configuration, rather than trying to infer it from our measurements afterward.

Thank you again for taking the time to examine our setup so carefully.

Guido and I appreciate your guidance, and we will continue to document the results whether they confirm or contradict our expectations.

Regards,
Alex / Kampen

[Ufopolitics]

Reply to Message #  915 # 916 from Ufopolitics

Hello, dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you very much for looking carefully at our setup and for your detailed comments in #915 and #916.

My pleasure dear friend!

Your message is very timely because Guido and I have reached a point where we would rather make sure that we are testing the configuration exactly as you intend, instead of continuing to change switching parameters without first confirming the magnetic geometry.

Great!, am so glad!
Yes, without the right Magnetic structure, ALL results could be discarded.

Regarding the five sequential coils you see in the photograph:
Your interpretation is essentially what we need to clarify.

If we define the present arrangement as:
Q1 = two coils | Q3 = one coil | Q2 = two coils
then this is indeed the Asymmetrical 2–1–2 configuration you describe.

Well, after REVIEWING AGAIN all your five coils setup, now I came to the way that you set all those FIVE (5) COILS:

You used EACH SINGLE COIL CONFIGURED LIKE SHOWN BELOW (Calling Coils from Left to Right):

[LEFT INNER PLATE] [FC1 (8 Ohms)] + [Q1 (8 Ohms)] + [Q3 (8 Ohms)] + [Q2 (8 Ohms)] + [FC2 (8 Ohms)] [RIGHT INNER PLATE]

Therefore, you had a SYMMETRICAL TEST HERE.

However, the Magnetic Structure is completely OFF. WRONG!
Based on this setup above:

1- Your THREE SINGLE SEQUENTIAL COILS (Q1+Q3+Q2) LENGTH is now EVEN SMALLER!!
2- Besides the fact that FC1 & FC2 are NOT OUTSIDE the Inner Steel Plate, BUT right next to Q1,Q3 & Q2!!
3- Your Main Coil EXTENDS EVEN FURTHER than required!

We can add another identical coil and make the arrangement:
Q1 = two coils | Q3 = two coils | Q2 = two coils
so that we can perform your proposed Symmetrical 2–2–2 test.

Please do NOT ADD ANY MORE COILS NOW!

Until you have the RIGHT MAGNETIC STRUCTURE!

Regarding your second message about the Main Output Coil, thank you for pointing this out.
I think the photograph may be causing some confusion about which coils you are seeing at the ends.

Please DEFINE EXACT LENGTH of your Main Center Output Coil!

As also define your Q1, Q2 & Q3 LENGTH SUM ALL TOGETHER!

Before we make any mechanical changes, I will identify the coils and their positions clearly for you.
I understand your requirement to be:
the active winding length of the Main Secondary should correspond to the total active length of the sequential Q1–Q3–Q2 coil section, while FC1 and FC2 remain outside that active sequential section.

EXACTLY!!

Please confirm that this is exactly what you mean.

YES!! I CONFIRM IT!

Guido has meanwhile performed quite extensive measurements of Frequency, Deadtime, Overlap, Q3 bias and different TVS clamp voltages.
So far we see normal and reproducible inductive behaviour, but we have not yet observed an unexpected energy effect.

Please tell Guido - On my behalf- SO MANY THANKS FOR ALL HIS WORK!!

However, IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT MAGNETIC STRUCTURE...this Tests will never give us the desired results.

Higher TVS clamp voltages, for example, clearly affect the voltage spike when the Q1/Q2 field collapses under open-circuit conditions, but with a resistive load we have not so far seen this translate into a corresponding increase in loaded Main output power.

So far you had mounted the WRONG Magnetic Structure Config...Therefore and please DISREGARD ALL PREVIOUS TESTING'S

Guido therefore asked a very reasonable question:
is our present physical configuration actually capable of demonstrating the specific effect your concept is intended to produce?

AGAIN, until we do not have the RIGHT and PROPER Magnetic Structure Config...We can NOT start assuming based on a wrong setup test.

Your latest messages may be pointing us toward the answer: before doing many more parameter scans, we should first make sure that the geometry and Q1/Q3/Q2 field strengths correspond exactly to your intended configuration.

CORRECT!

So I suggest that we establish one definitive configuration together first.
Could you please confirm these three points for us:
1. Q1, Q3 and Q2 should each consist of two identical coils in the symmetrical test — correct?
2. Should the two coils within each Q group be connected in series or parallel?
3. Should the Main Secondary active winding length cover exactly the combined Q1 + Q3 + Q2 sequential-coil length, with FC1 and FC2 positioned outside this length?

1- Yes

2- SERIES CONNECTIONS ALWAYS, between each Two Coils

3- YES!!

Once you confirm these points, we can configure the setup accordingly and make the Q3 ON/OFF comparison you requested.

I think this will give us a much stronger experiment because we will then be testing your intended magnetic configuration, rather than trying to infer it from our measurements afterward.

Thank you again for taking the time to examine our setup so carefully.

Guido and I appreciate your guidance, and we will continue to document the results whether they confirm or contradict our expectations.

Regards,
Alex / Kampen

Great job Alex and Guido!! as MANY THANKS from my end here!!

Regards

Ufopolitics