FIGUERA'S AETHER MAGNETIC FIELDS LINEAR PUMP, REVIVED

[kampen]

Hello dear friend Ufopolitics,

Thank you for the detailed explanation and the updated upper-view drawing.

Everything is very clear now, both mechanically and electrically.

I understand that the clear polycarbonate outer plates are doing triple duty:
they secure each cylindrical commutator individually, provide the mounting points for the sequential coil connectors, and act as the main structural elements tying all four plates together via the long bolts.

The separation of the bolt functions (structural vs end-cap mounting) is well thought out.
The refinement of the commutator connector tabs makes good sense. Narrowing them to allow rotational adjustment between plates, while still keeping access to the mounting bolts, gives you the freedom to precisely phase the positive and negative commutators by 180° for rotational balance.

This also resolves the alignment limitation present in the earlier flat-commutator concept.
Starting with straight (radial) brushes is the right baseline.

It maximizes centrifugal assistance and gives a clear reference point before exploring any angular variations later, if needed.

The 1.0 mm air gap choice is consistent with the brush width and overlap analysis, and your attention to clean, V-shaped finishing of the cuts will help preserve reliable make-before-break behavior.
Adding fan fins on the rotor plates is a smart and practical touch.

Active air movement will help control temperature and reduce carbon dust accumulation, which is especially important for extended test runs and visual inspection.

Overall, this layout looks mechanically sound, serviceable, and well suited for both testing and demonstration.

Once the remaining CAD views are completed, the assembly logic should translate cleanly into the build.

All the best moving forward with the CAD and fabrication stages.

Regards, Alex

[kampen]

Re: Upright Orientation and Brush Force Balance

Hello dear friend Ufopolitics,

Yes your conclusion is correct.
With radial (inside-out) brushes, the assembly should be operated with the shaft upright (vertical), not horizontal.

In the horizontal orientation, gravity adds a constant bias that becomes asymmetric: one brush is helped into the commutator surface while the opposite brush is partially unloaded.

That uneven contact pressure can show up as irregular commutation, uneven wear, and a higher chance of bounce/arcing on the "unloaded" brush.

In the upright orientation, gravity acts along the shaft axis and does not significantly change the radial loading, so all brushes see essentially the same force balance and the centrifugal assist remains symmetric.

Your diagram makes the issue very clear.
Good catch before committing to the plate geometry.

Regards, Alex

[kampen]

Reply to message #573
@ Classic,

I do use my own brain including speech-to-text converter, just like I am doing now.

Using tools does not mean outsourcing thinking.

AI is a tool, not a replacement for understanding, engineering judgment, or responsibility.

No one serious claims that AI engineered PCBs, invented electronics, or replaces human reasoning. Engineers do.

Humans design, verify, test, fail, and iterate.

AI can assist with analysis, documentation, pattern recognition, or brainstorming nothing more.

That does not remove accountability from the person building or testing hardware.

Also, repeating that "AI is in its infancy" is not an argument.

Everyone knows this. [/color]
The real question is whether the human using the tool understands its limits.

I do. Tools do not cause design failures misunderstanding, assumptions, or implementation errors do.

If something failed in testing, that is how engineering works: identify the cause, fix it, and improve the design.
That process existed long before AI and will exist long after it.

Critique the circuit, the logic, or the measurements if you want that is productive.

Questioning whether someone is "using their brain" because they use modern tools is not.

Regards, Alex

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All,

Ok, in order to make the Elevation Cut View, in a Scaled 1:1 CAD, it is REQUIRED to do BOTH Views on the same Format FIRST.

This is done in order to ease the job, as also to use ALL GUIDING LINES, in order that the second view (in this case the Elevated Cut, is completely within all alignment's  as the Upper View.

Later on you "Save As" another File which just have the Elevation View, and  DELETE UPPER VIEW.

At least, this is the way I do it...

So here are the TWO VIEW Together, and perfectly aligned, everything, including ALL Attaching  Fasteners (Bolts, Nuts, Washers:

Once I have in another post, just the Elevation Cut View, then I will make all the descriptions related to Parts, Components and Fasteners.

@Classic, Please, keep the temperature down!...Remember to RESPECT this Forum Policy RULES!!...DO NOT use ANY kind of wordings that reflect Insults or Ironic and Lacking Respect Remarks towards another Member!

I do NOT want Posts here OTHER THAN TOPIC RELATED ISSUES!

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

BIPOLAR ROTARY SWITCH 2D ELEVATION CUT VIEW

PD: I will fill out all the description & explanation later...

Ufopolitics