FIGUERA'S AETHER MAGNETIC FIELDS LINEAR PUMP, REVIVED

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All,

Ok, so here are the:

INDEPENDENT CONNECTIONS of the TWO COMMUTATORS, NEGATIVE & POSITIVE.

The way this wiring is started:

• First I joined ALL Quadrants I & II respectively or 1 to 1, 2 to 2, 3 to 3 and so on, that will complete the 180º Forward-Return Stages between both quadrants.
• Second, I Mirror-Duplicate those jumpers on the Right between Q I / Q II, to Left Quadrants III & Q IV, so, we complete the other 180º on the Left Side.
• Now, we need to Jump BOTH, RIGHT & LEFT Quadrants Connections between them, in order to close the 360º FULL SEQUENCE RUN.
• Finally we derive from each terminal to Coils Sequence respectively.

If you have noticed, the Negative and Positive Commutator's connections are IDENTICAL., as Both Brushes (Negative and Positive) are set apart by 180º.
The only thing here is to make sure that BOTH BRUSHES ARE SET on the ASCENDING (FORWARD) SEQUENTIAL QUADRANT, (Here Neg Brush is at Q I, as Positive Brush is at Q IV (Both Q's are FWD) , according to the Directional Rotation.
In order that BOTH BRUSHES are SYNCHRONIZED, on this Image they are both at Contact #1.

And that's All, Folks!

Regards

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Subject Re: Inducing Power Robustness and Load Response

Hello dear friend Ufopolitics,

I understand your point clearly: induction itself has not changed since Faraday the practical outcome always comes down to the balance between the strength of the inducing source and the demand placed on the induced output.

In your terms, output loading creates an immediate demand for more inducing "robustness," and that robustness is governed by the two parameters you mention—Voltage and Current—together with how effectively the inducing structure can maintain them under load without sagging.

So if either parameter drops or the source cannot sustain them dynamically, the inducing field weakens and the induced output drops accordingly. 

That is exactly why a strong, well-controlled excitation source and a commutation method that does not interrupt current continuity becomes so critical when the system is loaded.

Your framing is consistent with what we should expect during testing: the real proof is not no-load behavior, but how well the inducing source holds up when output demand increases.

Regards, Alex

[Ufopolitics]

Hello All again,

Just in case the FULL Previous Diagram looks too complicated, and tends to confusion...let me show you how it is started...

So, this is the Starting Circuit Wiring:

• First I do the Right TWO Quadrants Jumpers (Quadrants I & II) which Join Forward 1 and Reverse 1 Stages (on Right Side), that completes a Half Cycle (or 180º).
• Second, I Mirror (Replicate) the Jumpers to the Left Side (or Quadrants III & IV) and that completes the other Half Cycle (Next 180º)

Third I will need to join these Two Circuits (Right & Left) to derive a common wire for each respectively [1 to 8] to the final connectors (Not shown here, but on previous image) to connect to Sequential Coils.

Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Subject Re: Inducing Power Robustness and Load Response

Hello dear friend Ufopolitics,

I understand your point clearly: induction itself has not changed since Faraday the practical outcome always comes down to the balance between the strength of the inducing source and the demand placed on the induced output.

In your terms, output loading creates an immediate demand for more inducing "robustness," and that robustness is governed by the two parameters you mention—Voltage and Current—together with how effectively the inducing structure can maintain them under load without sagging.

So if either parameter drops or the source cannot sustain them dynamically, the inducing field weakens and the induced output drops accordingly.

That is exactly why a strong, well-controlled excitation source and a commutation method that does not interrupt current continuity becomes so critical when the system is loaded.

Your framing is consistent with what we should expect during testing: the real proof is not no-load behavior, but how well the inducing source holds up when output demand increases.

Regards, Alex

Exactly my dear friend Alex,

When this Inducing or Exciting Field moves, it must be consistent on keeping the same power, or same Voltage and same Amperage.
If we keep these Two Parameters without any substantial (huge) variation, that guarantees that the Inducing Magnetic Field will keep the same Spec's, as Volume, Density and Strength.

Then all we will need to worry about, -on this type of Generator- is to increase the Frequency/Speed everytime an Output Load causes a Voltage/Amperage Drop.

We will not need to add 'Torque' here, like it takes place on a Rotary Generator whenever is loaded...just speed to the sequencing movement.

As this Virtual Moving Field can go through Mass (Coils/Steel Core) with very minimal friction/opposition.

On my Method 2, I was moving-expanding the Field by adding more coils to the sequence...adding more resistance and droping the currents, while voltage remained the same.

Hence that Expanded Field was not Robust, Solid and Density Concentrated, but weaker in strength...so, it could not respond fully and effectively to the Power Demand from the Loaded Output.

And I am pretty sure, that was the main reason for the higher voltage drop, besides driver issues reaching desired speed.

If we look closely at absolutely ALL Electromagnetic Generators and even the older Dynamos, they ALL KEEP THE EXCITING FIELDS STABLE, FIXED, keeping the same Strength, same Volume, without any variation of Currents, the only Parameter that can increase when loaded- IF there is a Voltage Drop below Regular V-Input- is the Input Voltage to Exciters through the AVR, (Auto-Voltage Regulator).

Only future testing will tell us for sure, If I was right...

Regards

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Subject Re: 32-Segment Bipolar Commutator with Independent Wiring Logic

Hello dear friend Ufopolitics,

Yes, the wiring logic is clear and internally consistent.
I understand the construction exactly as you described it:

• Each commutator (NEG and POS) is wired independently, but with identical topology
• The sequence is first completed over 180° by joining Quadrants I & II (1→1, 2→2, etc.), creating the forward–return path
• That same jumper pattern is then mirror-duplicated to Quadrants III & IV to complete the other 180°
• Finally, the left and right halves are tied together so the sequence closes into a full 360° continuous run.
• From those eight resulting terminals, the connections are then taken to the sequential coil taps.

Because the negative and positive brushes are mechanically separated by 180°, the Electrical connections on both commutators are necessarily identical.

Synchronization is achieved simply by ensuring that both brushes sit in forward (ascending) quadrants at the same numbered contact exactly as shown, with both at contact #1.
This preserves:

• matched indexing (Pk with Nk)
• forward then reverse sequencing over one revolution
• and a constant active coil window

Everything shown in the diagram follows cleanly that logic. 

You have nicely laid out.

Regards, Alex