Overunity Machines

Hello All,

Now, after been working on Figuera's Method for so many years, trying to reproduce it unsuccessfully -as many thousands around the World did as well- after all these attempts...

I find it necessary -and very important- to expose here the weak points that I have found on his design, from an Engineering Point of view comparing it to a Generator, just as Figuera did...
ALL Existing Rotational Electromagnetic Generators basic 'modum operandi' (Method of Operation), since the First Industrial Operating Rotary Generator was ever built...

I will ONLY relate here to the way the Inducing Electro Magnetic Field(s) Operate (Relationship) with the Induced/Output Field.

As Figuera mentions on his 1908 Patent, when analizing the way a Rotary Generator works he cites:

QuoteThe Inducing Field comes and go...they (inducing Fields) get closer to then go further away...(from Induced coils)

Now, based on this simple observation above, he then developed his design, in order to achieve the way a Rotary Generator works, without the need to physically move any of the Generator Electromagnetic Coils.
Meaning, that by adding -progressively- resistance to the Inducing Field will reduce its currents, therefore, the Field would start a process of attenuation or a decrease of its strength, in other words, the Field would "shrink"...as this will "mimic" an effect of the Field "moving away", according to Figuera's concept developed on his Patent.
As the contrary cycle would take effect -on Figuera's order sequence- from this Field State of retraction to an expansion, by simply starting to take off resistance as then gaining higher currents...hence strength.

So far this is a "good start" to develop his Patent...except, that Figuera left a very important part of the Generator Rotary Cycle out...

The part not considered by Figuera -according to the drawing presented on Patent- is that when the Induced Field(s) are approaching the Induced Coils, (Expanding Phase on his Patent) they RETAIN the same, exact, Electromagnetic Force and Strength...

At NO POINT - on a real rotary generator- during the Operation (Rotation) of the Inducing or Exciting Field(s) (on Rotor), on any Rotary Generator, the Inducing Field loses or gain strength.

Instead, the DC Inducing or Exciting Field -on any Rotary Generator- always keeps it's Currents and Voltage at a 'stable' and 'fixed', completely LINEAR condition during its whole Inducing Cycle.

Like I have said before on this forum, the relationship between Exciting Field and Induced Field is based on a CONSTANT EXCHANGE, based on a DEMAND-SUPPLY RELATIONSHIP where the Inducing or Exciting Field must always be feeding this Induction Process as the "Supplying Part"

Even whenever the Inducing Field appears "to be leaving" the Maximum Area/Angle of Induction, to then approach to the next induced coil(s) in the succession order, this Field never loses  its Strenght, because it was simply a Spacetime displacement on the Rotary Generator.

On Figuera's Method only Two Times per a full cycle or one Revolution, the Induced Fields reaches a maximum strength or potential, when they (both sides) are at max currents or a so called "Full expansion mode". As this takes place exactly at commutator contacts 1 & 16, then again at 180 degrees at contacts 8 & 9.
While the rest of this time -other than the two max state points -the Inducing Fields are "Equalizing strength" on the in-between contact points- however, never reaching max Fields potential during this time period- through a gradient of resistance variations.

If we go to the old original drawing, specifically to the commutator and the'R' Box, we can see this observation very clear:


Now, when the Brush is exactly between contacts 4 & 5 (exact middle of a half cycle) both Inducing Fields are sharing exactly the same resistance, therefore, same currents as same strength.
And this is exactly where Figuera's weak points resides...as this event takes place again within the same cycle or revolution when brush is in between contacts 12 & 13.

Why are these the weak points?

Because exactly here, there is a huge drop of the INDUCING Field Strength (on both Fields N & S) simply because both Fields are not near a Max Strength, then the INDUCTIVE SUPPLY FORCE DROPS...and so the Output Fields will also decay/drop as an IMMEDIATE RESPONSE, reflected as a HUGE VOLTAGE and AMPERAGE DROP in our Loaded Output Closed circuit(s).

Again, on a real Rotary Generator, the Exciting or Induced Field(s) never loses strength, therefore, these two weak points never take place and so the Supply-Demand exchange never have a drop on the output side. As the only thing that would take place is that the exciting field on the rotor would become stiffer as the RPM's would drop momentarily, until the governor accelerates the Prime Mover or the ICE.

QuoteIf Figuera's Method would be successful with these weak points...then we could have added a "momentary exciting field reduction of strength" circuit, right on the continuous slip rings, before rotor approaches next induced coil-field...to only apply max strength once they are 'fully aligned'...then we would not have a 'stiff' rotor..., so "goodbye Lenz Law" and so, any electric motor could rotate any generator out there...then ICE would have been discarded a long time ago...

But that quoted idea above is NOT REAL...it would never take place as the Inducing Field -on any rotary generator- is always outputting the same strength, in order to have a Robust Output.

As my further and deeper development into the Figuera's Method in what I called 'Method Two' where I built a series of coils 'bridging' from the Two Main Inducing Coils (N & S) but keeping the same Figuera commutating sequence for only the positive brush, here I finally 'decoded' or 'debunked' the failure on his method.
I kept the same, exact original electrical circuit, where there are Two Fixed Negative points in between the Center Positive 'wiper' brush.
Even though these tests lead to a much higher output voltage than Input voltage, once output was loaded, there was an excessive voltage drop.

This was the main reason I moved into the Linear-Series Model design...where the Field keeps its strength all the time during its operation.

(to be continued)

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so, if you all notice I have started this Topic back on January...and now, due to a recent analysis sent to me, I feel it is time to publish it.

Originally I called it "The Flaws that I have found on Figuera's Method"...but I decided to be a bit more specific (technically speaking) as to name them "Weak Points"...

And this conclusion I based it on the Thousands of hours that I have dedicated to study the Figuera's Methods, which -of course- also includes the further developments and patenting of Buforn.

As I have mentioned on my previous post here, the 'Critical Point' that took me to these conclusions are not based on simple speculations and theories, but on Real Lab Testing work on the many prototypes I have developed around Figuera's original idea and invention.

The Final Development that I have built, I called it "Method 2" and this served as "the final prediction" about my conclusion(s) here.

The Basic and Main (summarized) weak points that I have found on Figuera's Original Patent is simple:

1- Not being able to sustain a steady, fixed Inducing Field Strength throughout the Generating Induction Process.

This fact simply generates a 'weak induction process' resulting in voltage drops at the time to load output on the secondaries.

These GAPS of decaying Field Strength, generates this weak results.

And here is the main reason I started the Development of the LINEAR-SERIES SYSTEMS, where at no point during the whole process, there would be a MAJOR DECAY of Inducing Field Strength.

Next post I will add the pdf member @kampen sent me regarding also another Figuera Analysis to discuss it here in detail.


Ufopolitics 



 

Hello All,

So, here is the Full Analysis Article pdf document (transfered to PNG) titled:

"This is actually the key to demystifying the whole Figuera story."





Please note I have uploaded the original pdf format file at the bottom of this post.

Next I will be discussing this article.

Ufopolitics

Hello All,


First, a Transformer works only on an AC Input to their Primaries.

However, there are specific and a minority of transformers that work based on a "Pulsating DC Current". But these are NOT the majority of Transformer on the market, on the industry or on any home appliances.

If we Input straight, linear DC currents on the Primary of any existing transformer...it will NOT output not a single volt, no matter how many volts we input.

So, why transformers only work on AC Input to Output AC on their Secondaries?


1- Transformers Induction is denominated as "Flux Linking".
2- Generators Induction is denominated as "Flux Cutting".

As there is a Radical Difference between the two forms of induction. However, if we all look at the differences online, it will tell us:

QuoteInduction by linking (often called flux linkage) and induction by cutting (flux cutting) are two methods of producing an electromotive force (EMF) based on Faraday's Law of Induction, differing mainly in how the magnetic flux interacts with the conductor. Induction by linking involves changing the amount of magnetic field passing through a fixed coil, while induction by cutting involves a conductor physically moving across magnetic field lines.

I highly disagree with above description, merely because whenever we feed the Input of a Transformer with AC Currents we are NOT CHANGING ANY AMOUNT OF MAGNETIC FIELD passing through a fixed coil.

Example: If we are feeding transformer with exactly 120 Volts and 1 Amp in AC Currents...we are NOT changing ANY FIELD AMOUNT!
It is a Field fed by a FIXED AC INPUT of 120V/1A.
So, the only thing that "CHANGES" here is the fact that AC Currents constantly are REVERSING FIELD POLARITY on every single Frequency Cycle....that's all!!
However "the AMOUNT" of Field  (understood as Field SPATIAL VOLUME and STRENGTH) REMAINS EXACTLY THE SAME.

Now, related to "FLUX CUTTING" our Sciences will always take us all into the "requirement" to ONLY PHYSICALLY MOVE the 'conductor' and as well its steel core...as the "one and only existing method(s)".

Which I -obviously- disagree as well...

Now, let's remember that Figuera's Method does not REVERSE the Field currents at any given point.
However, it does change the SPATIAL AMOUNT of Field based on its Volume, whenever Figuera's Fields Expands or Retracts alternatively on the SAME SPATIAL-TIME RESTRICTED AREAS.

So, whenever one of Figuera's Field (N or S) Expands to a Max Point, it actually 'TRAVELS' on Spatial Volume Increase, where its flux now 'SWEEPS' or 'CUTS' over the Secondary 'y'' Spatial Area.

Therefore, on this first part conclusion -on my end- I do agree that Figuera (as the original 1908 Patent describes) is a type of "Hybrid" between both:

1- A Transformer, because it changes the amount of Field whenever it expands-retracts over the Induced (secondary)
2- As a Generator as when Field 'Grows/Expands' as whenever it Retracts/Shrink, it also cut the flux lines by the secondaries conductors on this Spacetime displacement. even though the displacement takes place on a restricted area.

Ufopolitics

'Obvious' conclusions:

1- On Figuera's Method, he does uses an Alternated way to convert DC to a Fluctuating or Varying Currents to feed the Inducing Coils.

HOWEVER, at any point does Figuera REVERSES the Magnetic Field, by reversing the current flow, like it takes place on an AC Transformer.

2- On Figuera's Method, he Expands and Retracts the Field Physical Volume by resistance control.

At any point the AC feeding a transformer primary does what Figuera's Method obtains, meaning Expanding-Retracting Field Spatial Volume.

Figuera was the "Pioneer" on developing these Field effects and obtaining an EMF Induction at the secondaries, which resulted on AC.

Again, like I have insisted for such a long time...



Ufopolitics

Another wrong -chronological- conclusion on this Article:

QuotePage 2 on the pdf article:

Why this mattered historically

In 1908:

• Transformer theory wasn't as widespread among inventors.
• The idea of simulating mechanical motion with magnetic variation sounded revolutionary.

CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY  FACTS:

Electrical transformers were first introduced to electrical grids in the mid-1880s, with the first practical alternating current (AC) systems utilizing them emerging in 1886 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. William Stanley developed these practical transformers for Westinghouse, enabling efficient long-distance power distribution, rapidly replacing DC systems by the 1890s.

• Early Development (1878–1884): Early transformer forms were pioneered in Hungary (Ganz Works) and by Gaulard and Gibbs in Europe, with experimental systems tested in Italy in 1884.
• The First Functional Grid (1886): William Stanley built the first practical transformer for AC distribution, implemented by Westinghouse in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, to power lights over a distance.
• Commercial Adoption (1890s): By 1890, roughly 10% of central stations used AC, and by the end of the decade, it reached 43%, making transformers indispensable for expanding grids.
• Key Technological Shift: The innovation allowed "stepping up" voltage for transmission and "stepping down" for safe consumer use, making AC more efficient than Edison's DC systems.

So, we have to travel back in time to Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla's AC winning over Thomas A. Edison/ General Electric on DC Power grids, way back on the late 1800's...on the so called "War of Currents"...


And so, were Figuera and Buforn knowledgeable about transformers as AC Grids...

Ufopolitics

Something to really think about and ask ourselves...inspired by this Article section quoted below:

QuoteFrom Page 2 of pdf Article:

The big reveal: what disappears

Once you analyze it this way:

The idea of "energy appearing from nowhere" disappears.
Because:
• The output power comes from the input current energizing the primaries.
• When load increases, input current must increase.
• Back-EMF appears just like in any transformer.

So, on the above 'conclusion' from the article based on a Transformer operation comparing it to Figuera's Method...is very "logic" as it sounds perfectly well conceived because:

• A transformer is always going to require an Electrical Input.
• Therefore, as output load increases the input currents most increase as well.

Now, please let's go and make the same comparative analysis on a Generator Head, only attached mechanically to a shaft to an Internal Combustion Engine...

• The Generator Head does not require ANY Electrical Input.
• The Generator Head is NOT connected to any other type of Electrical Source, as is a Battery.
• All the Generator Head requires is to be Rotated at a specific Speed/Torque by the ICE.
• Just that, a simple rotation of the Inducing Field Rotor within the Generator Head.
• And so, it still produces an Electrical Output whenever the Field is moved through the rotating shaft.

And here then I ask the same question as before on the analysis...


And, please, do not start by bringing here -the well known theory- that is just a "Conversion from Mechanical Energy to Electrical Energy"...
because that answer as being so general, does not answer the real question here referring to Electrical Energy Generation on a completely ISOLATED ELECTRICALLY Generator Head?

So, come on, we can do much better than just answer a question with a simple and general statement: "Mechanical to Electrical Conversion"...so, be more "creative".

As another example to compare, except it does require an initial electrical input: The Alternator on any Vehicle:

• It does require an External Electrical Supply (the car battery) to start generating Electric Energy back to the car system as to recharge battery lost energy at the cranking stage.
• Now, once the car started, we can simply "disconnect" the battery terminals, and the vehicle will keep running as alternator will be feeding all electrical supply on vehicle.
• The ICE on vehicle through belts and pulley will keep a constant rotation of the Alternator shaft, and so the AC Exciting Fields.

However, the Generator Head does not require any electrical input...

The answer is very simple...yet we complicate it with general -and well stablished- explanations...

JUST BY MOVING THE MAGNETIC FIELD (by rotation or any other method, like linear, reciprocating, etc) WE GENERATE ELECTRICAL ENERGY.

This is so Simple, Beautiful as Real.. that by just moving the Magnetic Field (Physically or Virtually) within the right developed environment...we generate electrical energy.

And...out of where this electrical energy comes from?

From Electromagnetic Induction (Faraday 1835)

And it is only "up to us' to be able to move the Field without requiring the ICE to do it for us...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you for the detailed clarification. 
This is a very interesting direction, especially your distinction between polarity reversal and spatial field expansion.

I would like to focus on one key point where I think the discussion becomes critical.
You mention that in a transformer, when we apply a fixed AC input (e.g., 120V / 1A), the amount of magnetic field does not change, and that only polarity reverses.
 
From a field perspective, I am not sure this holds strictly.
Even with a constant RMS input, the instantaneous current and therefore the magnetizing field are continuously varying over time.
That implies the magnetic flux magnitude is also varying (not just its polarity), passing through zero twice per cycle. 
So the system is not maintaining a constant field magnitude, but rather a continuously changing one.

Which leads to my key question:
If AC already produces a continuous variation in both magnitude and direction of the magnetic field, then how fundamentally different is that from Figuera's "expansion and contraction" of field volume?

In other words, it is Figuera's method:

• Physically distinct in terms of field behavior,
   or
• An alternative way of generating a time-varying flux without polarity reversal?

Regarding your hybrid interpretation (transformer + generator), I find that particularly interesting, especially your point that field expansion could result in a form of "flux cutting" without mechanical motion.

But this raises another critical point:
From Maxwell/Faraday's perspective, induction depends on dΦ/dt (rate of change of flux), regardless of whether that change comes from:

• physical motion (classical generator), or
• time-varying fields (transformer)

So I am wondering if what is being interpreted as "flux cutting" via spatial expansion might still be fully describable as flux linkage with a time-varying distribution, rather than a fundamentally different induction mechanism.

That said, your idea of field displacement within a confined spatial region is very compelling, especially if the induced EMF depends not only on magnitude change but on how the field is redistributed across the secondary.

One more question I would be very interested in:
In your prototypes, when you achieved field expansion/retraction, did you measure the total magnetic flux through the secondary region as constant with redistribution, or did it actually vary in magnitude over time?

Because that distinction might determine whether we are dealing with:

• true constant-field displacement (closer to a rotating machine analogy),
   or
• conventional time-varying flux (transformer-like behavior with a different implementation)

Looking forward to your thoughts. 
This is getting into the most interesting part of the discussion.

Best regards, 
Alex

Quote from: kampen on Mar 19, 2026, 03:34 PMHello dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you for the detailed clarification.
This is a very interesting direction, especially your distinction between polarity reversal and spatial field expansion.

Hello dear friend,
Thanks, and yes, I think clarification is needed in order to later on understand my future developments...

Quote from: kampen on Mar 19, 2026, 03:34 PMI would like to focus on one key point where I think the discussion becomes critical.
You mention that in a transformer, when we apply a fixed AC input (e.g., 120V / 1A), the amount of magnetic field does not change, and that only polarity reverses.
 
From a field perspective, I am not sure this holds strictly.
Even with a constant RMS input, the instantaneous current and therefore the magnetizing field are continuously varying over time.
That implies the magnetic flux magnitude is also varying (not just its polarity), passing through zero twice per cycle.
So the system is not maintaining a constant field magnitude, but rather a continuously changing one.

Which leads to my key question:
If AC already produces a continuous variation in both magnitude and direction of the magnetic field, then how fundamentally different is that from Figuera's "expansion and contraction" of field volume?

Yes, you are completely right, I overlooked the 'ascending' plus 'descending' portions of the AC Sinewave!
So, it is perfectly correct that Field varies (on Spatial Volume) on both AC sines, positive and negative.
Great observation!

Quote from: kampen on Mar 19, 2026, 03:34 PMIn other words, it is Figuera's method:

• Physically distinct in terms of field behavior,
   or
• An alternative way of generating a time-varying flux without polarity reversal?

Well, on the AC Sine (transformers) there are a constant change of currents that increases on both ways, negative and positive...therefore, the Field also reverses polarization constantly.
While on Figuera's method the currents only flow (ascending-descending) on the positive side direction, hence Field never reverses polarity.
So, that's the main difference I see related to AC sinewave and Field effect.
That is the reason I conceived Figuera as a 'hybrid'...
However, the fact that Figuera alternates these positive sines from two extreme ends related to secondary 'y', which is on the center, 'sandwiched' in between, that is what creates an AC at output.
Different from the transformer Spatial positioning related to the Inducing and Induced coils, determining a different configuration of Fields Spatial distribution and interaction.
Now, on a Generator, is where we have a much similar approach to Figuera, related to this matter (Induced & Inducing Coils spatial positioning), which derives on the Field Spatial way of generating the Induction.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 19, 2026, 03:34 PMRegarding your hybrid interpretation (transformer + generator), I find that particularly interesting, especially your point that field expansion could result in a form of "flux cutting" without mechanical motion.

But this raises another critical point:
From Maxwell/Faraday's perspective, induction depends on dΦ/dt (rate of change of flux), regardless of whether that change comes from:

• physical motion (classical generator), or
• time-varying fields (transformer)

So I am wondering if what is being interpreted as "flux cutting" via spatial expansion might still be fully describable as flux linkage with a time-varying distribution, rather than a fundamentally different induction mechanism.

Again, like I explained on my previous response, that has to do with the way the Inducing & Induced Coils are Spatially positioned.

On a Transformer, Both Coils are 'typically' wound, one on top of the other and on the center of the double 'E' Laminated Frame, so the Field travels around the whole E Frames, more likely on the outer side, and no 'air gap'. That is basically the 'linking' attribute of transformers induction.
As on a Generator, the Induced Coils are typically set on the outer housing and stationary frame, while the Inducing Coils are set at the rotor as there are an 'air gap'.

Again, I see that Figuera's method follows more the Structural Configuration of a Generator, based on coils spatial positioning (hence Field behavior) than of a transformer.

Now, as an example, let's get a small single phase brushed generator and modify the Induced outer coils to be only set across at 180º and not distributed all along the circular frame.
Then let´s disconnect the two rotor exciting/inducing coils (that are normally connected in series as just one coil, to build a single DC Field with each polarity on each side of rotor)
Let's turn/set rotor facing both outer stator coils.
Out of the rotor we have now Four terminals, two for each rotor coil, we then joint two ends of each coil and that would be our common DC negative.
So, the other two terminals we are just going to connect them to a Figuera Commutator ends or N & S (Max Positive Points on my first Figuera diagram here, Page 1).
Here you will need to check magnetic polarization when powered with straight DC, making sure you have on one side a North as on the other side a South.

Now, apply positive DC to brush and turn on the small motor...leaving the generator rotor shaft securely fixed.
And we will get an Induction on the Output Induced coils...
Now, we will need to apply the same Voltage and Amperage to rotor coils as those Inducing Field Coils were getting when generator was fully running and output loaded.
So, now we have a Figuera Machine.
Only difference here from the original Figuera design is that now we have the Inducing Coils on the center, as the Induced on the outside as two coils instead of just one like Figuera's.
But, we have simply converted a Generator into a Figuera Machine without major structural changes (note I did not called it generator, but 'machine'  ;D )
You can not do that  rather simple "transformation" with a Transformer...and get a "Figuera Demo Machine".

Additional Note: To make this conversion test, you must have a PSU which outputs 200V and at least 2.0 Amps, as that is the typical running power on a single phase generator head, of course, depending on total wattage output these parameters could vary.
I have done these measurements on a 5000 Watts Gen head, while running, loaded and it was around 180V @ 2A for exciting coils...this test was a very long time ago.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 19, 2026, 03:34 PMThat said, your idea of field displacement within a confined spatial region is very compelling, especially if the induced EMF depends not only on magnitude change but on how the field is redistributed across the secondary.

Great that you brought that on here!
If you have noticed on Figuera's Patent Diagram, the secondaries 'y' are much smaller (in length) than each N & S Coils...
As this is another 'weak point' I also noticed on Figuera's design...however, this is supposed to be like that so whenever N or S expands, it covers completely the Field Spatial Volume. over all secondaries 'y' coils.
And I specify 'confined spatial displacement' because different from my Linear-Series design, Figuera's Inducing Coils does not cause the Field to travel through a full spacetime displacement, as Figuera's Field remains within the same Spatial positioning, as Field only Expands and Retracts "on site".

Quote from: kampen on Mar 19, 2026, 03:34 PMOne more question I would be very interested in:
In your prototypes, when you achieved field expansion/retraction, did you measure the total magnetic flux through the secondary region as constant with redistribution, or did it actually vary in magnitude over time?

Because that distinction might determine whether we are dealing with:

• true constant-field displacement (closer to a rotating machine analogy),
   or
• conventional time-varying flux (transformer-like behavior with a different implementation)

Looking forward to your thoughts.
This is getting into the most interesting part of the discussion.

Best regards,
Alex

Great question dear friend!
Yes, output varies on Magnitude over time/driving speed until it reaches a constant speed, then it remains constant (while loaded)
Ok, so on the latest design I have tested -before entering into the Linear-Series Design- was what I called 'Method 2' and yes, Field displaced completely from one end to the other of the steel core length. So, it was a true constant Field Displacement as also a 'reciprocating' movement.
However, that design had some 'flaws' which I recalled them all on my Figuera main Topic...

• Primarily, the currents distribution between N and S were wrong (opposite to Figuera) meaning:
• When N or S were expanding (max points) they used more sequence series coils, then added more resistance causing lower currents and Field strength drop.
• As on the contrary, whenever N & S were retracting, they had lesser series sequence coils , then currents increased, as Field strength.
• completely opposite of what I was looking for:
• Like Figuera,:Field expansion= Higher Currents= Stronger Field
• Field retraction= Less currents= weaker Field strength.
• Also the fact that I could not change that configuration, because the DC Input, related to All Inducing coils connection was in Parallel, not in Series. (Two common Negatives and one center 'wiper' Positive)

On top of all those errors, I could never reach the max (operational speed) I needed with 16 elements or 3600 RPM's cause brush and contacts started to fail when over 2000 RPM's.

Thanks for all your input !

Regards dear friend

Ufopolitics

On Figuera's Method, when either one of N & S Coils are expanding:

We must realize that Magnetic Fields does this expansion on a completely SYMMETRICAL WAY, which means BOTH POLES expands from exactly its 'gravitational center', or Bloch Wall, on a perfect straight line in opposite directions from center of electromagnet.

Now, when we go back to Figuera's Diagram on 1908 Patent, we noticed that all 'y' secondaries coils are much shorter than  the N & S Coils (in length), and that is done on purpose to get All the expanding Single Pole over the 'y' secondaries coils at each N & S Expansion Stage:


Then on Buforn later design, he started to joint all these N & S Coils into a 'Chain, that way using BOTH POLES of each Inducing Coils, so, only the Two Ends were not using this benefit.

And here I have no idea why Buforn did not think of closing this chain into a Toroidal or Circular Structure...if He would have done it... He would have had the greatest surprise of his life.

But, it is what it is...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Reply to message #8 

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Thank you for the detailed reply. 
I really appreciate the depth you are bringing here, especially the clarification about your "Method 2" achieving what you describe as a true field displacement across the core.

Also, thank you for acknowledging the AC field variation point — that helps align the discussion on a more precise footing.

I would like to focus on what I think is now the core issue:
You mention that in your Method 2, the field was able to displace completely from one end of the core to the other, creating a "reciprocating" movement while maintaining a constant field behavior once operational speed was reached.

This is extremely interesting, but it also raises a critical question from a field theory perspective:
If the magnetic field is truly being displaced spatially while maintaining its magnitude, then the total flux through the secondary should remain relatively constant — and therefore dΦ/dt would approach zero, which should reduce induction rather than sustain it.

Yet, you are observing induction.
So it seems that one of the following must be true:

• The field is not purely "displacing" at constant magnitude, but still undergoing local variations in flux density over time,
   or
• The induction is being driven not only by total flux change, but by non-uniform spatial redistribution of the field across the secondary conductors

If it is the second case, then this becomes very interesting because it suggests that induction might be sensitive not just to total flux variation, but to how that flux is distributed and moved relative to the conductor geometry.

However, from the classical Maxwell/Faraday formulation, the induced EMF is still tied to the time derivative of flux linkage regardless of whether the change is caused by motion or time-varying fields.

So now I am trying to reconcile this with your observation:
When you say the field "moves" across the core, do you mean:

• The peak flux density region shifts position, while total flux varies locally over time?
   or
• The entire field structure translates with minimal change in magnitude?

Because only the first case would still fully align with measurable induction under standard electromagnetic theory.

Also, your generator-to-Figuera conversion example is a very compelling conceptually, but I wonder if what is actually happening there is that you are still recreating a time-varying magnetic field in the stator region, even if the rotor is physically stationary.

In other words, the system may be functionally equivalent to:

• A generator with electrically simulated rotation,
   rather than
• A fundamentally new induction mechanism

Which would still be consistent with Faraday's law, but implemented in a different way.
That said, your Linear-Series direction is particularly interesting, because it seems to move closer to a distributed field system, which might reduce the discontinuities you identified earlier.

I am very curious to see how you evolve that design, especially whether it approaches a smoother "traveling field" behavior rather than a reciprocating one.

Thanks again for sharing all this. 
This is definitely getting into the most interesting part of the discussion.

Best regards, 
Alex

Quote from: kampen on Mar 20, 2026, 02:57 PMReply to message #8

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Hello dear friend

Quote from: kampen on Mar 20, 2026, 02:57 PMThank you for the detailed reply.
I really appreciate the depth you are bringing here, especially the clarification about your "Method 2" achieving what you describe as a true field displacement across the core.

Also, thank you for acknowledging the AC field variation point — that helps align the discussion on a more precise footing.

I would like to focus on what I think is now the core issue:
You mention that in your Method 2, the field was able to displace completely from one end of the core to the other, creating a "reciprocating" movement while maintaining a constant field behavior once operational speed was reached.

This is extremely interesting, but it also raises a critical question from a field theory perspective:
If the magnetic field is truly being displaced spatially while maintaining its magnitude, then the total flux through the secondary should remain relatively constant — and therefore dΦ/dt would approach zero, which should reduce induction rather than sustain it.

Ok, it is very important that whenever you try to establish a comparison with my Figuera Methods, please do so by using the Generator characteristics and NOT the Transformer, so that we are on "the same page".

Then to answer your question(s) I am using as Example a  Single Phase, Dual Brush Type Generator behavior with my previous and newest Methods, in order to keep our Analysis as simple as possible, so:

• On any typical Single Phase, Brushed* Generator Inducing/Exciting Fields - located at the Rotor- there is absolutely ZERO Variation of Flux MAGNITUDE over time or  dΦ/dt, simply due that the Input Excitation is CONSTANT, LINEAR DC, which is fed through the Continuous Slip Ring-Brushes, then this exciting Field Flux does not vary in magnitude at all during the Induction Process.
• This Exciting/Inducing Field on these types of Generators just TRAVELS THROUGH SPACETIME KEEPING THE SAME EXACT MAGNITUDE, AS STRENGTH, AS SPATIAL SIZE, AS DENSITY (Flux Concentration) mainly due that these parameters -in charge- as is the Voltage, Amperage, Inductance and Resistance are completely fixed) -in a Rotary Fashion- with an Air Gap passing through ALL the Stationary Stator Field Coils, which Output  towards the Load.
• The Rotor Steel Laminated Core is still the same volume through the operation, therefore no change on its mass, density, effective poles directions, etc.

As Induction is achieved simply by this Inducing Field traveling AS IS, WITH NO VARIATION ON ITS ELECTROMAGNETIC SPEC'S, except of TRANSLATING ITSELF through a VARIATION OF SPACETIME.
As, since it is a 'Rotation' we must consider ANGLES here, therefore, this Field keeps a CONSTANT ROTATION which involves 360º per full Revolution.
However, ONLY AT CERTAIN ANGLES it reaches the Full Induction exactly disbursed every 180º of Rotor Rotation.
Then it REVERSES ONLY the INDUCED OUTPUT on the next 180º, because the Rotor Polarities have swapped from previous position.

Now, the only difference on ALL my Methods, is simply that the TRANSLATION OR DISPLACEMENT THROUGH SPACETIME of this Constant Magnitude Field takes place in a LINEAR FASHION.
Therefore, on this LINEAR DISPLACEMENT are 'no Angles' but instead LONGITUDINAL DISTANCES along the STRAIGHT LINEAR STEEL CORE.

So, before continuing responding your other questions, we should FIRST discuss based on this New Approach written above.

I also want to remind you that on my Method 2, I had some FLAWS, which DID make the Field Strength change on the wrong Stages.
Also that on Method 2 there was a Field Variation over time (dΦ/dt) the same way that takes place on Figuera's Method.
HOWEVER, NOW, under my new design about LINEAR-SERIES CONFIGURATION there is absolutely ZERO VARIATION of Field Magnitude.
Meaning that the Field is maintaining the same Magnitude through Time, as it just travels through Spacetime along the Linear Steel Core.
Exactly the same way it takes place on a Rotary Generator.

Regards

Ufopolitics

PD:  Single Phase, Brushed* Generator is used as an example NOT to go to the "Brushless" Type which have a much complex way to feed the Inducing Fields, as this would complicate more our Analysis.
So, I am trying to Keep It Simple.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 20, 2026, 02:57 PMReply to message #8

This is extremely interesting, but it also raises a critical question from a field theory perspective:
If the magnetic field is truly being displaced spatially while maintaining its magnitude, then the total flux through the secondary should remain relatively constant — and therefore dΦ/dt would approach zero, which should reduce induction rather than sustain it.
Best regards,
Alex

Hello dear friend,

Your approach quoted above may 'fit' on the Transformer Theory, but, not on a Generator Theory.

And I must repeat myself:

On a Rotary Single Phase Generator Machine, there is absolutely Zero Variation on the Inducing Field Magnitude, yet, it generates a very strong induction at Output Stator Coils.

As I noticed you called 'secondary'...what makes me think that you keep comparing my Methods to a simple Transformer Operation?

The flux variation over time is "only applicable" to the Induced Coils...

As Quantum Mechanics will define this process as "How the Induced Coil(s) "observes" or "sees" these changes, it will react accordingly..."

Regards

Ufopolitics

So, I always wanted to bring this example to directly compare it to my latest Linear-Series Method...

As it is much closer, similar and simpler to compare with my latest Linear-Series design than the Rotary Generator:

And it will greatly simplify our discussions...

QuoteA shaking flashlight (Faraday flashlight) operates on the principle of electromagnetic induction, where shaking the device moves a permanent magnet back and forth through a copper wire coil (solenoid). This movement changes the magnetic flux within the coil, generating an alternating electric current (AC) that charges a capacitor to power an LED, eliminating the need for batteries.

Of course, this is the very simple principle essence, as it is designed to operate by "shaking it" with our hands...

HOWEVER, whenever we translate this small and simple 'hand shaking' device into my Linear-Series Design...then this simple "hand shaking flash light" becomes a much more Complex Built Machine where the 'hand shaking' becomes a 60 Hertz Frequency or Higher than, plus a much larger linear displacement within a much heavier steel core, plus a much larger Induced Coil Length...as not needing a 'Magnet' but simply displacing the Field Virtually through a series of Sequential Coils along the Linear Core and over the Main Output Coil, plus the End Extremes Secondary Output Coils.

And of course that with our hands, we can never reproduce this Frequency at the Hand Shaking Flashlight...unless we were "Superman"  ;D

But the Configuration as the Structure are exactly the same as my Linear Method, but Magnified Exponentially.

It is based on one of the first experiments that Faraday conducted back on 1835, that helped him to demonstrate for the first time his Electromagnetic Induction Discovery.
And the way Faraday conducted his experiment was with an electromagnet, connected to a DC battery. (NO Neodymium Magnets at that time)


Now, the 'Permanent Magnet' here always keep the same Magnitude during the whole operation...except it travels linearly (Linear Spacetime) passing by the Induced Coil(s)
However, the Changes (dΦ/dt) takes place at the Induced Coil(s) and NOT at the Inducing Coil(s)

Exactly the same way it happens on a Rotary Generator.

Please note that Output is an AC Sinewave.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so since the discovery of EM Induction by M. Faraday, which started with the very simple experiment of introducing an Electromagnet (or a magnet) carrying the 'Field' as the Inducing element within another hollow -air core- as the Induced Coil...


This led to the Type of Induction I will denominate as:


And basically consists on the Magnetic Field PENETRATING an Air Core Induced Coil on its VERY CENTER.

Now, by moving the Field in a Reciprocating way (back and forth) following the coil center, it induces an AC on the Induced Coil.

As the Induced EMF will increase based on the well known facts:

• Moving the Field at a faster speed will increase EMF.
• Adding more turns on Induced coil will add more EMF.
• Increasing Field Strength will add more EMF.
• Using a thicker wire gauge on induced coil will induce higher amperage on the EMF.

On this type of induction, the Field Spatial Lines (Imaginary Lines of Force) will 'cut' the Induced Coil wires in a 360º.
This is a TRUE, SOLID Induction, as the Field itself, is MOVING within the INNER SPATIAL CORE of the Induced Coil.


And there is the:





Where induction is achieved by just approaching the Magnetic Field to a Coil with a steel core built within.
As it is also ruled by the same factors cited on Method 1, when it comes to increasing the EMF.
This type of induction I call it 'Indirect' because as we approach the Magnetic Field to the Coil & Steel Core, the Field ONLY PROPAGATES to the Steel Core, momentarily magnetizing it.

As we must realize that on this approach there are higher magnetic losses/lower induction due to many factors.

• Purity of steel core material
• Steel Properties to rapidly demagnetize (avoiding saturation)
• Strength of Field must be much higher than Method 1, in order to transfer (influence) the steel core with stronger magnetic properties.
• There will always must be an Air Gap in between Inducing and Induced, which must be as closed as possible.

Now, on this Method 2, the Magnetic Field could approach the Steel Core-Coil from different spatial directions:

• Frontal approach, like shown on image above, making a reciprocating movement.
• Approach from the sides, running horizontally related to the center of steel core.
• Approach from the sides, running vertically related to the center of steel core.

On the Approach #1 (Frontal) it could be built a "Linear-Reciprocating" mechanical method to achieve this Field 'approach and retract' to the Steel Core-Coil(s).
As this frontal approach is also similar to the way Transformers generate an Induction, except that here the Field does not 'move physically' but just changes its Magnitude as it also Reverses its magnetic polarities as a result of their AC at Input (Primaries).

Now,  the approach #2 & #3 (sides) could be achieved through the rotation of the Field, related to the Static Core-Coil center, as this Two Approach Methods were the ones that started the principle of the Generators up to now. As from this simple 'side' approach of a single magnet and a single core-coil, we can add more coils-cores at different angles, as use also many magnets -or electromagnets- accordingly on the rotor...


As we can see, out of the Two Main Methods to 'expand' and apply to larger and Industrial Machines, called 'Generators' is the Method 2 (Indirect Induction) using Approach Methods # 2 & # 3 (Rotation).
The Reciprocating Mechanical System (Approach # 1, Frontal) has many disadvantages over the Rotary System, being the main one the Speed achievement.
Also it requires the Engineering Design of more complex mechanisms (links, rods, bushings, etc) that have more tendency to higher maintenance plus more frequent mechanical failures than is a simple mechanical rotation concept.
Plus, it only can 'expand' longitudinally reduced to a linear fashion , taking more room area.

So, Method 1 (Direct Induction) based on the Field moving WITHIN the Induced Core, even being the more robust and effective type of induction, was completely disregarded, mainly because of the complicated and complex engineering designs to take it to the level of larger and industrial machines.

Then, as we all know, the Rotational Method 2 (Indirect Induction), approach #2 & #3, prevailed up to now on the application of larger and industrial machines design....basically due to its simplicity to build as the very simple engineering on the mechanical side.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Reply to message #9

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Very interesting addition, especially your emphasis on the symmetrical expansion from the Bloch wall and how Figuera deliberately sized the 'y' secondaries to sit entirely within the expanding pole region.

That design choice is quite revealing, because it suggests that Figuera was not just relying on flux variation, but on controlling how a single-pole field spatially sweeps across the secondary region.

Your point about Buforn's chain configuration is also very intriguing.

Closing that chain into a toroidal or circular structure would indeed eliminate the "edge losses" at the ends, but it also raises a deeper question:
Q: Would a fully closed magnetic path (toroid) actually preserve the intended induction effect... or suppress it?
In a toroidal core:

• The magnetic flux is largely confined within the core
• External field interaction with conductors is minimized
• Flux distribution becomes highly uniform along the path

So if Figuera's effect depends on spatial expansion interacting with the secondary conductors, then enclosing the system into a toroid might actually reduce the very field gradients needed for induction.

Unless, of course, the secondary is also integrated within that toroidal path in a way that still experiences a non-uniform, time-varying flux distribution.
This brings up what I think is the key point behind your observation:
Is the induction mechanism in Figuera's system driven primarily by:

• Total flux variation (classical transformer view),
   or
• Spatial field gradients moving across the secondary conductors?

Because your description of symmetrical expansion from the Bloch wall suggests that what matters is not just how much field exists, but where and how it is distributed over the secondary at each moment in time.

Regarding the toroidal idea, I am curious:
Do you think closing the chain would:

• Enhance continuity of the field and reduce losses,
   or
• Remove the directional field displacement needed to generate EMF?

Because if the effect depends on a linear gradient across the secondaries (as in Figuera's layout), then converting it into a circular symmetry might fundamentally change the behavior.

Very interesting line of thought, especially because it touches on whether the system depends on open-field interaction vs confined flux paths.

Looking forward to your thoughts on that.

Best regards,
Alex

Quote from: kampen on Mar 21, 2026, 02:43 PMReply to message #9

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Very interesting addition, especially your emphasis on the symmetrical expansion from the Bloch wall and how Figuera deliberately sized the 'y' secondaries to sit entirely within the expanding pole region.

That design choice is quite revealing, because it suggests that Figuera was not just relying on flux variation, but on controlling how a single-pole field spatially sweeps across the secondary region.

Your point about Buforn's chain configuration is also very intriguing.

Closing that chain into a toroidal or circular structure would indeed eliminate the "edge losses" at the ends, but it also raises a deeper question:
Q: Would a fully closed magnetic path (toroid) actually preserve the intended induction effect... or suppress it?
In a toroidal core:

• The magnetic flux is largely confined within the core
• External field interaction with conductors is minimized
• Flux distribution becomes highly uniform along the path

So if Figuera's effect depends on spatial expansion interacting with the secondary conductors, then enclosing the system into a toroid might actually reduce the very field gradients needed for induction.

Unless, of course, the secondary is also integrated within that toroidal path in a way that still experiences a non-uniform, time-varying flux distribution.
This brings up what I think is the key point behind your observation:
Is the induction mechanism in Figuera's system driven primarily by:

• Total flux variation (classical transformer view),
   or
• Spatial field gradients moving across the secondary conductors?

Because your description of symmetrical expansion from the Bloch wall suggests that what matters is not just how much field exists, but where and how it is distributed over the secondary at each moment in time.

Regarding the toroidal idea, I am curious:
Do you think closing the chain would:

• Enhance continuity of the field and reduce losses,
   or
• Remove the directional field displacement needed to generate EMF?

Because if the effect depends on a linear gradient across the secondaries (as in Figuera's layout), then converting it into a circular symmetry might fundamentally change the behavior.

Very interesting line of thought, especially because it touches on whether the system depends on open-field interaction vs confined flux paths.

Looking forward to your thoughts on that.

Best regards,
Alex

Hello dear friend,

You are completely right on your conclusions related to using a Fully closed Toroidal or Circular structure will reduce the flux (Field Lines) within only the steel core.

However, on Figuera's as well as Buforn, their systems could perfectly work with 'Air Gaps', even just using a thin sheet of insulation that separates each steel element.

Not so on Transformers, that in order to generate a robust Induction, it requires a Fully Closed E-Frame, as well as the Toroidal Transformers are also on a fully closed structure.

Therefore, whenever we fracture/separate -into sections- each primary and secondary, and separate them through a thin insulated gap, then the Magnetic Field Expands Spatially like it takes place on a Generator...or a Motor.

Simply because once we fracture the steel into elements, we cut the Internal Flux flow through the inner steel laminated cores, then Field expands into its surrounding space for each inducing-Induced element separately.

Even on the Armature of a Motor, we can have right next to each other a North Pole and a South Pole separated by just the gap between salient tooth, as not interacting between them, but with the front set stator coils through an air gap...because Magnetic Fields interacts stronger in a Directional fashion (Pole Center to Pole Center).

And that was the way I meant, when I suggested that Buforn design could be on a closed chain...

Remember when I was designing my Figuera Closed Toroidal Structures that I also made the 'Joining C Steel Clamps" to bolt elements together?


Because besides offering an easier way to wind them separately, it also fractures/separate elements through thin insulators serving as 'gaps'...not to have a Full Monolithic Steel Structure.


Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Mar 21, 2026, 02:18 PM[...]

METHOD 2 or INDIRECT INDUCTION:

FIELD_MOVING_RELATED_TO_INDUCED_CORE.png

Where induction is achieved by just approaching the Magnetic Field to a Coil with a steel core built within.
As it is also ruled by the same factors cited on Method 1, when it comes to increasing the EMF.
This type of induction I call it 'Indirect' because as we approach the Magnetic Field to the Coil & Steel Core, the Field ONLY PROPAGATES to the Steel Core, momentarily magnetizing it.



As we must realize that on this approach there are higher magnetic losses/lower induction due to many factors.

• Purity of steel core material
• Steel Properties to rapidly demagnetize (avoiding saturation)
• Strength of Field must be much higher than Method 1, in order to transfer (influence) the steel core with stronger magnetic properties.
• There will always must be an Air Gap in between Inducing and Induced, which must be as closed as possible.

Now, on this Method 2, the Magnetic Field could approach the Steel Core-Coil from different spatial directions:

• Frontal approach, like shown on image above, making a reciprocating movement.
• Approach from the sides, running horizontally related to the center of steel core.
• Approach from the sides, running vertically related to the center of steel core.

On the Approach #1 (Frontal) it could be built a "Linear-Reciprocating" mechanical method to achieve this Field 'approach and retract' to the Steel Core-Coil(s).
As this frontal approach is also similar to the way Transformers generate an Induction, except that here the Field does not 'move physically' but just changes its Magnitude as it also Reverses its magnetic polarities as a result of their AC at Input (Primaries).
[...]

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Now, going back to Figuera's Design...and applying it to my previous Induction Classification Types...

We can categorize Figuera's Design into the Method 2 (Indirect Induction) using the Frontal, Linear Approach #1.

Except, that on Figuera's Design the Field does not move physically but by altering its Magnitude (strength) as Spatial Volume "in situ".

Induction takes place whenever one of the Two Exciter/Inducing Coils with steel core Magnetic Fields, enters into the Expanding Stage, where the Field Lines sweeps over the center secondaries 'y'.

And as @kampen and I cited previously, we can compare it to the way Transformers generate an Electromagnetic Induction...

Except:

• Figuera's is ruled by Induction based on Spatial Expansions and Contractions of the Field, and NOT by Flux Flow changes in magnitude within the closed laminated steel core, like it does with Transformers.
• All Figuera and Buforn Designs can work perfectly well with an Air Gap into fractured steel cores separated by a small gap into elements, which Transformers can not operate under such design.
• Also considering that on Figuera's Method the Field does not reverses its magnetic polarities,
• Because Figuera's Primaries  Input are fed by Dual Alternating DC sinewaves, that only travels on the High Side (Positive, above zero).

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

And now, when categorizing my Linear-Series Design Method (Inspired by a 'Fusion' of Figuera's Design plus one of  Faraday's first experiments cited previously), it turns out a bit more complicated...:

• The Spatial Displacement of the Magnetic Field takes place within the very Center of the Linearly disposed Steel Core, where there is also wound the Main Secondary (green wired coil).
• Based on above characteristics where Field moves in a reciprocating way within the COMMON Steel Core for the Inducing Sequencing Coils and the CENTER Induced Main Coil, it directly classify on Method 1 (Direct Induction).

However, when we analyze the way the Second Secondaries Coils at each extreme of the linear steel core generate an Induction as the result of Field displacement...

• The Two End Inducing Coils (thicker brown wire) generate an Induction whenever the Field approaches in a frontal encounter to either one alternatively .
• And based on this characteristics cited above, this type of Induction for each end Inducing Coils classifies with Method 2 (Indirect Induction) & Frontal Approach #1.

CONCLUDING:

• For the Main Center Induced Coil, it generates an Induction based on Method 1.
• For the Two End Coils, or Second Secondaries, the Induction is based on Method 2, Frontal Approach #1.

So, like I said previously about the way Quantum Mechanics would interpret these two processes...:

Quote from: Quantum MechanicsThe Type of Induction Classification above is directly related as 'How each Induced Coil "sees" and "reacts" accordingly to the Field Displacement/Change...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, I have made some Graphics Diagrams to Analyze -in depth- the Weak Areas on Figuera's Inducing Method:


So, above is a Graphic of Field Strength (based on Current variations) over Time (based on one Revolution or 360º) on both Inducing Coils N & S.

It shows how both Inducing Fields are completely opposite or alternating its Peaks and Lows at the same fraction of time...

However, most here are very familiar with the way Figuera's Inducing Sinewaves work for both Inducing Fields.

And what I wanted to mainly show here, is the Shaded Area that I marked here.

This Shaded Area shows exactly the Time, during One (1) Revolution (1 RPM) that BOTH Inducing Fields are not reaching a Maximum (Peak) Strength.

The whole Inducing Field Area would be better represented by a Field Color Gradient, like they show on Field Strength Charts from Red (Stronger Field), Orange, Yellow to light blue and daker blue (Weakest Field), like shown below:


Where:

• RED represents the STRONGER FIELD
• DARK BLUE represents the WEAKER FIELD

You can see this Mid to Low Field Strength runs approximatedly on a 90% of the time.

As if we cut off and DELETE ALL shaded Lower Areas plus all their respective points and just leave the Peak, Top Field strength...will result on a very wide apart peak sineswave:


This inconsistency of not maintaining a higher percentage of peak Field Strength, is where I believe results in a weaker Induction reflected at the Output of the Induced Coils by huge Voltages and Amperage drops when connected to heavier  loads.

By Peaks being so far apart by huge time intervals or very wide angles on total rotated circumference areas (I calculated about 160º not peak angles out of 180º, then 320º out of the total 360º, that's only a 40º Total Peak Field Strength per Revolution) So it would not matter how much we increase the speed or frequency, with this characteristics it would be very hard to keep up with Induced Strength Demands by heavier loads.

We will never even approach to a "Flat Line" (constant Field strength) Induction like on a typical Generator Inducing Field Strength operates...a perfectly flat, straight line.

Regards

Ufopolitics

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

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

@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 (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,9.0/topicseen.html)

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

Quote from: kampen on Mar 23, 2026, 02:37 PMReply to message #18

Hello, dear friend Ufopolitics,

Hello dear friend,

Quote from: kampen on Mar 23, 2026, 02:37 PMThank 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)

Quote from: kampen on Mar 23, 2026, 02:37 PMBut 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?

Quote from: kampen on Mar 23, 2026, 02:37 PMIn 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.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 23, 2026, 02:37 PMAlso, 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

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

Quote from: kampen on Mar 25, 2026, 02:59 PMHello, dear Ufopolitics,
[...]
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

Hello dear friend,

Well, you can start by watching the video shown below...uploaded about eight years ago.


Please note that I am using 'particles displacement' -on the animated graphics- along the field lines, just to expose movement directions.

The Magnetic Field is a curvilinear Force, that impinges this flow of energy on the induced conductors.
The closer the Field is to induced, coil(s) the stronger these forces are induced.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Reply to message #23

Hello, dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning in such depth.

I think we are now reaching the core of where our views diverge, and also where they may still connect.

First, regarding your question:
Yes, I do agree that magnetic domains and what is often referred to as a "Bloch wall" exist in ferromagnetic materials, and that they can be observed indirectly with tools like viewing film or ferrocell-type setups. 

I also agree that the internal structure of the magnetic field in matter is much more complex than what is usually presented in simplified models.
Where I think we differ is not in whether structure exists, but in how that structure translates into measurable electrical effects (EMF).
 
On your Method 1 vs Method 2 distinction
Your explanation based on Bloch wall positioning is very interesting, especially the idea that:

• In Method 1, inducing and induced fields "share" the same region/core
• In Method 2, they are spatially separated

From a physical standpoint, I can absolutely see how this would affect:

• coupling strength
• energy density
• interaction between fields
• efficiency under load

So I agree with you here:
These two configurations are not equivalent in performance or field interaction.
 
Now, where I would carefully draw a distinction
Even though the field interaction geometry is different, I would still interpret both cases as governed by the same fundamental law:

• the induced voltage depends on how the magnetic field linked to the conductor changes in time

The key point is:
The mutual coupling between coils changes depending on geometry
So in your terms:

• Method 1 → higher coupling (stronger, more "dense" interaction)
• Method 2 → lower coupling (more separated interaction)

But mathematically, this difference appears as:

• different mutual inductance values
• not necessarily a different underlying induction mechanism

 
About the "two mechanisms" question
You mentioned that, based on your experiments, you consider them completely different mechanisms.

I would phrase it slightly differently:
They may behave very differently,
 but they might still be different spatial realizations of the same electromagnetic principle
In other words:

• The field topology is different (and very important — I agree with you)
• But the law that governs induction remains the same

 
On your point about "generalization"
You wrote:
If everything is just flux variation, then everything becomes the same — transformer, generator, etc.
I understand your concern here.

But I would say:

• The law is the same
• The implementation is not

Just like:

• All motion obeys Newton's laws
• But a pendulum, a turbine, and a rocket behave very differently

So in this sense:

• Transformer, generator, Figuera system → same law
• Different geometry, distribution, and dynamics

 
On field structure and understanding
I fully agree with you on one very important point:

We cannot properly analyze these systems without considering field distribution, geometry, and interaction
This is exactly why your work on:

• spatial displacement
• coil positioning
• segmented excitation

is very valuable.
 
Where I think we can meet
I believe a productive way forward is:

• You continue describing the system in terms of field structure and interaction (Bloch walls, displacement, etc.)
• I interpret the same system in terms of coupling, flux linkage, and time variation

And then:
We compare both interpretations against measurable results.
If both descriptions predict the same outcomes, then we may simply be using different languages to describe the same physics.
 
Final thought
I do not dismiss your experimental observations; on the contrary, I think they are very important.
My only intention is to ensure that:

• we can connect those observations
• to a framework that allows prediction, modeling, and reproducibility

Because that is where theory becomes engineering.
 
I hope this helps clarify my position, and I am genuinely interested to continue exploring this with you.

Sincerely,
 Alex

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 07:24 AMReply to message #23

Hello, dear Ufopolitics,

Hello dear friend.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 07:24 AMThank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning in such depth.

I think we are now reaching the core of where our views diverge, and also where they may still connect.

You're welcome.
Great, I am looking forward to that connection. as agreement of thoughts, even if they 'diverge' a bit...

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 07:24 AMFirst, regarding your question:
Yes, I do agree that magnetic domains and what is often referred to as a "Bloch wall" exist in ferromagnetic materials, and that they can be observed indirectly with tools like viewing film or ferrocell-type setups.

Great, now we have a 'common agreement point' achieved!

However, here I must point out on your remarks above...the underlined (by me) part: ""Bloch wall" exist in ferromagnetic materials"...it sounds like "Bloch wall" only exists because of being a ferromagnetic material(s)".

And it is Not.

The Bloch wall is part of the Field Structure, as are their Poles and Symmetries...the Non Magnetized ferromagnetic material does not have Bloch walls nor magnetized domains, unless a Magnetic Field is hosted there.

A Magnetic Field (Spectrum of Bipolar Symmetric Structure Properties) is not a "Physical Entity", meaning it is a 'non material' entity, and still possesses a Bloch Wall as Poles...it is just Not "Materialized".

So, when a Magnetic Field has not been 'Materialized', and it is just in our surroundings, it's a Spectrum Structure that can not directly interact with the Physical World materials.

We can just "Magnetize" or "Materialize" this Bipolar Structure into any NON Magnetized, ferromagnetic material, where the Magnetic Field (Bipolar Spectrum Structure) Aligns and Organizes to Take Full control over this material's Molecular Structures (domains) as a HOST.

On a ferromagnetic material the Magnetic Field can rapidly establish its Full Spectrum, due to the characteristics of these type of materials.

So, the Bloch Wall as both polarities (North & South) plus other forms of its Bipolar Structured Symmetries belong to the Field, NOT to the host ferromagnetic material where Field has taken over.

How the "Magnetizing Process" (Magnetic Field taking over the ferromagnetic material as a Host) is done?

• We can simply (lightly magnetize) a piece of ferromagnetic material by approach and contact to a strong Magnetic Field. Example: just touch the ip of a screww driver to a neo magnet, it becomes magnetized.
• Or the way is done to "make" a Permanent Magnet, by placing the ferromagnetic material WITHIN a Hollow Coil and running through Coil a High Current and Voltage for just a few seconds.

Being the second (2) method the one used to make permanent magnets at an Industrial Level.
So, on simple terms we just wrap a wire in a "Coil Shape" around a piece of iron, run a High Current and Voltage and "Vualá"...just like MAGIC, we have a Permanent Magnet.
Is it a 'Magic Process'?...Nope, we just INVOKED this Field Spactrum to take over its Ferromagnetic HOST.

Now, why there are different type of Permanent Magnets, like a Ceramic Magnet and a Neodymium Magnet?...Is it a 'different type' of Magnetic Field?

The right answer is NO, it is the same Magnetic Field for BOTH Materials.
The difference lies on the 'Characteristics & Properties' of the Hosting Material. However, it is the same Magnetic Field as the one on the Ceramic Alloy.
On the Neodymium and other alloy materials (like Iron-Boron, Cobalt, Nickel, etc) which are defined as Rare Earth Materials, this same Magnetic Field Spectrum establish its Structure in a much Better, Favorable Environment.
So, on Neo Materials the Field manifests much stronger capabilities and properties as longer duration time on this type of Host (100+ years).

Concluding, the Magnetic Fields Spectrums plus their Structures exists all over our Planet, in the thin air, randomly dispersed...and we just need to "Invoke it" to take Momentary possession of its Hosting Material.
Now, one main thing to consider here:

• We use Electricity running on a Coil Shape (ONLY) to make this "Ritual"...or Process called 'Magnetization'.
• And with this now 'Hosted' Magnetic Field into our 'New Permanent Magnet'...we can Generate Electricity INFINITELY, PERPETUALLY as long as the Field Spectrum 'lives' on this hosting material.
• And of course, we can also just run 'momentary' lower currents and voltages on a steel core wrapped on a Coil Shape (ONLY) to 'Invoke' this Magnetic Field Spectrum and 'turn it off' as we cut off power.
• And we call them 'Electro-Magnets'.

However, the "Field" is exactly the same Field, with its own Bipolar Structures, like Bloch Walls, Polarizations & Symmetries  etc, invoked to Host different Ferromagnetic Materials as 'Temporary' HOSTS.

Of course, there are many 'Natural Magnets' like Lodestone, Magnetite, etc, which came with the Magnetic Field already hosting, and magnetized by different Natural Process, like Earth Magnetic Field over long time periods or a Lightning Strikes.

So, either on Natural Magnets or Magnetized by Humans, are all the same Magnetic Field that took over a Ferromagnetic Material as a Host.

Magnetic Fields as ALL its Structures Components, are VIRTUAL ENTITIES, that are randomly dispersed (Not Compacted. Non Materialized) all around our Planet Atmosphere...as our Planet is another Host of its Magnetic Field.

Another interesting Natural magnetization takes place when we are just drilling with a non magnetized steel bit into a non magnetized steel piece at high revolutions...when you pull that Drill bit, it is holding all steel shavings on its tip...which is now magnetized by just spinning this bit into the steel piece... Here just the SPINNING ACTION invokes the Field to Host the drill Bit Tip.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 07:24 AMI also agree that the internal structure of the magnetic field in matter is much more complex than what is usually presented in simplified models.
Where I think we differ is not in whether structure exists, but in how that structure translates into measurable electrical effects (EMF).

On your Method 1 vs Method 2 distinction
Your explanation based on Bloch wall positioning is very interesting, especially the idea that:

• In Method 1, inducing and induced fields "share" the same region/core
• In Method 2, they are spatially separated

From a physical standpoint, I can absolutely see how this would affect:

• coupling strength
• energy density
• interaction between fields
• efficiency under load

So I agree with you here:
These two configurations are not equivalent in performance or field interaction.

Now, where I would carefully draw a distinction
Even though the field interaction geometry is different, I would still interpret both cases as governed by the same fundamental law:

• the induced voltage depends on how the magnetic field linked to the conductor changes in time

The key point is:
The [/color]mutual coupling between coils changes depending on geometry
So in your terms:

• Method 1 → higher coupling (stronger, more "dense" interaction)
• Method 2 → lower coupling (more separated interaction)

But mathematically, this difference appears as:

• different mutual inductance values
• not necessarily a different underlying induction mechanism

About the "two mechanisms" question
You mentioned that, based on your experiments, you consider them completely different mechanisms.

I would phrase it slightly differently:
They may behave very differently,
 but they might still be different spatial realizations of the same electromagnetic principle
In other words:

• The field topology is different (and very important — I agree with you)
• But the law that governs induction remains the same

Ok, yes, I agree on your point above: "The Law that governs induction are the same" for both Methods.
Yes, indeed they are exactly the same Law!

As, whenever we are talking about 'Magnetic Induction' we must always realize that we are dealing with TWO Fields:

• The Inducing Field
• The Induced Field (once we close the circuit through a Load)

Now, going back to Methods 1 & 2;

• On Method 1, The Inducing Field and the Induced Field are COEXISTING WITHIN the same Spatial and Geometrical positioning.
• On Method 2, the Inducing Field is completely separated (Different Spatial Positioning) from the Induced Field.

We must realize here that on our 'Physical World' it is completely impossible to have two Physical, Material Magnetic Fields (already hosting such different materials) withing the same exact Spatial Positioning!!
Therefore, the only way this Method 1 could be possible, is that at least One (1) of the Fields is on Virtual (Non Physical) Mode.
Then, this fact defines the Method 1 with this very Radical Difference from Method 2:

• Method 1 have Two Coexisting Fields within the same Spatial Geometry ( One Field Virtual, the other Physiscal)
• Method 2, Both Fields, Inducing & Induced are purely Physical and separated by different Spatial Geometries.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 07:24 AMOn your point about "generalization"
You wrote:
If everything is just flux variation, then everything becomes the same — transformer, generator, etc.
I understand your concern here.

But I would say:

• The law is the same
• The implementation is not

Just like:

• All motion obeys Newton's laws
• But a pendulum, a turbine, and a rocket behave very differently

So in this sense:

• Transformer, generator, Figuera system → same law
• Different geometry, distribution, and dynamics

Again, I fully agree here as well.
If you realize, these Two Methods I denominated before are based on ONLY a Mechanical Approach, cited on the Title of the Post in between parenthesis.
Both both Methods are based on the same Law of Induction, from Michael Faraday (originally) and later on improved by James C. Maxwell.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 07:24 AMOn field structure and understanding
I fully agree with you on one very important point:

We cannot properly analyze these systems without considering field distribution, geometry, and interaction
This is exactly why your work on:

• spatial displacement
• coil positioning
• segmented excitation

is very valuable.

Where I think we can meet
I believe a productive way forward is:

• You continue describing the system in terms of field structure and interaction (Bloch walls, displacement, etc.)
• I interpret the same system in terms of coupling, flux linkage, and time variation

And then:
We compare both interpretations against measurable results.
If both descriptions predict the same outcomes, then we may simply be using different languages to describe the same physics.

I also agree here...and honestly the part that I do not agree with, is just denominating or calling the process of Induction with names like: Flux Cutting, or Flux Linking, or Flux Changing...
Just because the Magnetic Field (with all its complex structure) is not just Fully described as "Flux".
How is that so called "flux" propagated?
Is it LINEAR?
Is it Curvilinear?
Is it Randomly disbursed?

Even Faraday (the discoverer and Inventor of the EM Induction) named it "Imaginary Lines of Force"...
So, whenever Faraday mentioned this word, flux, he was referring to his Lines of Force, as flux plus its symbol was a short way to express 'Lines of Force' on his Mathematical Equations.
As that name "imaginary" did not like to the Materialists Scientists at the time...
But in reality they are LINES OF FORCE.
And they do have a specific Spatial Geometry that could be seen perfectly well through Ferrocell Lens as on Color CRT's.
Not so on Iron shavings methods...the Lines of Force will not be defined.
These Lines of Force are Flexible and Dynamic.
And because of these geometries on these Lines of Force, is that Induction takes place.

Name "Flux" originates from the Latin Fluxus which just means FLOW...again, flow of what?

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 07:24 AMFinal thought
I do not dismiss your experimental observations; on the contrary, I think they are very important.
My only intention is to ensure that:

• we can connect those observations
• to a framework that allows prediction, modeling, and reproducibility

Because that is where theory becomes engineering.

I hope this helps clarify my position, and I am genuinely interested to continue exploring this with you.

Sincerely,
 Alex

Exactly, that's the point.
And in order to Conceive, Design and Build our Models... we need the FULLY understanding on how the Induction Process takes place IN DETAIL, as understanding Field Propagation, as all Field complex Spatial Patterns Interactions and Geometries.
Once we have this full control of knowledge, then putting together a Model that would work as expected will not be a problem.
And again, "flux cutting", "Flux Linking", or "Flux changing" because of being 'so general terms' will not allow our full understanding to be able to design such Machines.

See the time it is taking for both of us to get into a full agreement?

Thank You and again, absolutely agree with you on most.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Reply to message #27

Hello, dear Ufopolitics,

Thank you for this detailed clarification. 
I can see we are getting much closer to a common ground, which is very encouraging.

I also appreciate the effort you put into explaining your view of the magnetic field as a structured entity with symmetry, polarity, and internal organization. 
I agree with you that:

• the field is not just a simple scalar quantity
• its spatial structure and geometry matter
• and that "lines of force" are a meaningful way to visualize its behavior

So on that level, we are fully aligned.
 
On your clarification about Bloch walls.
I understand your point that the Bloch wall is not "created" by the material, but rather becomes observable when the field organizes within a ferromagnetic host.
From a classical standpoint, I would phrase it slightly differently:

• the field exists independently
• but the domain structure (and Bloch walls) are how the material responds to that field

So what we observe (Bloch walls, domains) is a material manifestation of field interaction, not necessarily the field itself in free space.
But importantly, this does not contradict your observations. 
It is more a difference in interpretation of what is fundamental vs what is observable.
 
On your concept of "virtual" vs "physical" fields
This is a very interesting point, and I think it is where our interpretations diverge the most.
You wrote that in Method 1:
one field must be "virtual" for both to coexist in the same space
From my perspective, I would not introduce a distinction between "virtual" and "physical" fields.
Instead, I would describe it as:
multiple field contributions superimposing in the same region.

In classical electromagnetism:

• fields from different sources coexist naturally
• they add vectorially
• and the material responds to the total field

So in Method 1, rather than:

• one field being virtual

I would interpret it as:

• both inducing and induced fields existing simultaneously
• interacting through superposition and material response

 
On Method 1 vs Method 2 (refined agreement)
I think we now actually agree on something important:

• The law of induction is the same
• The geometry and interaction are different

Where your insight is very valuable is here:
The spatial relationship between fields strongly affects performance
So your distinction:

• Method 1 → co-located interaction (strong, dense coupling)
• Method 2 → separated interaction (weaker, more distributed coupling)

is absolutely meaningful from an engineering perspective.
 
On your concern about "flux"
I understand your objection to the term "flux" being too general or even misleading.
And I agree with you in this sense:
The word "flux" alone does not describe:

• geometry
• curvature
• spatial gradients
• or field topology

However, in the mathematical framework, "flux" is simply:

• a way to integrate the field over an area

It does not deny:

• lines of force
• spatial structure
• or field geometry

It just compresses all that information into a measurable quantity.
So I would say:
"Flux" is not the full description of the field
 but it is a useful projection of it for calculating induction
 
On your key question: how is "flux" propagated?
This is actually where your intuition about structure is important.
From a classical viewpoint:

• the field is continuous and spatially distributed
• it is neither purely linear nor random
• it follows the geometry imposed by sources and materials

So your emphasis on:

• curvature
• spatial patterns
• and interaction

is very relevant — especially for designing machines.
 
Where I think we are now aligned.
At this point, I believe we agree on:

• The law of induction (Faraday/Maxwell)
• The importance of field geometry
• The difference between Method 1 and Method 2 in performance
• The need to go beyond overly simplified descriptions

 
Where we still differ slightly
The remaining difference seems to be:

• You describe the field in terms of intrinsic structure (Bloch walls, vortex-like behavior, virtual/physical distinction)
• I describe it in terms of superposition, coupling, and field integrals

But both approaches are trying to describe the same physical reality.
 
Final thought
I think the key now is exactly what you said:
"Once we fully understand the process, designing the machine becomes straightforward."
So perhaps the best way forward is:
take one specific configuration (for example, your Linear-Series setup)
 analyze it from both perspectives
 and compare predictions vs actual measurements.
That would allow us to bridge theory and experiment directly.
 
I truly appreciate this exchange.
 
It is seldom to reach this level of depth and partial agreement.
Looking forward to continuing.

Sincerely,
 Alex

Hello All,

Ok, on my previous post I was citing the "Magnetization" or "Materialization" Process of a Magnetic Field.

As expanding a little bit on this process, I will explain how it takes place in detail. (You will NOT find this info anywhere)

First, we get a piece of Steel....then wrap enameled or 'magnetic' wire around it forming what we all know as a "Coil".

Fine...

And as soon as we add electrical power to that coil:

• The FIRST ELEMENT that is created is the Bloch Wall.

As this Bloch Wall is "automatically" generated EXACTLY at the Gravitational CENTER of that Coil.
    2. Once this Bloch Wall is fully generated and functional, it starts a process of Emanating to the Physical World the Two Poles (N & S), in a perfectly directional fashion from its Center in opposite ways towards two ends which go through the ferromagnetic Material of our Steel Core ENDS to the Spatial surroundings.
    3. Now, these Two Poles EMANATE to Space in Multiple Curvilinear Lines of Force, which then RETURN back to the "Bloch Wall" but on this Plane 'EDGES' which contours also into outer spatial limits which are outside the Coil and Steel Core physical or mass limits.
    4. These 'Emanations and Returns' of these Lines of Force through Spatial Curvatures, takes place in Two different ways or 'Levels of Force' defined as

• Intermediate Pressures
• High Pressure

The Intermediate Pressures emanate from center of Accretion Disk, called Bloch Wall, and return at the external borders of this Accretion Disk.
The Higher Pressures Curvilinear Forces Emanate also from the center of Disk, BUT, they return exactly at the OPPOSITE POLE DEAD CENTER.

These Emanation and Return Curvilinear Forces are defined as:

• Emanating Forces are Centrifugal
• Returning Forces are Centripetal.

And after all these Lines of Force Structures are set, then the Magnetic Field is completely formed.

This Process of Magnetization, after we add power to Coil, takes nanoseconds to "Install our Field" into the New Ferromagnetic Host.

A more detailed and Graphic info can be found on Ken Wheeler's book.

As I also uploaded (10 years ago) a video with 3D Animated Graphics in order that it could be seen and understood much better all previous explanations:


Whenever I relate to a "Magnetization Process" I am referring to Both Methods:

• The Permanent Magnetization (Industrial Method to create PM's)
• The Momentary Magnetization (Electromagnets)

They are ALL the same final result, exact Magnetized Field Structures for both.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello Mr. UFO,

Reading your detailed analysis of the field movement only one strategy comes to my mind, which is the following. Instead of using a steel core we can use a nonmagnetic hallow tube and all coils are installed as usual. Then we can use a solid steel cylindrical core length of the group 1-8 exciting coils having a center hole to keep it in the center with a nonmagnetic rod which will be fastened at the left and right ends. When we start the sequencing process the core will move with the field maintaining the center within each excited group. Basically, I see an electromagnet moving back and forth without varying its strength. However, then a question rises. When the core approaches to the end secondaries, what's going to happen there? If we use a solid core on end secondaries, will it solve any issues there? when the main core approaches to end core will it show a field spike as there will be a gap?
I also understand that moving the core at 60Hz will create huge vibration, which might be another issue. Any thoughts? 

Thanks!

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 03:21 PMReply to message #27

Hello, dear Ufopolitics,

Hello dear friend,

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 03:21 PMThank you for this detailed clarification.
I can see we are getting much closer to a common ground, which is very encouraging.

I also appreciate the effort you put into explaining your view of the magnetic field as a structured entity with symmetry, polarity, and internal organization.
I agree with you that:

• the field is not just a simple scalar quantity
• its spatial structure and geometry matter
• and that "lines of force" are a meaningful way to visualize its behavior

So on that level, we are fully aligned.

Great!

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 03:21 PMOn your clarification about Bloch walls.
I understand your point that the Bloch wall is not "created" by the material, but rather becomes observable when the field organizes within a ferromagnetic host.
From a classical standpoint, I would phrase it slightly differently:

• the field exists independently
• but the domain structure (and Bloch walls) are how the material responds to that field

So what we observe (Bloch walls, domains) is a material manifestation of field interaction, not necessarily the field itself in free space.
But importantly, this does not contradict your observations.
It is more a difference in interpretation of what is fundamental vs what is observable.

Unfortunately, the "Classical Interpretation" is never going to admit that the Bloch Wall is part of the Magnetic Field.
The same way on "magnetized Domains within the Molecular Structure of Magnetized Material (HOST)

However, and according to my latest post (before this one, Post# 29) I clearly define that the Bloch Wal is actually the Origination Plane for the Magnetic Field to start being generated.

Therefore, it can never be part of the Hosted Material, but an ESSENTIAL Part of the Magnetic Field.

And actually, the name given by its Discoverer, Felix Bloch, does not serve as the FUNCTION DESCRIPTION of this Plane dividing exactly at the CENTER of every Magnetic Field Opposed Poles (N & S).

This "Bloch Wall" is actually the Counterspatial Field or the Dielectric Plane, which serves as a 'GATE' between the Aether Existance Field and our Physical Spatial Environment.

From this Counterspatial Field or Dielectriec Plane is where the Two Polarizations Emanate and Return through Centrifugal and Centripetal Force Curvilinear and Spatial Forces.

And I am really sorry, but unfortunately "Your Classical Electromagnetism Standpoint" is NEVER going to admit ANY of all the above facts.

Therefore, I will never agree with their Old, Primitive and Obsolete Electromagnetism Concepts and Standpoints.

And that is simply the reason why, we have not being able to design and build an Overunity Machine!!

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 03:21 PMOn your concept of "virtual" vs "physical" fields
This is a very interesting point, and I think it is where our interpretations diverge the most.
You wrote that in Method 1:
one field must be "virtual" for both to coexist in the same space
From my perspective, I would not introduce a distinction between "virtual" and "physical" fields.
Instead, I would describe it as:
multiple field contributions superimposing in the same region.

In classical electromagnetism:

• fields from different sources coexist naturally
• they add vectorially
• and the material responds to the total field

Again, if you insist in citing "Classical Electromagnetism" to justify your points of view against mine, then we will never be able to reach an agreement.

And here I will just cite what you wrote above -according to Classic EM- which will contradict itself further on (I will demonstrate it):

Classic EM states that in a Magnetic Field there is ONLY ONE LINEAR FLOW DIRECTION, (ONE VECTOR OF FORCE) Known as B.
As their Vector "B" Only travels "from SOUTH to NORTH"

And am sorry but that is simply TRASH INFO, NOT GOOD & Plain and simple B.S (Bull s***)
As it has CONFUSED every single student of EM for Centuries!!

Ok, so you wrote that Two Fields can "Add Vectorially"

So, according to "Classic EM" if each Field has only One(1) Vector "B" from S to N, then when Faraday did that Experiment I cited before of introducing a charged Electromagnet into another Hollow Coil, connected to a Galvanometer...it should have added exactly ZERO EMF... However, that was not the case, as it did showed a Positive gain on EMF.
Because, according to Lenz, and it is very true, the Nature of the Induced Field would ALWAYS BE OPPOSED to the one which originated it (Inducing Field)

As in plain Math World (Not Classic EM) two Opposed vectors of the same magnitude will CANCEL to ZERO.
Or, in the event that one has more magnitude than the other, but still OPPOSED, the result STILL would be a "Subtraction" and NOT and "Addition".
For vectors to be added together, they MUST OBEY MATHEMATICAL VECTOR'S RULES (which have nothing to do with "Classic EM")

• For Vectors to be added, they BOTH need to have SAME DIRECTION of Force.
• When Vectors have OPPOSED DIRECTIONS they will SUBTRACT.

Now, you also wrote above: multiple field contributions superimposing in the same region

That statement is vague, and confusing.

Yes, I could have multiple fields aiming towards (contributing) to the 'same region' or 'common region' by superimposing them all.




Let's say that I wind Two Identical Coils (same number of turns, same wire gauge, same length of wire) on the same Steel Core, one on top of another. (like on my Linear Series Setup)

Then I power them with Opposite Electrical polarizations (applying Lenz, in order to obtain Opposite Vectorial Fields)

Then what happens here?

Question: Will we have a Resultant Stronger Magnetic Field (because adding both Coils Fields) than just one coil generate a Single Field?

@kampen ,  Can you answer above  question, please?

(Let's see if your Classic Electromagnetic Standpoint(s) hold true here or not?)

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 03:21 PMSo in Method 1, rather than:

• one field being virtual

I would interpret it as:

• both inducing and induced fields existing simultaneously
• interacting through superposition and material response

On Method 1 vs Method 2 (refined agreement)
I think we now actually agree on something important:

• The law of induction is the same
• The geometry and interaction are different

Where your insight is very valuable is here:
The spatial relationship between fields strongly affects performance
So your distinction:

• Method 1 → co-located interaction (strong, dense coupling)
• Method 2 → separated interaction (weaker, more distributed coupling)

is absolutely meaningful from an engineering perspective.

Great, yes we agree, however if you read my previous response...it would answer if your interpretation. is correct.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 03:21 PMOn your concern about "flux"
I understand your objection to the term "flux" being too general or even misleading.
And I agree with you in this sense:
The word "flux" alone does not describe:

• geometry
• curvature
• spatial gradients
• or field topology

However, in the mathematical framework, "flux" is simply:

• a way to integrate the field over an area

It does not deny:

• lines of force
• spatial structure
• or field geometry

It just compresses all that information into a measurable quantity.
So I would say:
"Flux" is not the full description of the field
 but it is a useful projection of it for calculating induction

On your key question: how is "flux" propagated?
This is actually where your intuition about structure is important.
From a classical viewpoint:

• the field is continuous and spatially distributed
• it is neither purely linear nor random
• it follows the geometry imposed by sources and materials

So your emphasis on:

• curvature
• spatial patterns
• and interaction

is very relevant — especially for designing machines.

Where I think we are now aligned.
At this point, I believe we agree on:

• The law of induction (Faraday/Maxwell)
• The importance of field geometry
• The difference between Method 1 and Method 2 in performance
• The need to go beyond overly simplified descriptions

Where we still differ slightly
The remaining difference seems to be:

• You describe the field in terms of intrinsic structure (Bloch walls, vortex-like behavior, virtual/physical distinction)
• I describe it in terms of superposition, coupling, and field integrals

But both approaches are trying to describe the same physical reality.

Ok, I understand -as I wrote it before- that "flux" is just useful for Mathematical Equations and Formulas.
But NOT for us to discuss -in depth- how Induction takes place.
Looking to re-design the Generator Concepts into a New Type of Machine.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 26, 2026, 03:21 PMFinal thought
I think the key now is exactly what you said:
"Once we fully understand the process, designing the machine becomes straightforward."
So perhaps the best way forward is:
take one specific configuration (for example, your Linear-Series setup)
 analyze it from both perspectives
 and compare predictions vs actual measurements.
That would allow us to bridge theory and experiment directly.

I truly appreciate this exchange.

It is seldom to reach this level of depth and partial agreement.
Looking forward to continuing.

Sincerely,
 Alex

Yes, agree.

However, it is essential, that -on your end- you open your mind into this new concepts of EM.
That are based on new tools, as new Instruments developed on this century.
Plus all other older seized books about EM Theories, which just by deviating from Classic EM, they were banned.

And I will repeat again what I wrote previously:

Again, if you insist on citing "Classical Electromagnetism" to backup your arguments against mine, then unfortunately, we will never be able to reach an agreement.

So, I encourage you to Open Your Mind, and close that old book about "Classic EM Standpoints" written two centuries ago.

On a separate note: I will be very busy for the next few days, so will not have much time to respond these large exchanges.

As I also want to continue building my Commutator...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Art Z. on Mar 26, 2026, 06:17 PMHello Mr. UFO,

Reading your detailed analysis of the field movement only one strategy comes to my mind, which is the following. Instead of using a steel core we can use a nonmagnetic hallow tube and all coils are installed as usual. Then we can use a solid steel cylindrical core length of the group 1-8 exciting coils having a center hole to keep it in the center with a nonmagnetic rod which will be fastened at the left and right ends. When we start the sequencing process the core will move with the field maintaining the center within each excited group. Basically, I see an electromagnet moving back and forth without varying its strength. However, then a question rises. When the core approaches to the end secondaries, what's going to happen there? If we use a solid core on end secondaries, will it solve any issues there? when the main core approaches to end core will it show a field spike as there will be a gap?
I also understand that moving the core at 60Hz will create huge vibration, which might be another issue. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Hello ArtZ.

Great thinking!!

I have used that same 'analogy' when trying to explain how this system works, with a traveling steel piston, the exact size of one group...and I even set a pair of 'rubber dampers' on each end

https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,5.msg1932.html#msg1932

Also read the other depth analysis of inconveniences of this setup on that post.

But, trust me, we will not need any of that...

The Virtual Field will easily travel within the laminated steel core, and without any physical friction or noise.

Wait until am done with my setup...please, be patient  ;D

Ufopolitics

Dear friend Ufopolitics,

Thank you for your detailed reply and for sharing your perspective.

At this stage, it is clear that we do not fully agree on several fundamental aspects, and rather than continuing to debate theory in depth, I think it would be more productive to focus on practical results.

The best way forward, in my opinion, is for you to complete your mechanical commutator system and present clear measurement data.
If your interpretation and approach are correct, then the results should speak for themselves and could potentially lead to new insights or even reshape existing fundamental electromagnetic understanding.

I am genuinely interested in seeing your experimental results.
We will see.

Best regards,
 Alex

Quote from: kampen on Mar 27, 2026, 02:58 PMDear friend Ufopolitics,

Hello dear friend,

Quote from: kampen on Mar 27, 2026, 02:58 PMThank you for your detailed reply and for sharing your perspective.

Always my pleasure.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 27, 2026, 02:58 PMAt this stage, it is clear that we do not fully agree on several fundamental aspects, and rather than continuing to debate theory in depth, I think it would be more productive to focus on practical results.

You're totally right and I agree that only a "Machine" working as I expect, would do make a difference.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 27, 2026, 02:58 PMThe best way forward, in my opinion, is for you to complete your mechanical commutator system and present clear measurement data.

Definitively.

And if everything comes out the way I expect (on my personal life), then I will get back on it the next coming weeks.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 27, 2026, 02:58 PMIf your interpretation and approach are correct, then the results should speak for themselves and could potentially lead to new insights or even reshape existing fundamental electromagnetic understanding.

That's the main reason I am going through so much work...to demonstrate exactly what you've written above.
I am very sure this new System will operate much better than my previous Method 2.

Quote from: kampen on Mar 27, 2026, 02:58 PMI am genuinely interested in seeing your experimental results.
We will see.

Best regards,
 Alex

You would and so everyone here.

In the meantime I will keep finishing my left out points to present on this Topic...

Best regards my dear friend

Ufopolitics

Dear friend Ufopolitics,

Thank you for your reply.
I am glad we are aligned on focusing now on practical results.

I completely understand that these developments take time, especially when dealing with real hardware and life circumstances.

No rush, what matters is doing it properly.
I appreciate your commitment to pushing this work forward, and I am genuinely interested to see how your new system performs compared to your previous Method 2.
 
Your persistence and experimental approach are definitely valuable.
In the meantime, I also look forward to the additional points you plan to share here they help build a clearer picture of your overall concept.
When the time comes, and you have results, it will be very interesting to analyze them together and see how they relate to both perspectives we have discussed.

Wishing you all the best with your progress.

Best regards,
 Alex

Hello All,

Ok, so I am going to review here this Topic that I started a while back...but still consistent with my approach.

https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,56.0.html

I have cleaned "all noise posts" that were distracting the main Topic material.

It is an interesting Graphical comparison to the way our actual Sciences and Academia relates to the Vector of Force 'B' as only running IN ONE DIRECTION, or from South to North, and I quoted my original post referring to this issue below:

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jul 12, 2024, 08:09 PM

THE B-FIELD VECTOR VERSUS DOMAIN WALLS OF MAGNETIC FIELDS

Hello to All,
Ok, despite the enormous amount of work that I have in front of me, I will also add to it this Magnetism part that I consider is of very high importance to finally understand Magnetic Fields.
Our Modern Science related to Magnetism has only recognized the B-Field, as a "one way" vector that travels from North to South Poles on a Magnetic Field.

MAGNETIC_B_FIELD_VECTOR_STRUCTURE.png

By this Convention, the B-Field Vector serves to identify a Magnetic Field North and South Polarities, as in mathematical Formulas and Laws as the Lorentz Force. At this point referring to "B-Field" is like invoking the whole Magnetic Field.

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

But this B-Field Vector Convention ignores completely the existence of a Bloch, a Néel or any Domain Wall  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_wall_(magnetism)#Bloch_wall)within the very center of ALL Magnetic Fields...
And this very Conservative and Orthodox teaching does NOT represent -at all- the truthful and Real Structure of the Magnetic Fields.
The point here is that not just one, but two Nobel Price Scientists, discovered in different times of our History, the existence of this Domain Wall at the Center of every Magnetic Field.
The First (1952) Nobel Price on Physics, Felix Bloch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Bloch), based on his work about: "development of new ways and methods for nuclear magnetic precision measurements"...discovered the "Bloch Wall"
The Second (1970) Nobel Price on Physics, Louis Eugène Félix Néel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_N%C3%A9el), based on his work: "studies of the magnetic properties of solids".

BLOCH_NEEL_WALL.jpg
BLOCH_NEEL_WALL_2.png
Domain_Walls_3.png

Ufopolitics

And I quoted myself again below on a FULL ANALYSIS:

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jul 13, 2024, 04:39 PM

"THE REALITY WITHIN THE "REALITY" THEY WANT US TO SEE (THE "DEEP SOUTH CRASH")"

So, according to actual Science related to the "Magnetic Structure" they want us to see "IT" looks like this:

MAGNETIC_B_FIELD_VECTOR_STRUCTURE.png

It looks so simple, which is very easy to "swallow" and "digest it "without any issues...actually, it has hold for so many years!!
It consists of ONLY ONE WAY VECTOR, they decided to name it "B-Field", and according to their "convention" also decided to a DIRECTION from South to North...
In Plain and simple Mathematical equation, the interpretation of a "FORCE VECTOR", means that the MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTION a Magnet have, ONLY go from South to North, right?
And in plain Physics analysis, a ONE-WAY Force Vector means that the DIRECTION is ALWAYS on the sense that the small arrow indicates, like a ONE WAY FLUID FLOW ON A HYDRAULIC VALVE OR PUMP, as a simple example.
You can do your own search about above analysis of a FORCE VECTOR in both branches, Mathematical and Physics...to find out all written here is correct.
Now, let's go directly to analyze a Magnetic Field behavior, with B-Field Force Vector:
And you would ask yourselves: -of course- this B-Field Theory have been verified and proven-many times- according to the ATTRACTION AND REPULSION FORCES between North-South...
So, it is OK, let's do it again... ;D
First, I will select the easier ones...like North-South (Attraction)

APPROACHING_NORTH_SOUTH_POLES.png

So, here the B-Field Theory holds perfectly well on above image...a N-S-N-S is a well known "Magnetic Chain" ...let's go to the next one:

APPROACHING_NORTH_SOUTH_POLES_2.png

As also if we just change the FORCE FIELD VECTOR DIRECTION...still holds true...no "flaws" up to now...next please:

APPROACHING_NORTH_NORTH_POLES.png

On above image two North Poles are facing each other's, in a linear directional fashion, we all know as "REPULSION"...and the B-Field Theory is still holding perfectly well here!!
The two North Poles are acting against each other's with the SAME MAGNITUDE OF FORCE in a DIRECTIONAL AND LINEAR FASHION...
We all know perfectly well the FORCE we "feel" whenever trying to bring TWO NORTH POLES TOGETHER!!
So, the B-Field Theory holds very true on this REPULSION...
Please next slide...

APPROACHING_TWO_SOUTH_POLES.png

OOPS!!...Please can you disappear that slide off my sight?... >:(

Here, I am sorry to tell all of you...the B-Field Theory simply "CRASHED"...It no longer "holds true"...whenever we approach TWO SOUTH POLES.
if this Force Vector called B-Field, only having one direction (from South to North) and EXERTING that magnitude of Force ONLY on that direction...then we can plainly conclude that the SOUTH POLE HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO FORCE, ZERO MAGNITUDE OF FORCE, simply because it is the ORIGEN POINT, where THE TWO MAGNITUDES (from the two vectors) TRAVELS AWAY FROM EACH OTHER'S.
In ANY Mathematical Formula with Vectors, TWO VECTORS of the same Magnitude and THIS SPECIFIC OPPOSITE Direction, meeting at  their TAIL, would definitively CANCEL each other's TO A BIG ZERO!!
This would mean in very simple "Layman Terms" that SOUTH POLE have ABSOLUTELY NO FORCE, ZERO MAGNITUDE WHATSOEVER, OPPOSING THE B-FIELD DIRECTION, if we compare it to NORTH POLE.
And further, if we simply decided to test the SOUTH MAGNITUDE FORCE of a Magnetic Field, which has no FORCE VECTOR with DIRECTION coming out from North towards South...
Then -according to this "B-Field Theory" - it is SO OBVIOUS that whenever we approach TWO SOUTH POLES MAGNETS of the same Grade, same Geometrical Volume...we will have absolutely ZERO REPULSION FORCE!
And all of us know, perfectly well, that it is NOT TRUE...
REALITY IS THAT NO MATTER WHAT POLE WE ARE USING, WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME REPULSION FORCE WHETHER IT IS NORTH OR SOUTH!!
Regards
Ufopolitics

Then, why do we still get a Repulsion between S><S, as strong as that one from N><N ?

It should not be any repulsion if both 'B' Vectors are opposite but both vector origen meet exactly at that center of this repulsion?

So, according to these teaching...We should NOT have ANY OPPOSITION -at ALL- whenever approaching Two South Poles...ZERO FORCE to approach them together.

BUT WE DO NOT GET THOSE RESULTS IN REALITY!!

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

Point is...that this "Lonely & Single" 'B' Vector, running ONLY from South to North...is a completely WRONG APPROACH.
Unfortunately, this is the way actual Academia and Science has been teaching this wrong configuration for Decades on Magnetism Studies.

In REALITY, we actually have TWO VECTORS on a single Magnetic Field:

• The North Vector that originates on the Bloch Wall and travels towards outer Spatial through exactly the center of the Field.
• The South Vector that travels from the Bloch Wall (Origin) to then travel through the Center of the Field.

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jul 13, 2024, 05:26 PM

THE WAY NATURE WORKS

Hello All,

So, in my belief, we lack to see how Nature really works...with so many "one way" rigid, straight Linear Vectors, that so far have help us -a lot- in resolving many complex equations...

However, we have forgotten that Nature is able to draw lines in such a way that completely DIFFERS to the way we do...

NATURE_WAY_DRAW_LINES_1.png

Yes, Nature draw LINES and CURVES in a Three Dimensional World, in a way that we do not relate at all, whenever we try to analyze and comprehend NATURAL PHENOMENA.

A MAGNETIC FIELD is a completely NATURAL PHENOMENA.

MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE CREATED BY NATURE DIRECTLY...We just gather some "equipment" together, that based on Historical Analysis and test work through History, we have "learned" HOW to INVOKE IT, and vualá!!...it is just there!!

In other words, we ONLY use a CATALYST PROCESS that we have learned it works to make Nature generate THESE TYPES OF FIELDS for us...

BUT, STILL, EVEN WHENEVER WE CREATE THESE FIELDS, THEY FULLY ABIDE COMPLETELY BASED ON NATURE RULES AND LAWS.

REAL_MAGNETIC_FIELD_VECTOR_STRUCTURE.png

So, briefly, the above image shows the real way NATURE "draws" its Vectors of Force in any Magnetic Field that we create...

And I wrote "briefly" because there is much more than just Two Linear Vectors in Opposite Directions, like represented on that image...

But basically, from a "Mathematical Force Vector" point of view or approach, in order that is much simpler to understand it.

And NOW, with this MODEL above of a Magnetic Field, we can go back to ALL previous Magnetic Interactions that I uploaded, based on the B-Field Theory...AND THEY WILL ALL HOLD TRUE FOR EVERY ONE OF THEM!!

However, it comprehends MUCH MORE CLEVER 3D GEOMETRIES... than those simply represented by just two Vectors of Force...

Regards

Ufopolitics

And, here is the simple reason why...we got it completely WRONG from the beginnings...

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

This Magnetism Book (written FIFTY TWO [52] years ago!) I highly recommend:

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jul 12, 2024, 08:23 PM

THE ALBERT ROY DAVIS AND WALTER C. RAWLS JR. WORK ON MAGNETISM

In 1974 to 1980's, these two Authors wrote some books about magnetism studies.

On the 1974 book: Magnetism and its effects on the Living System (https://archive.org/details/magnetism-and-its-effects-on-the-living-system/) on Page 23 they show this image, which cites and defines clearly the Bloch Wall on a Magnetic Field in a much better 3D Graphic:

Screen Shot 07-12-24 at 04.25 PM.PNG

As also the "Magnetic Spins" differences between the North and South Poles...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so now I am bringing here a similar drawing as previously posted...to related it later to Figuera's Design.

On the image below we have a Magnetic Field with its TWO VECTORS OF FORCE, one for each Pole:


On above Image we have a Field with its TWO VECTORS of Force:

• SBF for South B Field
• NBF for North B Field

As I am showing the Green 3D Plane as the Bloch Wall.

And below, I am showing the Two Vectors Configuration as having a COMMON POINT of ORIGEN (Bloch Wall) called Tail or Vector Start Point.

As we all 'should know' this CENTER or Vector Origen is an INERTIAL POINT.
Also meaning, there are NO MAGNETIC FORCES on this CENTER ZONE (Bloch Wall).


Now, all this 'So Far a Theory' is VERY SIMPLE to demonstrate, to PROVE IT TRUE, as it is such a simple Test demonstrating that this is the REAL WAY Magnetic Fields behave when Expanding due to currents increase...
And so whenever Field RETRACTS, it also do it in a completely SYMMETRICAL WAY towards its CENTER.



So, on ANY ELECTROMAGNET with a Steel Core Apply DC currents at 0.5 Amps

Then get a Magnetic Viewing Film and MARK the Field Expanded Area.

Now, Increase Currents to 1.0 Amps

And now compare the New Field Area to previous one at 0.5 A

You will obtain a very similar result as shown on above image...or that the Field Poles (Bubbles) had Increased SYMMETRICALLY FROM ITS DEAD CENTER TO OUTER SPATIAL VOLUMES.

PD: The Field Expanding could also be clearly seen on a Color CRT or a FERROCELL. I suggested the MVF because of its simplicity as easy and cheaper access.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Ok, so to finalize this 'Chapter' on Field Expanding-Retracting Symmetrically from its dead center...now let's apply it to the way Figuera conceived his Electromagnets:




On above image over the original Figuera's Patent drawing we see ALL 'N' Electromagnets are on the stage of Expanding over the Secondaries 'y'.


On above image over the original Figuera's Patent drawing we see ALL 'S' Electromagnets are on the stage of Expanding over the Secondaries 'y'.

Then, later on time (after the passing away of Figuera) Buforn redesigned the whole structure, creating a Chain, and therefore using all the Rear Pole expansions that Figuera missed.

Except, of course, for the Two ends of Buforn Linear Chain, of the total of N & S Electromagnets.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Mar 28, 2026, 09:52 PM[...]

Then, later on time (after the passing away of Figuera) Buforn redesigned the whole structure, creating a Chain, and therefore using all the Rear Pole expansions that Figuera missed.

Except, of course, for the Two ends of Buforn Linear Chain, of the total of N & S Electromagnets.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so as I have quoted my previous post on just the Buforn Patent...it was finally granted on 1914, six years after Figuera's death...

Where Buforn introduced the new concept to add all N & S (Inducing Electromagnets) in a Series Chain with the Induced 'y' in between them:



And below is a detail with Buforn explanation about this change:


It is understood that this "improvement" to Figuera's Original 1908 Patent utilizes BOTH Poles of each Inducing Coils (N & S) whenever making their expansions-retractions (except the end ones)
Another one of Figuera's Weak Points resolved later on by Buforn.
If you all note Buforn also added a CENTER Element here, 'bridging between N-y-S, which I believe is referring to the Steel Core Bridging from Pole to Pole.

Credits and Images provided from https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/:
Buforn Patent at: https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/patents/patents-by-buforn-post-1908/

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

I would like to go back to the B Field Concept since "Lorentz Force Theories" were "officially" accepted by the Sciences Academia by 1895-1897.
So, within the "Package" of the "Lorentz Forces" came along this Model about the Magnetic Field...it seems that without this Magnetic Configuration, all other theories (or the ones related to magnetic forces), would not "square out"...

If You search for : B FIELD ON MAGNETIC FIELDS...

You will have THOUSANDS of Images, where ALL OF THEM shows that the DIRECTION and STRENGTH of ANY MAGNETIC FIELD has adopted a UNIDIRECTIONAL FLOW, or ONLY from SOUTH TO NORTH:


And below is just one of the Thousands and Thousands of Images that I chose randomly...


So, according to this Model, -which obviously COMPLETELY IGNORES the EXISTENCE of a BLOCH Wall- clearly shows that ONLY A "UNIDIRECTIONAL FLOW" of DENSITY & STRENGTH (VECTORIZED BY B & H FIELDS)

For this Model, the SOUTH POLE is actually NOTHING, just considered as a RETURN ZONE of this "UNIDIRECTIONAL FLUX" , "A SUCTION SOUTH POLE"...where there is NO STRENGTH WHATSOEVER.

This Model is portraying the Magnetic Field as a "MONOPOLE FLOW"...Even though this same "ACADEMY SCIENCE" does not approves there could EVER BE the EXISTENCE of any "MAGNETIC MONOPOLES"...
On that Image above...can you notice 'they' do NOT even mention the "Strength" of South Pole?...Just the North (as being the "stronger Zone") and the CENTER as being the "weaker one"...LOL


As the "JUSTIFICATIONS" they cite are completely NONSENSICAL:
Like that small compass shown...at the North and at the South Pole...

• Of course that Compass is going to point its N to the South Pole, BECAUSE ITS BEING ATTRACTED TO IT!!
• As also that same Compass is going to show POINTING it's North AWAY FROM NORTH POLE on the Field, simply because compass SOUTH POLE is being ATTRACTED TO THAT NORTH on the Field!!

And so, Academy "concludes" (based on this compass behavior) that is showing all of us, the  "North B Field Flow"...or the "NORTH FLUX DIRECTION AND DENSITY"...



Just a very simple question, from any Student on the Classroom to the Professor teaching this Fallacy...:

Professor, can you explain why whenever we approach Two South Poles they still REPELS and AS STRONG as the North to North?

And if the Student shows this image...would be the "TOTAL NIGHTMARE" to the Professor:


I am pretty sure the professor will EVADE this answer...simply because this Theory can not back it up.

And, specifically on this Post...If anyone have this explanation...please, you are very welcome to respond it here.

PD Note: This is Just ONE of the MANY OTHER WRONG TEACHINGS that have avoided from anyone -so far- to be able to build an "Overunity Machine"...
If our Concepts about the Real Magnetic Field have been taught SO WRONG, for over 100 + Years...how could we ever build one?

Sincerely

Ufopolitics

Hello All (again)

So, according to this UNIDIRECTIONAL FLOW (FLUX)...it should mean that:

• Whenever we EXPAND this Field by increasing Voltage and Currents...
• It "should respond" as ONLY THE NORTH POLE to be SPATIALLY EXPANDED?
• That ONLY NORTH POLE will INCREASE ITS STRENGTH?
• Where the SOUTH POLE will just INCREASE ITS "SUCTION FORCE" (NEGATIVE FLOW)..or ITS RETRACTION FORCE?
• An ASYMMETRICAL EXPANSION of the Magnetic Field?
• Where we have a "POSITIVE STRONG FLOW" on NORTH, as a HIGHER VACUUM- SUCTION-NEGATIVE FLOW on SOUTH?

Do this make sense -at all- to anyone?
It is completely "Surrealistic".

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so I wanted to know how they possibly "fix" this huge mistake betwen South Poles REPULSION using the UNIDIRECTIONAL Flux...and the Graphic Image is astounding:


And here we go on the South to South Repulsion, based on B Field Theory:

Even though the FLOW CIRCULATION there shows that a VERY CLEAR and STRONG ATTRACTION MUST TAKE PLACE...they "FORCE" this image as we "must believe" this flow will "result" (like Magic) on a Repulsion.

It is VERY obvious that for the North Repulsion this Ridiculous Model will "hold"...or "Pass" because:

• It clearly shows the Two B Fields Vectors OPPOSING each others.
• Right from the center of Field North Pole.

But when we go to the South Repulsion...

• ALL LINES ARE CONVERGENT exactly to EACH CENTER of the Two South Poles.
• Indicating a very Clear INWARDS OR SUCTION FORCE between the Two South Poles.

That according to ALL PHYSICS LAWS that involves ANY "Flow" and a "Force", whether Hydraulics or Pneumatics, it will show this SCHEMATIC as an ATTRACTION.

• Is like connecting Two Vacuum Hoses together..they will stick together automatically.
• Or Two Hydraulic Fluid hoses coming from the end that Pump has a Negative Force, or a SUCTION.

But "it sems" that for these type of "Magnetic Flows" it works completely opposed to any other Physics Laws.
Or obviously, they are forcing us to believe "it must be so, period!!"...and please, NO questions asked because I will suspend your Magnetism Test!!

Ok, so I asked "AI" How is justified the Repulsion of Two South Poles using the B Field Model?

And here is the answer:




So, breaking down those answers:The very first paragraph response is wrong:

QuoteThe repulsion between two South (S) poles is justified by the behavior of the magnetic field (B field) vectors, specifically their direction, vector addition, and energy states

Sorry, but the "behavior of vectors" does not justify this 'Stunt'
If we go based on 'Vectors Laws' as having same magnitude, but Linearly Opposite Directions, then there would not be an addition, but a subtraction, resulting in Zero.

Quote1. Vector Direction and Inflow
Magnetic field lines are defined as entering a South pole and exiting a North pole. When two South poles face each other, the B field vectors from both magnets point toward their respective poles. Because they are pointing toward each other from opposite directions, they are "head-to-head" in the space between the magnets.

Negative,

• These two vectors are NOT "head to head" (understanding as the "vector's head" as the FRONT or their Arrow direction, as there is the Max Force).
• These two South B Field Vectors are facing "Origin with Origin", and we all know the Origin of a Vector is an Inertial Point. (No Force there)

Quote2. Vector Field Superposition
The total magnetic field at any point is the vector sum of the fields from each magnet.

If such statement above is true, then how can it be justified that at the center "point" of the Magnetic Field (where ALL vectors are -supposedly- traveling back to South Pole)
All those vectors there (on a 360º 'BELT' around Field) they are ALL in a "Low force zone" at the very center of all those "returning vectors"?
The "Real and Simple Answer" is:

• Because that's where the Bloch Wall is located, as BOTH Poles are emerging from that Zone, as the COMMON ORIGIN on that "Lower Force Zone".
• But they do NOT want to admit that Fact, their "Return Flow" from North to South MUST BE on a Straight Flow, "no Interruptions there"...

QuoteCancellation at the Center: At the exact midpoint between two identical South poles, the vectors are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. This causes them to cancel out, resulting in a zero-field point (neutral point).

That answer is incomplete: 'the vectors are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction'
The Two Vectors (of Two South Poles according to B Field Theory) are in opposite direction', (that part is correct) BUT NOT HEAD TO HEAD, instead, those two vectors are facing on their 'INERTIAL, ORIGIN POINTS', this fact will force these two vectors to cancel out to zero, BUT on a Mutual Attraction.
However, on Magnetic Fields this will NOT cause a "Zero Field Point".
But the opposite, the same as a North to North Repulsion, at its center would be a High Energy Density Field

QuoteBending of Lines: Because field lines cannot cross, they must bend away from this neutral point. This bending creates a "compressed" field in the surrounding space, which manifests as a repulsive force as the lines push against each other.

So, here lies the final 'core' explanation...their repulsion is "justified" based on the Outer Lines of Force facing each others.
They "nullified" the center to a "neutral point", zero field force.

Again, this is completely wrong.

If this would be real, by simply approaching two South Poles, it will drastically cut off the Flow back to North, as BOTH North B Field Vectors will drop in force.

• We have "neutralized" the Main Center Flow.
• The now "returning outer lines are FULLY CUT, and 'entertained' now on facing each other's for that "Mutual and Exterior Layer Repulsion".
• While ALL Flow back to N Pole will simply collapse.

If this would be true (Cutting the Strength and Circulating Flow of both North B Field Vectors), we would not have any issues to build a fully operational Permanent Magnetic Motor.

The Real Fact, is that Each Magnetic Pole is completely INDEPENDENT from each other's.
Both Poles (N & S) originates on the Bloch Wall.
Then BOTH POLES on SEPARATED PATHS Return back to their COMMON ORIGIN (The so called BLOCH Wall)
On a PERFECT NATURAL SYMMETRY. 

Quote3. Potential Energy and Gradients
The universe naturally moves toward states of lower potential energy.

Increasing Field Density: Pushing two like poles together forces the magnetic field lines into a smaller volume, which increases the magnetic energy density (proportional to
B^2).

Yes but not "the Universe", (that's too general, obviously not looking for a confrontation)
Correct Interpretation:

• Higher Potential Energy Fields moves toward Lower Potential Energy Fields.
• Simply, Direct and Elegantly put...

QuoteForce Direction: Since the system wants to reach a lower energy state, it exerts a force in the direction where the field (and thus the stored energy) decreases. This pushes the two South poles away from each other.

If "the System" wants to reach a "lower energy state"...it will "automatically" direct itself towards that CENTER INTERSECTION of those Two South Poles, where previously they "declare it" a "No Field Area" or a "Neutralized-Nullified Zone" where there is absolutely VERY LOW POTENTIAL ENERGY.

But according to this "justification" they want "to steer by force" these Higher Potential Return Lines against "other Higher Potential Return Lines".
So, now considering both outer Return Lines of Force of "lower decreased fields".

Then now, these "Two decreased Fields are "struggling" to sustain a South to South Repulsion?

However, they mentioned on the first paragraph: "The universe naturally moves toward states of lower potential energy..."
So, it seems that now "the Universe changed his mind"...

Nature as the Universe, never make mistakes...Magnetic Fields are purely Symmetrical Systems...as all Nature and Universe "drawings"...
They are trying to portrait the Magnetic Field in a Fully Asymmetrical Structured way (to fit their purposes)...Sorry, but Nature does not work like that.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Reply to message #41

Hello Ufopolitics,

This is actually a very important point, because Buforn's redesign seems to confirm something fundamental:
Figuera's original arrangement was too localized, while Buforn moved the system toward a more distributed magnetic structure.

That is why I find Buforn's chain concept so interesting.

From my perspective, this does not prove a new induction law, but it does strongly suggest that the correct engineering direction is to move away from isolated two-pole interaction and toward a distributed field system.

In that sense, Buforn's redesign appears to be an intermediate step between:

• Figuera's original localized configuration
   and
• a fuller Linear-Series arrangement

Because once you connect the inducing elements into a chain, you are already moving toward:

• better spatial continuity of the field
• reduced inactive or weak zones
• more uniform coupling with the induced section
• smoother magnetic displacement across the structure

And that is precisely why I think Your Linear-Series concept is the right direction.
It takes the same idea further:

• instead of relying on just two dominant expanding/retracting regions,
• it distributes excitation across multiple positions,
• which should produce a smoother and more continuous field displacement.

So in that sense, Buforn's patent can be seen as evidence that even within the historical development of the Figuera concept, the practical path forward was already shifting toward distribution, continuity, and broader field participation.

To put it simply:
Figuera = localized induction concept
 Buforn = partial distributed improvement
 Linear-Series = logical continuation of that improvement

That is why I believe Your Linear-Series approach is the most coherent technical evolution.

Best regards,
 Alex

@kampen

Thanks dear friend,

Yes, I think so as well, that the Linear-Series System is a logical continuation of the Figuera-Buforn Design.

As it would get even more corrections when we make it completely a closed, Toroidal Unit System (with very small gaps between elements) like I have shown on the Topic.
Driven by the same Unit, whether it is a Mechanical Rotary Switch or a Solid State Driver.

On a separate note, We must recognize the Figuera's Design as the PIONEER on these Systems Invention and further developments, no matter about all its weak points, Figuera was the ORIGINAL CREATOR.

Buforn got a System that was already conceived and developed by Figuera.

On ALL the previous Buforn Patents (from 1908 to 1910) if you look at them, they are ALL an EXACT COPYCAT of Figuera's Design.

It was not until 1914 (Six Years later) that he came up with the Linear-Series Structural Design.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so as many here know, I have been fighting this wrong B Field Unidirectional Vector Model for many years, and I already have uploaded on this Forum a specific video that I uploaded about TEN (10) Years ago...where I prove that a Tool that I built myself, clearly demonstrates that these long B Field Vectors that run all the way -supposedly-  from the North Pole to finally "land" on the other extreme of the Field, the South Pole...should NOT made my Tool make the "FLIPS" it did, rightat the CENTER of the Travel...
EXACTLY at the BLOCH WALL Area, which is EXACTLY the Center of the Coil I am testing on video...which is -by the way- an AIR-HOLLOW CORE, so no "Steel Core Magnetic Domains" there...(for those who say that the Bloch Wall is JUST attributed to the Ferromagnetic Domains on the Material).

The Tool I built to make these Tests:


This Tool is very simple to build, without requiring ANY knowledge nor Equipment of a "Machine Shop"...

It just uses Two very small Round Neo Magnets, that I mounted on a Four Points Star, made of a thin steel thin plate. (It must be steel so the small magnets stick to it.

This Steel Four Points Star is mounted on two of its straight points on a Brass Oval Frame, also made from a Brass thin Lamination plate.

I made sure by rounding each of the two ends of this Star (the Rotation Axis) that mount on Brass Outer Frame holes, in order that the Star with the two magnets SPINS Freely, as I show on video.(and to be honest, it is still not good enough, as it tends to stick)

I added a small wrap of wire (once the Two Star's Shaft is mounted) on the interior of the mounting points, this is to prevent any sliding when moving and rotating.

Then I mounted all assembled parts (Steel Four Points Star, Magnets, Brass Oval Frame) on a Brass Round Handle by a small bolt and nut. (so I can angle the Rotating Assembly)


On that Video I made a few tests, like going inside the Hollow Coil...BUT the Test that I want to pay attention on video:

• On above Image I am showing the PATH that I am running the Tool with the Magenta Arrow, on OUTER COIL AREA.
• The Four Points Star will FLIP EXACTLY withing the Green Area shown on Image.
• Note that I am running the Tool positioning the Rotating Axis EXACTLY PARALLEL to the EXTERIOR Field Lines of Force, from North to South and back up.
• Please, it is very important to understand this Particular Positioning of the Tool explained above.

You can clearly see on the video that the Tool Four Points Star FLIPS very fast - around its Axis- EXACTLY  around the Green Area I am showing on this Image of the Coil. SWAPPING the Polarity to the Opposite.

And Now the short video (only 8:00 Minutes):



Now, on the following CAD Image below, I have reproduced the way the Tool Flipped -in FIVE STEPS (Like in Five Slow Motion Frames)- when traveling along the Field Exterior Lines:


So, here we can see the Five Steps when the Tool Magnets Flips ( I am using Degrees of Rotation for each Step):

• At 0º the Two Magnets (forming as ONE FIELD since they are in a NSNS Chain) the South of Tool Field is pointing directly to North of Coil
• At 45º Tool Field starts to Rotate as entering Bloch Wall.
• At 90º Tool Field is Aligning its Bloch Wall with the Coil Field Bloch Wall in exactly a 90º Angle. (Dead CENTER of Coil).
• On the Fourth Step the Tool Field had Rotated around 135º (3/4 turn)
• On the end step (180º), the Tool Field has fully Rotated 180º, and now the Tool´s Field North is Aiming Directly to the South Pole of Coil.

Now, -as this B Field Theory states- that the LINES OF FORCE TRAVELS STRAIGHT from the North Pole (without Interruptions) to the South Pole...
There should NOT be ANY FLIPPING of this Tool, EXACTLY at the CENTER of the Magnetic Field.

The Tool Magnetic Field is CLEARLY DETECTING a FIELD MAGNETIC POLE TORSION, EXACTLY at the CENTER of that B FIELD VECTOR.

According to the B Field Theory, these B Field Vectors Travel without ANY Interruptions from North Pole to South Pole.
To ENTER EXACTLY at the FRONT FACE of SOUTH POLE AREA.

If this B Field Theory was RIGHT, then the Tool Field should HAD NEVER FLIPPED from 0º to 180º when PASSING EXACTLY THE CENTER ZONE of the Coil´s Magnetic Field.
If this B Field Theory was RIGHT then the Tool Magnetic Field should have done ONLY ONE  FLIP, EXACTLY AT THE END of the South Pole. (Pole Face)

• Tool Field South Pole should have kept aligned to the North Pole of Coil during ALL that Linear Travel.
• To then Flip 180º when it reaches the FRONTAL AREA of the South Pole.

THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THIS 180º at CENTER of the Magnetic Field of Coil.


Now, the ONLY MAGNETIC FIELD MODEL that would JUSTIFY this 180º FLIP AT CENTER of the Magnetic Field of Coil, would be the one shown on CAD Image below:



Above Image shows the Model of the Magnetic Field that has been HIDDEN and SEIZED for a VERY LONG TIME, before even Lorentz thought about the B Field Theory development.

The same one that is described on Davis and Rawls Book back on the 1970´s...and revived and deeply developed on Ken Wheeler´s Book "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism".

The ONLY WAY that this Tool makes this VERY SHORT FLIPPING from 0º to 180º JUST ON THE BLOCH WALL ZONE, is with this Model shown on above CAD Image.

On this MODEL the North Pole EMERGES from the Bloch Wall, to then RETURN BACK to the Bloch Wall EXTERIOR AREA (Accretion Disk Structure)

And on the SAME WAY takes Place on the South Pole, but at 180º opposite directions.

This Model reveals the well known TWO BUBBLES 3D STRUCTURES for EACH POLE, clearly revealed on CRT, FERROCELL and Magnetic Viewing Films (MVF)

YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THESE TWO BUBBLES ON THE "SPARKLED IRON SHAVINGS" OVER THE FIELD, THAT OBSOLETE AND PRIMITIVE METHOD.

Simply because the Sparkled Iron Dust LOCKS THE FIELDS DYNAMIC FLOW into a MONOLITH SOLID STRUCTURE.

These Magnetic Field Lines are NOT EXACTLY Straight either.

THESE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES OF FORCE ARE SPATIAL 3D CURVILINEAR IN SHAPE, AND NOT STRAIGHT.

Their 3D Curvilinear Pattern could be seen ONLY under the FERROCELL LENS. (NOT on MVF nor on CRT)

Meaning that they DO NOT EMERGE AND ENTER back to the Bloch Wall on an exactly Linear Alignment.

I am going to Build a MUCH BETTER TOOL than the one shown on Video...

This time I will build a GYROSCOPIC TYPE TOOL, which will have more than One Rotation or like used on "Robotic Terms" ... with MANY "DOF" (Degrees Of Freedom) Rotation...This way the Tool´s Field will Capture and Reveal the Curvilinear Nature of ALL these Magnetic Lines of Force...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello dear Ufopolitics,

I am just reflecting to your latest posts and had a thought I wanted to share with you.
I see that you are now planning to build a more advanced gyroscopic-type tool to further investigate the magnetic field behavior.

While I understand your motivation to explore the field geometry in more detail, I am wondering whether this is the best use of your limited and valuable time at this stage.

From my perspective, the most critical step right now is still the completion of your mechanical commutator system and obtaining clear measurement results.

That experiment would directly address the core question we have been discussing for so long, and it would provide concrete evidence that could move the entire discussion forward in a decisive way.

The field behavior investigations are interesting, but without measurable system-level results, it may be difficult to translate those insights into a working machine.

So I am just wondering whether focusing your effort on finalizing the commutator and running the tests might be the most effective path forward right now.

We are genuinely interested to see the results of your linear system, and I believe that is where the real breakthrough will become visible.

Best regards,
Alex

Hello dear friend,

Do not worry, I know exactly well what our priorities are.

And definitively I am FIRST going to finish the Commutator Assembly then make all required Tests.

That is number one (#1) on my "priorities list".

The Magnetic Gyroscopic Tool would be a much longer time process...as it requires a lot of starting steps (like CAD Designs) which I have not even started yet...

So, again, do not worry, I will get my Linear-Series Setup finished first.

Regards

Ufopolitics 

Quote from: kampen on Mar 31, 2026, 03:33 PMHello dear Ufopolitics,

I am just reflecting to your latest posts and had a thought I wanted to share with you.
I see that you are now planning to build a more advanced gyroscopic-type tool to further investigate the magnetic field behavior.

[...]

Best regards,
Alex

Hello dear friend,

As your comment above, (underlined by me)...

I was not planning to build a Gyroscopic Tool from scratch!

As I understand your concern since -you know by being an Engineer- these Gyroscopes are complicated mechanisms...and such are harder to build as it will take a lot of time.

As I also understand the work involved, I always like to look for shortcuts to reduce time and work.

So, I found these beauties Online:




These beauty is made of Stainless Steel 304 (non ferromagnetic), mounted on very small Bearings...

And so, all I would have to do...is to Mount Two Neodymium Round Magnets on each face of its Center Core... ;D

And maybe add a Bar Handle to be able to show on camera the Magnets movements -from a distance- as I run it through Magnetic Field Lines of Force.

I ordered this beauty...

There are many models made out there very similar to this small and compact gyro...even made of Plastic.

They also had some 'antiques' made of brass in France...but I did not like its design.(too bulky) and bigger.

And again, do not worry, because it will NOT deviate, not interfere from finishing the Field Mechanical Driver (Commutators) for my Linear-Series System.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

A future issue that I see it coming...

Is that once anyone -including me- shows an Electromagnetic Overunity Machine working as expected, generating an excess on Output over the Input...

That ANYONE seeing it, will be able to understand "how it WORKS?"

Or...What are the "mechanism(s)" behind that allow such "phenomena" to take place?

And so many other questions...as it has happened along our History.

And the answer lies ONLY on the Right and Basic understanding of the Magnetic Field Spectrum, on its entirety...


Video above, is from a Magnet Supplier (as ALL products related to Magnetism) (K & J Magnetics) NOT from any "Lunatic" trying to prove any Conspiration Theories!!


The wrong knowledge that a majority have...given the wrong teachings for so many years. With that wrong knowledge NO ONE will ever be able to understand how these Machines can do what they do.

We simply CAN NOT "FIT" THIS "B-FIELD MODEL" into the REAL WAY A MAGNETIC FIELD looks like!! (see the REAL MAGNETIC FIELD UNDER FERROCELL COMPARISON on IMG below)


That's the main reason why of my interest to broadcast -as much as I can- all the wrong established Science on Magnetism.

Understanding Magnetism correctly is the "Spinal Cord" of reaching this knowledge that would allow anyone to understand everything about these Overunity Machines functioning's.

FERROCELL LENS bring us the Magnetic  Field Spectrum on a Three-dimensional View, building a HOLOGRAPHIC IMAGING of the REAL FIELD!!:




UNDER NEW TECHNOLOGIES (AS THE FERROCELL LENS) THE "PROOF" IS ALREADY OUT THERE...That sets the "B-FIELD UNIDIRECTIONAL, ONE FLOW ONLY" AS AN OBSOLETE THEORY.

We just need to believe it is REAL...just by giving CREDIT to what Our own Eyes SEE...!!

...AND IF YOU STILL DO NOT SEE IT...YOU REALLY NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES WIDER AND FOCUS ON WHAT YOU SEE!!

Regards

Ufopolitics