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" 

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