FIGUERA'S AETHER MAGNETIC FIELDS LINEAR PUMP, REVIVED

[kampen]

Hello dear friend Ufopolitics,

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

Everything is very clear now, both mechanically and electrically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Alex

[Ufopolitics]

Hello all,

I hope I can help a bit. Figuera patent says to use resistance, it is switching resistance not power. Power is ON all time and increased resistance sequential will just not feed certain coils with full power, only lower the voltage.
At least this is in one of the patents where turns of resistance are described.

Using transistors you need to effective change the path of output (emitter) through resistance or turn on between full on and partial on I think ... I am not brilliant with electronics.

Anyway for sequential switching as desired while keeping on all coils, it means one coil receive full voltage while all others get only a fraction. How you can achieve this ? I don't know, electronics still have some mysteries for me, I prefer more primitive setups ... coils are not toasted as easy as electronics.

I guess, trying to inject a second signal/impulse on top of the continuous signal may be a bit more difficult than using resistance to drop the voltage.

This is another way to modulate inductance using resistance without diodes. Switching ON each coil or group of 2 coils without resistance while keeping ON full power.

Good luck all.

Again, please delete if my message is confusing or inapropriate.

Hello Classic,

• Resistance only affects currents (amperage) voltage remains the same.
• In a series circuit of coils, all coils receive the same currents.
• In a series circuit of coils, all coils receive similar portions of voltage, however, there is a voltage drop along coils depending on their individual resistance/impedance.
• That portion of voltage is the resulting division of the Total V applied to the circuit, divided between the number of coils (or resistors) on the circuit.
• Power (Watts) relates to: Voltage times Amperage (VXA=Watts)

So, if you affect resistance, you will be affecting power as well, because resistance is inversely related to amperage (currents):

• If you lower resistance, amperage rise and Power rises.
• If you increase resistance, amperage decrease, as Power also decreases.

Cheers

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Re: Upright Orientation and Brush Force Balance

Hello dear friend Ufopolitics,

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Alex

[Classic]

@kampen , do you ever use your own brain/words ? I have seen your messages for last year, year and a half and only AI generated answers you have posted here and some other sites. It seems that you trust 100% artificial intelligence and nothing of your own, or just want to prove something.

The AI you use is still in infancy stage compared with human mind and is still unable to generate any solution for complex analyse that humans are still capable. Your electronic switch that @Ufopolitics tested bear all the failures of this AI understanding. Without @Ufopolitics new video of what is needed/to be achieved in switching your AI made assumptions wrong ... without analysing what or if the output is the desired one or not. AI are simply incapable of this !

Humans can make assumptions, proper assumptions that usually work in real world, AI may eventually hit a 5%- 15% of this if input is not complex and able to analyse multiple constrains of the input.

The switch that was made may still be usable if able to manage 8 in series coils and able to switch only the ends ... means the controller must control all the series connections and decide the right sequential order of the ends connect/disconnect to obtain the effect ufo needs for the system. I guess is just a matter of programming the controller if mosfets are able to handle voltage and current safe.
But AI you used is simply not able to do this for you, it needs to be told !

Also, what I think is important to check: if magnetic field maintain polarity at the end far away from energised 8 coils in series and determine the current or voltage required to achieve MMF.

[kampen]

Reply to message #573
@ Classic,

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

Using tools does not mean outsourcing thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Alex