Thanks for the more detailed description Verpies.   I think what actually threw me off was I expected the field between a pair of coils/loops to repel rather than attract.
Still brings some interesting scenarios when we charge/discharge this unique capacitor and what that does to the surrounding field patterns..

Quote from: Hakasays on 2026.09.02, 09:12:23
If we drop a magnet through a shorted  coil (or a copper ring) the magnet will slow and fall at a certain speed.  The lenz BEMF forces on the ring will cause it to slow.  And create a current in the ring.

This slowing down always happens only on approach.  Slowing down on departure happens only when the resistance of the coil is greater than its inductive reactance ( R > X_L ).
Qualitatively, when the resistance is smaller, then the current induced in the coil during the approach of the magnet generates a magnetic field that repels the magnet and decelerates it on approach and repels it away on departure, thus accelerating it back up.
In the ideal case when R=0 all of the magnet's kinetic energy which is lost on approach, is completely restored on departure and the net kinetic energy loss is zero (no net drag).  Lesson: Pure Lenz law does not cause a net loss of energy however non-zero impedance - does.

  The magnetic field generated by the shorted coil
  is always proportional to the induced current flowing in it.
  The current induced in a shorted coil
  as a function of its resistance and magnet's position.

Note that when X_L > R ≥ 0 (here 2Ω > R ≥ 0Ω) the current induced in the coil does not change direction as the magnet approaches and departs, thus the magnetic field generated by the shorted coil does not change the direction, either   ...and the magnet experiences repulsion on both approach and departure, albeit not necessarily equally.  These repulsive forces integrated over distance approach equality and sum to zero as R → 0.

When R > X_L  then the induced current changes direction as the magnet approaches and departs, thus the magnetic field generated by the shorted coil changes the direction, too   ...and the magnet experiences repulsion on approach and attraction on departure - which always creates instantaneous drag ...and net drag, too.


This entire problem is similar to the following one:



P.S.
Most ignorants intuitively extrapolate like this.

Quote from: Centraflow on 2026.08.10, 16:45:18
Dropping a magnet down a copper tube produces an equal opposing field (Lenz), is there a "delay" in the returning field? Maybe you do not see the delay because the tube is thousands of shorted loops joined together?

I posited a similar question in a Discord thread a month or two ago (hopefully on the same tangent):
If we drop a magnet through a shorted  coil (or a copper ring) the magnet will slow and fall at a certain speed.  The lenz BEMF forces on the ring will cause it to slow.  And create a current in the ring.
If we added a second shorted coil (or insulated copper ring) adjacent to the first, would the magnet then fall slower or faster?

It *should* fall slower because we now have two separate opposed eddy currents,
BUT each eddy current also opposes its neighboring coil, so those fields may partially cancel.  So the resulting magnet might actually fall faster than with a single ring/coil.

Which leads to the next question, would the two rings then be at different relative potentials to each-other since their fields are in opposition?

Nobody is even close to solving the mystery. You have to have : first : the great induction so the output is far greater then input and second: proper coil placement. I suspect it could be easly done with superconducting pancake coils but Figuera didin't have liquid hellium

Hi all
I'm back checking on activities and realising that 3 months nothing
Is anyone working on Figuera or Figuera has been forgotten?

Looks like we will be moving server to Poland, thanks for the suggestions 
From a politics point of view i think this is actually a lot safer than most developed countries.

a small side track

Concept test bed, not an optimized machine. Same hardware, same 12 V Yellow TT drive, same NEMA23, and two 50 Ω coil loads. Only the return/sun gear ratio was changed between runs. The table shows measured current/RPM data plus calculated carrier/slip values. Estimated coil voltage/power values are based on separate NEMA bench calibration and are not direct in-system measurements.

90/30 open RPM values in the table are the corrected rerun, 263/792, not the original bad tach reading.

Steven Mark had to,in my opinion used one of these 3 methods to pulse the toroid,in my opinion.I View the toroid like a transistor
,you need other parts to get it to work,likewise with the toroid.The magnetic field,a repulsive field at the cross section,I believe
has an effect on gravity,which I think is the source of the energy of the tpu.If I'm correct
the how to pulse the toroid is very important.I view
the tpu as a current amplifier.

1.Use a high current SCR they had them in the 1990's

2. Use a high current relay

3. Use a xenon strobe circuit,it works,but pulses are
weaker than other ways.


The strobe board ,I added  2, 100 mfd flash caps and reduced the value
of a resistor to get faster charging of the caps.
you can get a pulsing but its  weak.

The relay circuit,very strong pulses,I added a variable
pulse rate circuit.

One speculation is gravity is bent by the repulsive field of the
toroid,it is also fragmented,the bending causes the gravity field
to travel along the wire,causing a push, the gravity field is
fragmented,it can not push atoms.However it can push free electrons,as this gravity wave moves thru the wire,more and
more electrons are pushed,this causes a current increase,the
length of the wire plays a big part in the operation of
the tpu and the Kapanadze device.The current amplification happens
in the coil.In my opinion there is a close relationship
between gravity and magnetic fields,if you could bend
a gravity field could you not create a lifting force,pushing objects away from the earth into space.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.08.29, 14:40:17
The quotes you have posted are by Stephens - not Marinov.

I read one rumor/paper saying Stefan may have used it as a pseudonym, but I could be wrong. At any rate it seems to be consistent with the other paper and might help bridge the gap between the theory and engineering.

Found one more paper talking about it:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/18233406/the-magnetic-vortex-hyper-ionization-device-magvid-as-

Quote from: Hakasays on 2026.08.29, 10:01:57
Stefan Marinov's writings seem to overlap a lot with gravity (and impedance of free space) as well, being a function of atomic electron orbital distance+ratios

The quotes you have posted are by Stephens - not Marinov.