Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

[MileHigh]

Conrad,

You are doing an awesome job, your build skills are really good.  I am glad that you are having fun.

You made a reference to me stating that I posted something about an ideal coil configuration.  I am not sure what you read because the concept of an "ideal" coil configuration is something that needs some sort of frame of reference.

For example, lets suppose that there is a spinning pulse motor rotor with outward-facing cylindrical magnets on it.  Each magnet is say 3 cm in diameter.  In this case if you made a pick-up coil that was in the form of a ring (like a simple ring that goes on your finger), where the diameter of the ring was slightly larger than 3 cm, that would be an "ideal" configuration.

With a pick-up coil "ring" that was placed very close to the spinning rotor magnets, the coil would "see" the fastest possible changing flux with respect to time and hence generate the highest voltage peaks.   The more turns in the "ring" pick-up coil the higher the output voltage.  You make the diameter of the pick-up coil ring slightly larger than the diameter of the magnet so that the ring "sees" or "catches" all of the changing flux from the passing rotor magnets.

I suppose you could state that this is more of an "ideal geometry for creating high voltage peaks" and the number of turns is at the discretion of the coil designer.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

TK:

@Conrad: Yes, that's the measurement I wanted, thanks. It seems that you are not seeing the effect that "gestalt reality" demonstrates. Perhaps because the frequency is not right? My "hunch" is that smaller (lower inductance) coils will need a higher magnetic field frequency to show the effect.... and he is using around 850 Hz to your 30.

I watched the clip and even through there are a lot of "holes" in the data gathered there is enough there to make some inferences that I am pretty confident are correct.

For starters, a test like this could be much more complete if you try varying the RPM of the rotor (he had a motor controller after all) and also by varying the load resistance on the coils.  The same old mantra, you vary the load starting from a short (just the wire resistance) to the matched load resistor (the wire resistance) to the higher value resistors and finally to open circuit.  All of that on top of the A-B comparison testing that he was doing between a regular and a bifilar coil.  He is a beginer experimenter so we will cut him lots of slack.

The big clue is the ozone and the very high voltage.

Here is what I think is happening:  By chance, with the open-circuit bifilar coil, the stimulation from the passing rotor magnets was quite close to the self-resonant frequency of the coil.  Perhaps it was a divide-by-n sub-harmonic of the self-resonant frequency.  So by chance the bifilar coil was being regularly pinged just at the right time and as a result the LC resonator voltage grew and grew until the air started to ionize.  You can see how adjacent strands of the very fine wire could have had 1K volts potential difference at the peak of the cap charge cycle.  Since air breaks down at about 20 kvolts per centimeter, it's not surprising that the air got ionized and started to conduct.

*Note also that the rotor magnet pinging was at quite a high frequency.  Chances are the period between pings was shorter than the time constant of the exponential decay of the LC self-resonance.  Hence the pinging was pumping energy into the LC resonator faster than it was decaying.  That means that the only place for the amplitude of the LC resonance to go was up.  At least it went up until the point where it "hit the wall" where the air itself started to conduct and act like a resistor.  Therefore the injected energy from each "ping" from a passing rotor magnet was being burned off in the ionizing air (and of course a small amount was being burned off in the resistance of the wire).*

So the big bifilar was cooking "itself," although in this case it was not due to the resistance in the wire, it was mainly due to the fact that the air itself trapped inside the coil was the resistor.  High voltage implies that the matched load has to be a high value of resistance.  Hence things fall into place:  The LC resonator potential increased to the point that the air started to conduct and do a "burn."  So, above a certain AC potential, the bifilar coil starts to see a "resistive wall of air" burning off the power.  The "wall" blocks the AC potential from increasing beyond a certain point.  The power being burned off was quite high, hence the increased Lenz drag on the rotor hence the dramatically increased mains power consumption of the drive motor.

If this theory is correct, then chances are if he changed the motor RPM by +/- 5%, then there would be no more sympathetically pinged LC resonance, no high voltage, no ionizing of the air, and therefore no high power burn in the ionizing air, no extra Lenz drag, and no high mains power consumption by the drive motor.

So, the moral of the story is that yet again, there is nothing special about the bifilar coil in Gestalt Reality's clip.  It's just a fluke that he was pinging the series bifilar coil and created "sympathetic vibrations" which increased the inter-filar voltage to the point that the air became something akin to an impedance matched resistor.  This could all be proven to be true if he simply plotted the open-circuit voltage of the self-resonating coil with respect to the rotor frequency.  Note also that if what I am saying is true, then his conclusions in his experiment are not quite right.  He doesn't really understand what he is observing.  However, ultimately this shows how there is nothing out of the ordinary about the bifilar coil in his experiment.  Mother Nature is playing out exactly the way she is supposed to be playing out and all of these seemingly unusual observations about the bifiar coil are 100% ordinary, expected, and explainable.

You would never see this happen with Conrad's setup.  He doesn't have the "mix" of components and excitation frequency and available power to get to the point where air starts to ionize and act like a resistor inside his bifilar coil.

MileHigh

[conradelektro]

@MileHigh: you mentioned in this reply http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg380888/#msg380888

How much or how little energy a pick-up coil can output is primarily a function of the geometry of the coil, not the number of turns.  The main factor is the cross-sectional area of the coil that interacts with the external changing magnetic flux that determines the power output.

MileHigh

So, I wonder, what dimensions should a coil winding have to be a "good pick up coil" in my magnet spinner set up? Please see the attached drawing.

My magnet spinner set up is not an ideal "generator" (magnets around the rim of a disk would be much better). Nevertheless, I would like to find a good geometry for a pick up coil which would ensure a good "pick up of electricity" from the spinning magnet.

The idea is to wind two helical coils (one with a monofilar winding and the other with a bifilar winding, otherwise identical) in order to see differences or even the effect from the "debunk video". And the question is the geometry of the winding (length, thickness and the diameter of the hole for a core)?

I now do tests with my two pan cake coils, but later on I want to do tests with two helical coils.

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

I could do some resonance tests like TinselKoala did in his video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwCNBHUh0 (Scoposcopy)

With a tank capacitor of 1000 pF and lower the two pan cake coils coils started to show differences.

I could also estimate the parasitic capacitance and the inductance of the two pan cake coils using this web site http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html.

estimated parasitic capacitance
monofilar pan cake coil  174 pF
bifilar pan cake coil        229 pF

measured inductance both coils 34 µH

using this web site http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm I could estimate the inductance:

monofilar pan cake coil: estimated 34 µH with 0.876 Mhz and 976 pf
bifilar pan cake coil: estimated 35 µH  with 0.862 MHz and 976 pF

monofilar and bifilar coil: estimated 35 µH with 266,5 KHz and 10 nF

I just realised: the resonance measurements with a 22 pF and a 3 pF tank capacitor are meaningless because the parasitic capacitance of the coils is around 200 pF.

Therefore the resonance frequency did not go up very much with a 22 pF or 3 pF tank capacitor. And estimates done with http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm go badly wrong.

I am not so sure that one really can see a big difference between the two coils, with a tank capacitor bigger than 1 nF everything seems to be identical. And with a smaller tank capacitor (much below 1 nF) the measurements become unreliable.

Please see the attached drawings.

I will try this measurement soon: http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

I tried to measure "interwire capacitance", please see the attached drawing.

Monofilar pan cake coil ~ 7 pF

Bifilar pan cake coil ~ 44 pF

http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm   calculator

Attached please find a PDF-file with all measurements and specs of the two pan cake coils.

Greetings, Conrad