Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

[Magluvin]

Being that bifi capacitance of coils with few turns is not in the freq range we are looking for, many turns will have layers also. This layering complicates, but also increases the amount of total capacitance of the coil as a whole. Each adjacent bifi pair capacitance is not all there is. Each layer being adjacent to the next layer creates more contact area around each wire, so more capacitance.

I dont believe that there is a calculator out there for predicting capacitance values of a bifi. If we were to make say 3 different coils, same wire, different number of turns, then say 3 sets of 3 using small wire in one set, medium then large in the last set, then a chart could be made. Then formula's can be developed from the charts.  Smaller wire will reduce the air space between the roundness of the wires, therefor increasing capacitance compared to thicker wire.

So twisting 6 smaller wires to equal 2 larger wires in conductivity will have more capacitance due to more physical contact areas, and reducing the amount of air space between non contact areas of the wires that are in very close proximity to each other.

Mags

[Magluvin]

If trying to make consistent bifilar coils, they need to be wound very neatly. Each bifi pair or wires also are in physical contact with the next pair of windings, along with proximity to layers along the way. Any sloppy winding and consistency is lost. Any sloppy spacing and capacity suffers. I prefer enameled wire for closest proximity for highest capacitance, where rubber insulated wire puts a lot of distance between turns, reducing capacitance. The more capacitance we can produce, without increasing the number of turns, the better as we will have the least amount of resistance.


Square wire would help increase capacitance a bunch I believe.

http://www.unitedwirecompany.com/squarewire/index.htm

http://www.mwswire.com/square.htm

Mags

[synchro1]

Like I said earlier, testing the 2 coils on a Leedskalnin holder would give definitive data in my opinion. If done properly one could truly measure if there is more field and how much. Part of my tests will do measurements with linear hall sensors.

Still working on the coil winding setup. I only want to do it once without wire breakage.

Mags

Comparing milli joules of PMH coil pulse current to horsepower of locking force on the magnet keeper would surly yield some kind of mega-overunity COP!


This PMH video is interesting because he imparts a powerful motion to the iron keeper with the pulse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T96aaWKc-I

This video appears perhaps to open the possibility for some kind of motor based on this effect. Mr. Anguswangus experimented with this kind of pulse power coil, but he used magnets on his rotor and not iron. The rotor magnet attraction to the iron PMH core helps on the approach, but hurts on the exit after a repulsion pulse from the PMH. The iron core suffers saturation from the rotor magnets, and the attraction power is really where the dividends are with this setup, not the repulsion force. I think a large rotor beam with two upright iron keepers on each end and two horseshoe PMH magnets on opposite sides might make a powerful attraction overunity motor! Think about the kind of permanent magnetic quantum level force that's involved. This has nothing to do with normal pulse coil rotor magnet repulsion! The large iron keepers would just continue to fly by the thick PMH cores with no back attraction like the Anguswangus rotor magnets create!


Eight PMH power coils and eight iron rotor bars would allow the motor to alternate a firing sequence to stagger the PMH power pulses enough to avoid core and rotor bar saturation. I built a motor like this with rotor magnets, and one PMH pulse coil but it failed due to core saturation and I gave up. 

[Farmhand]

Conrad, unfortunately I made a real rookie stuff up and crossed my FG connections, so I removed that video, it did have the effect of showing other things, but my words did make me look the fool so I had no choice but to remove it. That was a kind of unrelated experiment even though there were some things to see and hints of things to experiment with.

I'm glad you caught it but it did not show what I thought it was showing, once I realized something was not right I made a third check and seen my mistake then removed the video.

Experiments are continuing but with a clearer head and more connection checking. I'm no expert, I'm very much a learner.  Obviously. But I can see, and realize when things don't add up if I think about it enough. I hope to have a clearer head tomorrow.

So I say my last video experiment that I removed was flawed and invalid. My bad. I'll be more attentive in future. And check three times. 

Cheers

I do have another experiment showing a similar effect but genuine and I will redo that one, this one will be a 50 Hz experiment. My apologies for the bad video experiment. I had several distractions but make no excuses.

..

[gyulasun]

@Gyula,


Quote from Gyula:

"Why do you attribute to Itsu things he obviously did not do?  He did not lower the CMF for DLE to 18,000 rpm with his resonant output coil! In his parallel resonance video the highest frequency from his generator coil output was 206 Hz (this is 12,360 rpm and this latter rpm  occured when he shorted the output), no any higher rpm was demonstrated.  How can you claim he lowered it to 18,000 rpm??   (For the other members: Itsu's video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg )"


Look, Itsu's running four magnets at 150 hertz RPM. That's 9,000 RPM equal to 18,000 RPM for the diametric. Now your raising his speed to 206 Hertz which would yield an equivilant of 24,720 for a diametric frequency. Then you ask me how come I'm attributing a rate of 18,000 RPM's to Itsu!


I maintained the critical minimum frequency for a diametric spinner to catch DLE was 25,000 RPM's. Itsu caught it at 9,000 RPM's which would equate to 18,000 RPM's for a diametric magnet, 7,000 RPM's less then where I get it with my spiral output coil and sphere spinner. JLN's spinning at 30,000 RPM with his diametric in his test.

synchro01:

Speaking of Itsu's motor setup in his parallel resonant video, he had 4 magnets on the rotor and he used one generator coil. This meant that he got induction 4 times per one revolution of the rotor, right?  Now this means that checking the RPM of his rotor with a tachometer when the scope shows 150 Hz, the tachometer would display 9,000/4 = 2,250 RPM only and not 9,000 as you would think. For your diametric magnet case then the actual RPM would be 2 times 2,250 = 4,500! (at least as per following your logic of calculation for the diametric magnet case from Itsu's 4 magnet case when you say Itsu's RPM of 9,000 is equal to 18,000 RPM for the diametric magnet case)
This all means that your tachometer readings on the reflective tape attached to your spinner needs rechecking or you calculations needs checking?

It is okay that we all make mistakes,  however you again attributed to me a thing what Itsu did: it was Itsu who was raising his rotor speed to 206 Hz in his video, I just referred to it as the maximum speed occuring in his video, and I meant it to prove that your forever mentioned 18,000 RPM was not even approached in his video: still you wrote that he lowered the rotor speed to 18,000 RPM... lowered from what speed then??  (You wrote it in your Reply #691)

Gyula