Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

[conradelektro]

But here, being that the bifi can ring on its own, even open ended leads, then the comparison would be a simple parallel LC and no need to look at series, when it comes to the goal of the thread really.

Mags

If a bifilar coil can ring on its own open ended (the meaning of which I can not understand) then every coil (also a monofilar) would be able to do it.

How do I make a coil to "ring on its own open ended"? (A parallel LC circuit, either the coil with an external cap or the coil with its internal self capacitance, is always a loop where the current is cycling back and force.)

The only difference between monofilar and bifilar I could measure till now is a difference in self capacitance. So, if a coil rings "on its own open ended", any coil would do it at its self resonance frequency (by help of its parallel self capacitance).

The difference in self capacitance includes (or implies) the difference of tension between adjacent loops of wire in the coil.

So, the big question is still: what are we looking for? (Please do not repeat the "high tension between wire loops", I got that.)

It is fine, if the answer is "we do not know yet". And I think that is the only answer available so far (besides vague insinuations or untested speculations).


I did some tests about "a bifilar is a better antenna" by moving an exciter coil closer and farer to my bifilar and monofilar pan cake coils. I saw no difference.


There is always the fact in formal logic, that "arguing from the specific to the general" does not work. So, whatever I test or show, there is the counter argument that I could have done it wrong and that there still is something. But every specific test that shows that there is nothing weakens the argument that there could be something. So, my tests give an indication about the likelihood of alleged effects. But of course never prove in the sense of formal logic that the alleged effect does not exist.

What this little excursion in formal logic teaches us: an alleged effect can only be proven by showing a test that clearly exhibits this alleged effect (I call that positive or factual proof). One can never prove that the alleged effect is not possible (I call that negative proof or the proof of non-existence).

In practice all mentally sane people demand "positive proof" if something is alleged. Only con men and deluded persons demand the impossible negative proof from others (because they can not provide positive proof).

I am going into that because the OU forums and threads provide abundant proof of what I just explained. And it is so bad, that people even tell you that they do not have to provide "positive proof". And what bothers me most is that the con men and deluded persons always find followers who go along with them. And some threads live for years only because positive proof never comes. It stays for ever mysterious and it seems to be exactly the mystery which keeps the thread or discussion alive.

Greetings, Conrad

[wings]

new post of skycollection
https://www.youtube.com/user/skycollection/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32CZzeqqgzU

[MileHigh]

Conrad:

Yes for sure on the isolation transformer for the signal generator output, that's a much better solution.  I am assuming that you are in Germany.  I don't know if you have those electronics surplus stores that I make reference to.  I should be starting to travel to Germany on business this year through!

I will mention something that most already know.  Sometimes you see bins of transformers in the surplus stores.  So even if there are no 1:1 isolation transformers, you probably will find 20:1 step-down transformers.  So if you connect up two isolation transformers in series  1:20:20:1 (or 20:1:1:20) you have a two-stage isolation transformer.  You know that the smaller the transformer, the higher AC frequencies it can pass without attenuation.  In other words, the smaller the transformer the higher the bandwidth.  The core material also comes into play.  Let's be optimistic and assume that with smaller transformers the bandwidth is quite high, in the hundreds of kilohertz.  I don't know for sure because I never did the tests.  Mind you, you can just to to DigiKey and read spec sheets.

Anyway, if you got a pair of say transformers about say 3 cm in size that could be your "medium to high frequency medium power" isolation transformer.  If you got a pair of transformers that were say 10 cm in size, that would be your "low to medium frequency high power" isolation transformer.  That's a back-up plan if there are no 1:1 transformers.  Certainly for the experimenters around here it would be a handy pair of things to keep in your kit.  And there is the 'satisfying' bench experiment:  With your signal generator and your scope measure the bandwidth yourself!  So you then "know" your isolation transformers just like you are supposed to "know" your scope and "know" your scope probes.

Both of your diagrams are correct with the caveat that you don't really need the isolation transformer in the lower diagram.  Can your scope do math between the two traces?

Just for fun, a real-life example of a parallel LC resonator being driven by a signal generator at the resonant frequency:  You see in children's playgrounds the small "ponies" that are supported on a stiff vertical spring.  The mass of the pony body is the capacitor and the spring is the inductor.  Voltage is equivalent to velocity and current is equivalent to force.  Imagine you are sitting next to the pony and your are pushing with your finger to make the mass resonate with the spring.  Imagine the resonant frequency is quite low.  Instead of pushing you hold onto the mass of the pony and move your arm in near-perfect synchronicity with the oscillation.  So your hand 'follows' the movement of the pony, or, it's just as valid to state that your hand 'leads' the pony.  So almost no energy expended by your hand to sustain the resonant oscillation.

The above is equivalent to your signal generator across a parallel resonant LC circuit.  You hand is the "AC voltage source" and it's "across" the mass/capacitor and spring/inductor of the pony.  The velocity is "across" a stationary point and the moving point of your hand. The force travels _through_ the spring.

MileHigh

[synchro1]

If a bifilar coil can ring on its own open ended (the meaning of which I can not understand) then every coil (also a monofilar) would be able to do it.

How do I make a coil to "ring on its own open ended"? (A parallel LC circuit, either the coil with an external cap or the coil with its internal self capacitance, is always a loop where the current is cycling back and force.)

The only difference between monofilar and bifilar I could measure till now is a difference in self capacitance. So, if a coil rings "on its own open ended", any coil would do it at its self resonance frequency (by help of its parallel self capacitance).

The difference in self capacitance includes (or implies) the difference of tension between adjacent loops of wire in the coil.

So, the big question is still: what are we looking for? (Please do not repeat the "high tension between wire loops", I got that.)

It is fine, if the answer is "we do not know yet". And I think that is the only answer available so far (besides vague insinuations or untested speculations).


I did some tests about "a bifilar is a better antenna" by moving an exciter coil closer and farer to my bifilar and monofilar pan cake coils. I saw no difference.


There is always the fact in formal logic, that "arguing from the specific to the general" does not work. So, whatever I test or show, there is the counter argument that I could have done it wrong and that there still is something. But every specific test that shows that there is nothing weakens the argument that there could be something. So, my tests give an indication about the likelihood of alleged effects. But of course never prove in the sense of formal logic that the alleged effect does not exist.

What this little excursion in formal logic teaches us: an alleged effect can only be proven by showing a test that clearly exhibits this alleged effect (I call that positive or factual proof). One can never prove that the alleged effect is not possible (I call that negative proof or the proof of non-existence).

In practice all mentally sane people demand "positive proof" if something is alleged. Only con men and deluded persons demand the impossible negative proof from others (because they can not provide positive proof).

I am going into that because the OU forums and threads provide abundant proof of what I just explained. And it is so bad, that people even tell you that they do not have to provide "positive proof". And what bothers me most is that the con men and deluded persons always find followers who go along with them. And some threads live for years only because positive proof never comes. It stays for ever mysterious and it seems to be exactly the mystery which keeps the thread or discussion alive.

Greetings, Conrad

I went over this a couple of times already, but apparently it failed to sink in. The series bifilar has an increased capacitance, but the capacitance"NEEDS A CHARGE"! What difference would it make to compare two empty capacitors of 250,000 times difference in range. That's exactly what you've been doing! That's why your test results are completely meaningless.


My first shop wound solenoid series bifilar with welding rod core rang all night long after receiving a jolt from a twelve volt battery, with the coil leads open, keeping me awake through the night with the very audible shrill high pitch ring. I know you never bothered to even try and charge the coil like I told you to!  

[MileHigh]

Note in the pony case the parallel LC resonator is acting like an open circuit just like it is supposed to.  You move your hand and that represents velocity, and you exert almost no force with your hand to sustain the resonance.  So your hand is "outputting" almost zero mechanical power just like it's supposed to and the "load" is at very high impedance.

So how come we got so much drag/resistance with the pulse motor pickup coil when it was set up like a parallel LC resonator?  (Back to the delayed Lenz issue.)