The bifilar pancake coil at its resonant frequency

[NRamaswami]

TK

Unfortunately I have neither the equipment nor the theoretical knowledge to calculate resonance on my own. I have replicated a device already built and described and found it provided resonance. So without the knowledge I am unable to respond. You are a Tesla fan but when you say cosmic rays are weak are you not contradicting Tesla Radiant energy patent. For that was the next experiment I wanted to do.

Is not electromagnetic coupling inferior to electric coupling as distance of coupling would be greatly reduced? Could you please give your insight on that.
Thanks

[TinselKoala]

TK

Unfortunately I have neither the equipment nor the theoretical knowledge to calculate resonance on my own. I have replicated a device already built and described and found it provided resonance. So without the knowledge I am unable to respond.

If you don't have the equipment or the theoretical knowledge, how do you know that your device is actually "providing resonance" ?

You are a Tesla fan but when you say cosmic rays are weak are you not contradicting Tesla Radiant energy patent. For that was the next experiment I wanted to do.

By all means perform the experiment yourself. No, I am not contradicting Tesla's patent, I am just pointing out that you won't be able to get much power from it, as there isn't very much real power from cosmic rays or the solar wind available at the surface of the Earth.

You may be interested to know that I have actual "photographs" of cosmic rays. Or at least photos of the trails produced by cosmic rays in my sensitive astrophotograpy camera which uses a cooled charge-coupled device (CCD) imager. It's a good thing there aren't more of them because it would really screw up the photos of astronomical objects and events. Not to mention wreaking havoc with DNA in living organisms.

Is not electromagnetic coupling inferior to electric coupling as distance of coupling would be greatly reduced? Could you please give your insight on that.
Thanks

It depends on what you mean by "inferior". For example over the past couple of years we are starting to see more and more wireless charging and power transfer systems from commercial manufacturers like Apple. These are all electromagnetic. The problem with using the electric field, as you may have already found out yourself, is that when sufficient power is applied for longer range, almost everything in the environment becomes a "receiver". I think Tesla found this out, you have seen it no doubt, and even Eric Dollard discovered it for himself. With high-power electric field systems you get fluorescent and neon bulbs lighting up all over the place, sensitive components in devices like computers start to fail, people get shocked, metal shelving and metal chassis start spraying corona... it can be a real problem. With electromagnetic coupling you need tuned receivers (which can be very simple as I've shown) and yes, it does work best at relatively close range. Surround a room or a garage with the transmitting loop, or embed it in the concrete floor and you can transfer large amounts of power safely and under control, and only your tuned receivers will be able to pick it up. You can't do that with powerful electric fields.

[NRamaswami]

Thanks TK

You seem to be amazingly well funded  and no dispute a lot of knowledge to match it.

I had been careful with using very weak electric fields to start with. The receiver coil connected to earth lights up a fluorescent lamp or Long straight tube light of 40 watts when it is brought near the unpowered receiver coil. Without resonance this is not possible. We do not need devices or calculations to understand this.

On electric fields I think we are yet to replicate nature which provides safe healthy terahertz visible spectrum. Only if we create very high voltage and relatively lower range frequencies compared to visible spectrum we have the problems you indicated. We would need particle size receivers to be resonant with it.

Wireless electromagnetic coupling can potentially increase the risk of deadly diseases. Cancer was extremely rare in India 40 years back. We have a lot today. Situation in Countries like US is said to be far worse. Has there been safety studies on wireless electromagnetic coupling done? 

On cosmic rays I beg to differ. While you are correct in the power of them as received they can be easily amplified. Tesla's patent does not talk about the amplification part which is otherwise common sense.

I believe that there is at least one member here who possibly might have done the Daniel McFarland Cook device which is said to produce unlimited DC output. Such
Such devices if controlled properly are quite safe.

Regards

Ramaswami

[tomd]

There is a guy from Brazil - Gerson Paiva - who has a number of patents (attached) for free energy devices which work on the principle of muon capture to produce energy. In 2007 he was a doctoral student at the Federal University of Pernambuco where he was involved in the investigation of ball lightning. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070122-ball-lightning.html

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmsg5LpGICV-jgJ2P1UirMg

[MileHigh]

Okay no takers on the self-resonant flywheel being a direct mechanical analog to the self-resonant coil.  So let's review it.

Rotational inertia is equivalent to inductance.  So it is rotational self-springiness that would be equivalent to the self-capacitance of the coil.

So how do we model that?  When you think of a flywheel, you think of a very solid disk of metal, say like a metal weight you put on a barbell.  Instead of that, let's imagine a much thinner metal disk, say something like the proportions of a cutting saw blade in a table saw.  Let's make the diameter larger also, say about one meter.

So, we are going to find the self-resonant frequency of a large and thin metal disk flywheel.  There is a certain amount of rotational springiness in that flywheel, if you put a brake on the outer edge of the flywheel and applied twisting torque on the center, the center wold twist a slight amount.

So you mount the flywheel on a shaft in a test system.  The test system can apply torque to the shaft in the form of an AC sine wave that can vary in intensity and frequency.  That is the equivalent to an external voltage source exciting the coil.

You start off by setting the applied torque on the flywheel as a one-hertz sine wave where the torque varies back and forth between a clockwise (CW) peak of 500 newton-meters and a counterclockwise (CCW) peak of 500 newton-meters.  You observe the flywheel rotating CW and then CCW at one hertz.  You also notice that the velocity of the rotating flywheel is exactly 90 degrees behind the applied torque to the flywheel, which is exactly how an inductor works for the relationship between the applied voltage and resulting current flow.  The two behave in exactly the same way.

You slowly increase the frequency of the CW + CCW torque to the flywheel and observe the flywheel rotating CW and then CCW where the velocity of the rotation is still 90 degrees behind the applied torque.  However, you notice that as you increase the frequency of the applied torque the total back-and forth angular displacement of the flywheel is decreasing.

When you apply a 200 Hz torque waveform to the flywheel, you can't even see the flywheel moving anymore.  At a 300 Hz AC torque, the flywheel appears to be perfectly still and not moving.  Apply a 400 Hz AC torque signal and the same thing, no apparent response at all from the flywheel.

But, at 497 Hz you hear a slight ringing from the flywheel but you still can't see any movement.  But all hell breaks loose at 500 Hz.  At 500 Hz you hear an incredibly loud ringing sound coming from the flywheel.  You look at the shaft and you can see the shaft is moving CW + CCW at 500 Hz.  You can see a small noticeable CW + CCW rotation at the outer edge of the flywheel.  But the most noticeable thing is the incredibly loud ringing sound filling the room.

You change the AC torque applied to the flywheel shaft to 503 Hz and you are back to hearing a slight ringing.  At 510 Hz, the shaft appears to have stopped moving and the flywheel emits no sound and it is back to looking like it is not moving at all.

So the flywheel had a self-resonant frequency of 500 Hz which was based on the rotational springiness of the flywheel interacting with the moment of inertial (rotational mass) of the flywheel.