Stubblefield coils (bifilar) and speculations

[dllabarre]

Thank you Pirate (Bill), Jeanna and Oscar for confirming these issues.

I was concerned because the dip was so deep from 1 eletrode to the other. 

DonL

[oscar]

....magnetic deviation from true north over there?

Declination given for my place is 2° 23'
(pos. value)

[oscar]

....but im a little too lazy (and time deprived) to read through 95+ pages right now.....

Please sm0ky2,
do yourself a favour,
just need to read 2 pages (the patent)
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=600457A&KC=A&FT=D&date=&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

I also hate reading patents, but it's really written in a straightforward way.
Just 2 pages of text.
You won't regret it.

[jeanna]

hi guys,
....
so umm....   How do i use this thing?? what are we 'supposed to do' with it?
i have 4 leads coming out of it. 2 copper + 2 steel.

Hi sm0ky2,
I agree with oscar. Just read the patent. Our posts will probably not help much.
We ended up with 2 wires 4 ends (hmm, where have I heard this before?  ) all right, but this was just the primary of this complex inductor coil. The secondary which must have many turns to be longer than the primary is something almost nobody made.
According to the patent, it was the secondary that gave you the output.

Lately, I have been reporting earth probes with 2 of these at either end, and I am not even using them as the patent describes. I am again just using the primary.
I think the first real clue I got was when my NS coil picked up radiant energy coming off the joule thief. That time I was looking at the secondary output.

Oh and also, I made one that was built the same but with plastic coated tele - bell wire instead of silk or cotton. I called it the nongalvanic one. It works really well as an inductor or joule thief coil. It also picks up the radiant emanations from joule thief

But again, do read the patent. It is beautifully written and easy enough to follow.

jeanna

[jeanna]

...


That seems really drastic, but you can see that the "Vertical Component" stated by the website, is much higher than the "Horizontal Intensity".

Thanks oscar,
That is a nice clear explanation.

Here is my question.

What is so special about the surface of the ground in your /anyone's back yard?

I assume the hills are a normal part of the ground, so why not build a south level 1.6ft higher than the north as though it were a natural hill?
If you lived on the north slope of a hill you could find that exact angle from the theoretical vertical line , or is it line to the sun on our tipped axis?
I think it is the latter, and I suspect it does not need to be literally buried so deep. I suspect that an earth mound on the south for me is enough.
I could try this. My neighbors already gave up on me a while ago.

Thanks,

jeanna