Hi all, This coil arrangement is an interesting one for many of us so this thread is for discussion of the coil and it's uses/effects.
This includes all types of coils as stated by Tesla in the patent. Careful reading of the patent is encouraged. :D
Patent 512340 "COIL FOR ELECTRO_MAGNETS"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=baRZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Lines 33 to 38 of Page one of the patent.
QuoteI would here state that by the term coils I desire to include generally helices solenoids or in fact any conductor the different parts of which by the requirements of its application or use are brought into such relations with each other as to materially increase the self induction.
There is a lot of discussion in a thread here -- http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/975/#.UXPhyrXPVqA
Starting at about page 67.
I wanted to bring the discussion to a more appropriate place.
I've done some testing and will elaborate in my next post.
Regards all.
Ok so I wound two coils, both with the same length of wire, (measured and cut side by side). Wire is 0.5 mm enameled wire,
wire length is about 4.35 meters in each coil. The coils are each wound on individual iron powder cylinders 38 mm long x 10 mm diameter.
The core is insulated by home made bee's wax paper and each layer is insulated by a sheet of bee's wax paper as well, there are about 2.5 layers.
Here are the specs.
Single winding coil (control coil)
Turns - 140 (approx.)
Resistance - 0.2 Ohms
Inductance - 401 uH
Capacitance - 43.4 pF (determined)
Resonant Frequency - 1210 kHz (By experiment, square wave excitation)
---...---
Serial connected bifilar coil. "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS"
Turns - 140 (approx.)
Resistance - 0.2 Ohms
Inductance - 406 uH
Capacitance - 117 pF (determined)
Resonant Frequency - 735 kHz (By experiment, square wave excitation)
Capacitance between open windings - 410 pF (measured)
Attached is some pictures and scope shots. Last is the coils and how they are connected for testing,
there is a 10 K resistor is series with the function generator.
The shots show the single winding control coil, first at resonance, then at a harmonic,
then the last two shots are the serial connected bifilar coil.
EDIT: I think the last scope shot is the wrong one, I'll see if I can find the correct shot,
the scope can be tricked into reading the incorrect frequency by the harmonics. :-[
Correct shot found and added.
Cheers
Farmhand:
I think I saw you make reference to the harmonics present in a square wave and how they might possibly be picked up by a ball magnet rotor to make it spin very fast.
The same idea applies to when you are sweeping frequencies with your signal generator to find the resonant frequency of your coil. You must use a "pure tone" without any harmonics present - a sine wave.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 10:15:10 AM
Farmhand:
I think I saw you make reference to the harmonics present in a square wave and how they might possibly be picked up by a ball magnet rotor to make it spin very fast.
The same idea applies to when you are sweeping frequencies with your signal generator to find the resonant frequency of your coil. You must use a "pure tone" without any harmonics present - a sine wave.
MileHigh
Yes I am aware of that. Thanks. One shot is the resonant frequency for that coil and one shot is one of the harmonics of the coil.
I did that for each coil. First two shots are for the single wound coil and the second two shots are for the bifilar coil.
The function generator doesn't lie. It tells me the frequency in numbers when I see resonance. Meaning when all the harmonics disappear.
That's why I use the square wave to excite the coils. Full resonance is very obvious. I do know how to find the resonant frequency of a coil
with a function generator and a scope.
The coils have very different resonant frequencies.
..
My double strength "SB Spiral" monopole:
Quote from Farmhand:
"The coils have very different resonant frequencies"
Farmhand's SBC resonant frequency is in tune with the oscillating frequency of magnatisem. 7.83 Hz for Schumann resonance is nearly a thousand times less then the 735 khz, but on a close harmonic. The SBC resonant frequency is in L-C synch with Earth's pole resonance, along with the neo sphere's inherent magnetic oscillation frequency.
Regarding the increased capacity of the coil for storing energy, would the bifilar coil release all of that
extra energy it takes in and stores if it was used as a series inductor ? As in a charging inductor for a
resonant charging circuit for a Tesla coil pre-primary ect.. It could be useful for that purpose maybe.
The one I made above just happens to be the same frequency as some of my Tesla coils.
As far as for any application, the lowering of the resonant frequency could be very useful.
I remember Slider from EF found some bifilar type/wound coils in an old TV or something, he
talked about it in the Romero Muller thread at EF.
It would seem the self capacitance was increased by almost a factor of 3 in the coils I wound above.
..
This underscores my "Magnetic Resonance Theory".
Quote from Farmhand:
"The one I made above just happens to be the same frequency as some of my Tesla coils".
My function generator is a bodgy unit, the frequency drifts badly for some reason. I've built oscillators and pulsing circuits
that hold a nice steady frequency, I don't get why the bought FG frequency drifts, No one should buy one like the one I
have it isn't very good in that way.
That's why I can't get the frequency to stay spot on where it should be so I apologize for that. :-[
I see there are cheap digital ones on ebay but the output of those is less.
Cheers
Heartbeat frequency:
I am so very glad you have started this Farmhand. I applaud your exploration of the coil that will change our lives.
The problem with bifilar coils is they are designed for pulsed operation. They do not respond well to analogue stimulation. At least not equalled response. The impulse method is where Bifilar coils excel. With a suitable capacitor one can make the bifilar output way more magnetic response then any other coil in existence if a core is included. In no core operation they only emit the electric field because the bifilar coil accelerates the charges from one end to the other. This is done by passing opposite charges from opposite ends. As they approach each other they are accelerated out the other end via the induction of the opposite wind. This acceleration raises the voltage present at the charge.
Using traditional measurements and measuring instruments will not yield anything of value in my opinion. This is mainly due to the devices created for measurement were not designed properly for pure electric measurement.
Tesla was known to say that he didn't use the magnetic component in his systems designed after the AC system. The gain came from suppression of the magnetic field and only allowing an electric field integration. Since the electric field was mainly static as Tesla pointed out he had to find a way to modulate the electric field to cause a vehicle to generate from in the receiver. This was accomplished by the longitudinal modulation he employed and that naturally came from the use of impulses. Tesla quickly discovered that the speed of the electric field going from zero to maximum was faster then light. This is why he has said that light speed is not the fastest in the Universe. Since light is modifiable via magnetic fields it is not a huge jump to conclude that light is slow when compared to the electric field or transport medium of that light. In my opinion light is the result or wake of longitudinal rays-traveling radiative away from from a highly charged body in space.
Someone posted a great PDF of a NASA proposal to research this area of Tesla and others. It's in this forums download area and a link is provided in this thread: http://www.overunity.com/13149/nasa-report-on-teslas-zero-point-energy-page-41/msg357919/#new
learning as much as you can about Tesla/Dollard/Meyel and others will bring you up to speed about how to utilize the bifilar coil to it's full extent.
My original experiment is now being fully experimented on by me. Any information I can get out of the experiment I will share with everyone fully. Since the field coils in my motor generator will be Bifilar in design to handle the impulses to the field coils. There must be very little resistance of the wire in the bifilar coil because this will only slow down the impulses and the subsequent radiative field of such a coil. paralleling the coils will greatly enhance the impulse acceleration and hence the gain in voltage of the electric field. Also from the link I provided earlier in this thread you can see that any matter that is considered as conductive when exposed to this impulse field will generate huge currents in the conductor if the impulses are resonant with the mass of the conductor.
Well I'll let you get back to the road of rediscovery that you are on. Enjoy.
Farmhand:
Perhaps try running the function generator with the top off and see what happens. If it runs stable then there is a good you have a thermal problem with a component. On the bench people use heat guns in combination with freeze spray to locate faulty components.
Itsu has some really nice clips where he checks for resonant frequencies with his scope.
QuoteRegarding the increased capacity of the coil for storing energy, would the bifilar coil release all of that
extra energy it takes in and stores if it was used as a series inductor ? As in a charging inductor for a
resonant charging circuit for a Tesla coil pre-primary ect.. It could be useful for that purpose maybe.
The one I made above just happens to be the same frequency as some of my Tesla coils.
It's hard to discuss things like this without a circuit to work with. From what you say I imagine a resonating SB coil in a standard Tesla coil setup with the long cylindrical secondary coil. I suppose that the Tesla secondary coil would amplify the voltage. Since we are talking high frequencies all this would have to be checked. It's possible that the Tesla secondary coil at 1 MHz won't respond because the frequency is too high. To be more precise, it will respond but possibly at a greatly reduced amplitude because ultimately it will act like a low-pass filter.
If I can offer a suggestion, it looks to me like you have a modern DSO that can record waveforms. We know that a self-resonating coil's oscillations will decay like any RLC resonator. Perhaps with the help of your DSO try to measure how long the ringing lasts and over how many cycles. It will give you a sense of how much time you can work with the resonating coil.
Synchro1:
I have read the speculations for years about bench experiments interacting with the Shumann resonance. Those comments are wild speculations and in fact are not true. You can safely ignore the Shumann resonance.
MileHigh
Shumann resonance is merely one aspect of the "Oscillating frequency of magnetisem" as measured along any Bloch wall and determined to be a constant.
Synchro1:
Well I don't understand what you said and I am wondering what kind of example you can illustrate for the Bloch wall.
The Shumann resonance is associated with the Shumann cavity that surrounds the Earth. It's like a huge microwave cavity that certain wavelengths of EM radiation will bounce off of. It's like the Earth is a ball inside another larger ball where the inside of the larger ball is like a giant mirror. So waves reflect off of the inside of the larger ball and bounce around. It's the size of the ball hat determines the resonance frequency. The ball size and shape change over time because of changes in the space weather. One source of energy to set up the waves inside the reflective ball is lightning strikes. A small portion of the energy in the EM wave pulse from a lighting bolt will be in the right wavelength range to reflect off of the Shumann cavity. So the energy bounces around and just like in an RLC resonator, it eventually dies away in perhaps a few seconds (I would have to check to be sure.)
So you are working on your bench, and then thousands of miles up in space is the giant curved reflective surface of the lossy Schumann cavity. Somewhere in the mix are the Van Allen radiation belts.
Don't worry be happy! lol
MileHigh
The SBC resonant frequency Farmhand measured in his SBC electromagnet is the same as his other Tesla coils, determined by the constant L C frequency in all the SBC coils. This is the same harmonic as the frequency between the Earth's magnetic poles and also the poles of a permanent magnet, in proportion to strength. The SBC's all share the same capacity to inductace ratio. The pure sine wave resonance is in tune with a broader spectrum of harmonics, including the one inside the neo sphere, depending on strength, and the Van Allen belts.
Matching a proper size and strength sphere magnet spinner to an SBC for resonance is important
Farmhand:
I assume that your first tests will be with the coils acting like electromagnets. If you want to go beyond that, some basic ideas for your consideration for analyzing your coils. I am not going to get into too many details. On thing is if you know the core material you can look up its magnetic properties. But the fun is then to try to measure the permeability of the core yourself. Another question is what is the saturation current for the core. With your signal generator on square wave and a simple circuit you can measure the inductance of the two coils with your scope. That can be compared with what your inductance meter says. I am trying to think of another way to measure the differences in the self-capacitance between the two coils. If you make them self-resonate and then set up the initial conditions and then measure the voltage across the coil that's one way. Another way would be to look at the slew rate of the coil voltage increase when you switch of the driving transistor under very controlled conditions. You could also double-check your measured resonant frequency by pinging the coils and letting them ring naturally and recording it.
You know how in a car you have your "idiot lights." It's arguable that capacitance meters and inductance meters are somewhat akin to idiot lights. So you can make these types of measurements with a scope. On the other hand, it's not easy to do some of the stuff mentioned above if the experimenter is a beginner. However, with enough hunting around on the web you could probably find the experiments in question. I am really talking basic lab work, like "how to measure the inductance of an inductor." I don't know if you want to go there but I thought I would mention it.
MileHigh
Quote from: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
Shumann resonance is merely one aspect of the "Oscillating frequency of magnetisem" as measured along any Bloch wall and determined to be a constant.
You should win some kind of prize for that statement.
:P
Synchro1:
QuoteThe SBC resonant frequency Farmhand measured in his SBC electromagnet is the same as his other Tesla coils, determined by the constant L C frequency in all the SBC coils. This is the same harmonic as the frequency between the Earth's magnetic poles and also the poles of a permanent magnet, in proportion to strength. The SBC's all share the same capacity to inductace ratio. The pure sine wave resonance is in tune with a broader spectrum of harmonics, including the one inside the neo sphere, depending on strength.
Matching a proper size and strength sphere magnet spinner to an SBC for resonance is important
You seem to be saying that all SBC coils will have the same resonant frequency. Don't forget that L and C can change from coil to coil. So coils can self-resonae at essentially any frequency.
Your comment about the sine wave resonance is strange to say the least.
MileHigh
@MH: Isn't the Schumann cavity formed by the Earth and the Ionosphere? Hence, not thousands of miles out in space but rather only about 80-100, (or 50-300 for the extreme range) and varying with sunlight pressure (and HAARP activity of course.)
Lightning discharges are the equivalent of dielectric "punctures" in a capacitor. Fortunately the atmosphere heals, like a good poly film cap. Tesla's idea was to use this big capacitor to transfer inputted energy wirelessly to any point within the cavity, and also, using similar apparatus, to extract or entrain some of the vast amount of energy that is already stored there, a tiny bit of which we see when the dielectric punctures in a thunderstorm. It's my unreasoned faith that this might somehow be possible. It is my fair certainty that it will involve physically very large apparatus and high initial energy inputs.
@TK,
Thank you! I'm up for the "Dumbell" science award again.
My "Zither of Unity" monopole SBC spiral self runner is powering the 1/2" magnet sphere in excess of the transister switch speed in the self loop video. This has to be a result of oscillatory SBC resonance. The tiny thread spool SBC up and begins to run itself too, with no output coil loop at subsonic r.p.m.
I believe that the SBC basically begins to power the magnet spinner with RADIO WAVES at high frequency.
@Farmhand:
When I'm determining resonance of a coil or tank, I generally use a "sniffer" coil made from a turn or two of wire, looped around the coil I'm stimulating, and I probe this loop with a scope probe. Using a square wave excitation from the signal generator is proper, as the probe coil will respond sinusoidally when you find the resonant frequency. Once you've found the frequency switch to sine excitation for very fine tuning to peak output from the probe coil. If you are working with a TC primary-secondary pair or just the secondary, you can stimulate the primary directly with the FG and a 50R in series, and probe across the secondary with a 10 meg resistor in series with your scope probe. Again, square wave stimulation will result in the highest amplitude sine wave on the secondary or probe coil output, as the induced EMF is proportional to the rate of change of the inducing current.
Quote from: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 01:28:57 PM
@TK,
Thank you! I'm up for the "Dumbell" science award again.
My "Zither of Unity" monopole SBC spiral self runner is powering the 1/2" magnet sphere in excess of the transister switch speed in the self loop video. This has to be a result of oscillatory SBC resonance. The tiny thread spool SBC up and begins to run itself too, with no output coil loop at subsonic r.p.m.
I believe that the SBC basicly begins to power the magnet with radio waves at high frequency.
When you are pushing a child on a swing, do you have to supply a push on every cycle to keep her swinging? Of course not, and you don't even have to push her on a regular basis, just with enough power to replace her losses between pushes. Your pushes don't even have to be "resonant", that is, in synch with her swinging period, as long as the net timing results in replacing the lost energy, rather than removing more.
I'm not completely familiar with your experiment, and we've clashed before about your interpretation of Tesla's patent. However, I encourage you to carry on experimenting, but I ask you to be careful and circumspect in your interpretations of your results and the claims you make. If you see something interesting and unusual, form an hypothesis about it, then try your best to _disprove_ your own hypotheses. When you fail.... you succeed.
I believe the SB coil broadcasts on a magnetically resonant bandwidth, broadcasting a pure sine wave signal in the Mhz range as the coil powers up. This is transformed into kinetic energy by the neo magnet. This is because the magnetic L C frequency of the coil grows to match the frequency of magnetic oscillation in the magnet spinner field, determined by strength. Then the magnet spinner catches a tail wind!
Hey guys,
Can I ask a question? No... Lol...
What makes matter what it is? I mean is it the matter or is it from the frequency that the matter is wrapped around? Has anyone just resonated a chunk of matter and found out the frequency of each kind of matter? It has to be electrical right?
I'm not trying to start an argument but merely asking that maybe if a certain conductor that is resonant at it's own frequency, which makes it that specific kind of matter, that design of a coil should include this resonant base frequency of the matter itself.
Just a thought...
TK:
Thanks for correcting me about the height of the reflecting layer of the ionosphere. In the back of my mind I wanted to double-check but you can get tired with "look up fatigue."
I strongly disagree with you though about using a square wave to find he coil self-resonant frequency. We are modelling the coil as a parallel LC circuit and looking for the frequency corresponding to the the highest impedance, correct? So why would you want to pump multiple simultaneous frequencies into the parallel LC filter if you are looking for a single resonant frequency? When you characterize any filter it is easier to do it with a sine wave representing one frequency only, and then sweep that frequency.
I am not saying that it's absolutely wrong to use a square wave, but you could get fooled and see what you think is a peak response which is happening due to a harmonic and not due to the fundamental. It's just "cleaner" to sweep the filter with a sine wave.
Synchro1:
I don't know if you have a scope but if you do you should do a very careful analysis before drawing any conclusions about your motor. The full explanation for what is happening should be interesting but it's doubtful it's going to involve the very very high frequencies that you are indicating.
MileHigh
Here's something very interesting on spinning magnets with radio waves. Coil and capacitor
http://amasci.com/tesla/tescv2.html (http://amasci.com/tesla/tescv2.html)
Exerpt:
"Notice that the magnet can be MUCH smaller than the wavelength of the radio waves. It's the field of the magnet that intercepts the energy, not the physical magnet poles. Also note that the physical magnet itself is not directly interacting with the incoming waves. Instead, the magnet's NEARFIELD B-FIELD interacts with the radio waves, and this altered b-field then applies a force to the magnet. The static field of the magnet absorbs energy from the radio waves, then it delivers that energy to the magnet as a mechanical force exerted over a distance. The nearfield b-field acts like an antenna! Since energy is absorbed from the radio waves, the spinning magnet must be casting a large "EM shadow," and punching a big hole in the incoming wavetrain. The magnet might be tiny, but its magnetic field can extend to a great distance. It's as if the rotating magnet surrounds itself with a large black "absorber cloud" which blocks the incoming EM waves. Obviously the magnet can only "reach out" within about 1/4 wavelength around itself. My synchronous motor has now become an "energy-sucking" antenna".
My question is:
How well does the SBC act as a radio transmitter? Answer, great!
I answer here to Magluvin, once Farmhand created this thread on the Coil for electromagnetc topic, quote from the Confirming the delayed Lenz effect thread:
Quote from: Magluvin on April 20, 2013, 08:48:15 PM
We talked about the capacitance neutralizing the self inductance the other day.
If we have a coil with a cap across it, and then we just apply a dc source across it, the cap will charge virtually instantly, but the inductor wont. This might imitate a neutralizing of self inductance of the coil, where the current flows easily through the cap. We are talking about applying DC here.
If the capacitance is 'in' the coil, well that current that charges that capacitance goes 'through the coil' neutralizing the self inductance. And if it neutralizes self inductance, then maybe we could think, does that mean that the magnetic field is neutralized also, or just the effect of impedance is neutralized and outer magnetic field is unaffected. If so then initially there could be a very intense field pulse, as compared to a slowly building standard inductive field build, depending in the inductance.
That internal capacitance is charged through a coil that can make an external field like any other coil and the impedance is neutralized. So until this capacitance is charged, this coil might be acting like a super electromagnet. Sounds like a heck of an idea to patent. ;)
If we consider the cap connected to a coil, there probably isnt any purpose for it in the DC world. But here the capacitance is in the coil, and in my opinion, there should be a difference.
Also I stated earlier about the ability of holding power over time. Well if the field is huge in the beginning through the object being held, this may give us that stronger hold over time, instantly instead.
So you can see why I am emphatic about not testing them in series. It is not conclusive in any way. It does not show if one coil could pull more current than the other with the same voltage input. Its not correct in any way. The only thing that does is possibly show that the 2 coils can pick up the same amount of clips. But the singlefi coil in series wont allow the capacitance of the bifi to charge as it would connected to the supply alone, thus no initial magnetic pulse from the bifi.
Will see soon. ;) Im going more is better. :o ;D
Mags
Hi Mags,
I understand what you say. Basically I agree with it, the higher the self capacitance of a coil is, the more chance the input current 'sees' a less inductive reactance to fight with in the transient time till reaching the steady-state condition. In my tests the about 420 uH bifilar coil with its 220 pF 'embedded' capacitance surely represents a negligible problem in this respect because these LC values are too small to cause any effect for the speed of a hand-operated switch I acted with.
There must be transient phenomenas in case of any RLC circuit / network but the switch on or off speed is important because the closer you hit the resonant frequency of an RLC circuit by the switching speed, the quicker the inductive (or capacitive) behaviour of the RLC circuit vanishes and the phase of the input current in that case will be closer and closer to the phase of the current flowing via the R part of the circuit.
This is exactly what Tesla achieved in his Coil for electromagnets patent by introducing wire B and winding very close to wire A, making up for the 1000 turn example of wire A with the additional 1000 turn of wire B. This way there have been an 'artificial' capacitor created and embedded into the coil when wires A and B were connected in series as he explained. He came up with this solution to increase the coils self capacitance without the use of high voltage discrete capacitors for lowering the normally rather high self-resonances of coils.
You ask: "does that mean that the magnetic field is neutralized also?" By no means, because even for DC currents the capacitors represent a short circuit till they get charged up and for AC or pulsed DC currents the capacitors charge up then discharge as the rate of change dictates. AND the same input current must flow via the coil wires, especially in a series connection like Tesla showed. So the input current can go through the coil(s) hence flux is created.
I may have answered your questions.
Gyula
Here's lidmotor broadcasting a radio signal with an upright pancake coil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoKDU1yGkPo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoKDU1yGkPo)
Would a 1 Mhz radio broadcast signal power a neo magnet sphere, broadcast from a SB pancake coil transmitter like Lidmotors? 1 Mhz was designated the best power range frequency by Nicola Tesla. The magnet speed would have to be raised to synchronization speed independently to meld with the broadcast sine wave.
I quote again from the Confirming the delayed Lenz effect thread:
Quote from: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 03:27:58 PM (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357960/#msg357960)
Thank you Gyula. The original experiment involved shorting both coils accross a "D" cell battery. The obvious difference between the experiments is that power is free to rise to load with the battery, unlike Gyula's latest try, where the power is governd. Maybe the bifilar electromagnet will draw more input then Gyula's inputing to it, if you feed it. The original experiment allows for increased current consumption compared to Gyula's generous attempt. Enlighting regardless!
Answer from Magluvin:
That makes sense. If the supply limits current then its possible that the low ohms of the 2 coils could push those current limits on their own, possibly not letting the currents needed bi the bifi to occur. Dunno yet. But will. (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
Mags
Folks,
I do not fully understand you. The power supply does not limit current in my tests shown. It is true that my supply has a controllable current limiting feature up to 750 mA max output current and it was set to that upper limit all the time. And I took out only 430 mA from it.
It is also okay that a D battery cell has a very low inner resistance but an analog variable power supply surely have a very low output impedance, normally the emitter follower power transistor output from its emitter point, so no problem in this respect. Power is also free to rise in case of a low output impedance supply too.
Gyula
Quote from: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 04:47:19 PM
(snip)
I strongly disagree with you though about using a square wave to find he coil self-resonant frequency. We are modelling the coil as a parallel LC circuit and looking for the frequency corresponding to the the highest impedance, correct? So why would you want to pump multiple simultaneous frequencies into the parallel LC filter if you are looking for a single resonant frequency? When you characterize any filter it is easier to do it with a sine wave representing one frequency only, and then sweep that frequency.
I am not saying that it's absolutely wrong to use a square wave, but you could get fooled and see what you think is a peak response which is happening due to a harmonic and not due to the fundamental. It's just "cleaner" to sweep the filter with a sine wave.
(snip)
You might be interested to know how my Arduino-based inductance meter works. I illustrate its operation in a video. I also show in another video how to determine the resonant frequency of a coil.
While the resonant frequency of a tank does correspond to the highest input impedance of the circuit, that is not the parameter I am observing, because that is not the parameter of interest. I want to know the resonant frequency. Hence I look for the purity and amplitude of the _output_ signal produced in a "receiving" coil placed around or near the inductor of the tank circuit I am testing. Take a look at Farmhand's scopeshots to see how the spectral purity of the output cleans up and becomes sinusoidal, and then peaks in amplitude, at the exact resonant frequency. There is no doubt when you get to the right frequency.
But the Arduino does it a little differently, but still corresponding to the same thing, and _still_ using a sharp-edged fast risetime square wave pulse to do it. The Arduino places the inductor under test into a tank circuit with a 2 microFarad cap, then rings the tank by applying a single sharp pulse, then it isolates the tank and observes the ringdown voltage peaks, times them and determines the frequency, then finds the inductance by calculation. A tank rings down at its resonant frequency, and the higher the Q the more countable peaks you will get in the ringdown before you have to "hit the gong" with a sharp pulse again.
(But of course a properly resonant TC hits the gong on every cycle in exactly the right timing.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0)
Any Tesla coiler knows that the key to getting the proper HV VRSWR effect happening in the secondary, is to make the "driving pulse" in the primary to have the most rapid rise and fall times possible: a rectangular pulse, not a sine. This is why Tesla spent so much time on spark gaps, and why the spark gap is so critical to a proper performing TC. And it's why my MOT DC SGTC works so well: I use compressed air to blow out the spark gap, to decrease the rise and fall times of the primary current.
ETA: Looking at the tank directly, as in the videos above, rather than using a second pickup coil, produces the same results but for slightly different reasons.
Quote from: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 02:19:21 PM
I believe the SB coil broadcasts on a magnetically resonant bandwidth, broadcasting a pure sine wave signal in the Mhz range as the coil powers up. This is transformed into kinetic energy by the neo magnet. This is because the magnetic L C frequency of the coil grows to match the frequency of magnetic oscillation in the magnet spinner field, determined by strength. Then the magnet spinner catches a tail wind!
Not too much to object to there; your metaphors aren't leading you too far astray. All RF is "magnetically resonant bandwidth" for some receiver configuration, after all, and it is the neo magnet that is spinning, so no problems there, and certainly frequency matching is important and affected by the speed of the spinning magnet, and "catching a tailwind" is an appropriate way to describe the pumping of energy into the kinetic system, just as "pushing the child's swing" is. Weird kind of circular, cyclinc tailwind, though.
Ah... I remembered another point from the original thread that I wanted to comment on.
AC electromagnets.
Yes.... you can get remarkable effects from AC electromagnets. If you place your poles right, you can levitate, that is, repel, non-ferrous metals like aluminum and copper. Some very fancy cooktops use this effect to levitate a frying pan while at the same time heating it by inductive power transfer.
But you can even levitate quite well using just plain 50 or 60 Hz line AC into a proper electromagnet, no other components necessary (except a Variac to control the power).
It is of course eddy current levitation; the pulsing field from the AC EM induces eddys in the metal, and the field from the eddys repels the field from the EM, and so the material gets pushed away from the EM.
If the pulsing field is at the right frequency and strength it will indeed induce an electric field across non-conductive bits of plastic, etc, and can cause them to be attracted to the EM (RF in this case).
I wonder if I broadcast into an SB pancake antenna with a coventional C.B or Marine band radio, if I could drive a magnet with that frequency signal?
I believe the SBC spinner starts out as a pulse motor, then transitions to a synchronous a.c. motor powered by the SBC sine wave broadcast signal. The coil pulses one pole then the a.c phases in and drives both.
TK:
I liked your Arduino "ringing the bell" inductance meter clip. Really cool.
On the other hand I did not like your other clip where you used your frequency generator. You have to factor in the fact that I have no bench to work on and I doubt I ever did that test. Nonetheless, I see big issues with your clip. You are "brute force" driving the LC resonator with a direct connection from the function generator right across the resonator. So you are heavily loading it down with the 50-ohm impedance of your function generator and the L-C of the cable itself. On your scope display when you are at resonance you clearly see the straight lines in the waveform. So that's probably the capacitance discharging and charging through the the 50-ohm alternating square wave voltage from the function generator. It doesn't give me a good feeling.
I always assumed that you would put something like a 1K resistance between the signal generator output and he LC resonator. That pretty much isolates the LC resonator from the signal source and the signal source just "tickles" the resonator. Then you set your function generator to output a sine wave and you look at the voltage across the LC resonator to look for the peak response. As you sweep the frequency all that you see is a pure sine wave across the LC resonator. That's the way I envisioned you were supposed to do it.
MileHigh
@synchro:
Well.... CB is 30 MHz, approx 10 Meter wavelength band. Your oscillations will be too fast to "catch" anything physical like a magnet, I think. But try it, by all means.
@MH: I suppose you are technically correct. I usually do use a series resistance when I put the FG's output into a coil, but maybe I didn't in that video.
But I think that the primary effect of having the FG and the probes attached is to reduce the Q of the tank; the associated capacitances are so small that the resonant frequency isn't being altered that much. I think. Otherwise.... how could I have arrived at a final value for the inductance of the coil, that so closely agrees with its measured value using a commercial inductance meter?
"As you sweep the frequency all that you see is a pure sine wave across the LC resonator. " That's not true (in my experience), even if you use a pure sine wave as stimulation. You don't see the pure sinusoidal output until you are close to the resonant frequency _or a harmonic_.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2013, 08:06:14 PM
Quote from: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 10:47:19 PM
Quote(snip)
I strongly disagree with you though about using a square wave to find he coil self-resonant frequency. We are modelling the coil as a parallel LC circuit and looking for the frequency corresponding to the the highest impedance, correct? So why would you want to pump multiple simultaneous frequencies into the parallel LC filter if you are looking for a single resonant frequency? When you characterize any filter it is easier to do it with a sine wave representing one frequency only, and then sweep that frequency.
I am not saying that it's absolutely wrong to use a square wave, but you could get fooled and see what you think is a peak response which is happening due to a harmonic and not due to the fundamental. It's just "cleaner" to sweep the filter with a sine wave.
(snip)
You might be interested to know how my Arduino-based inductance meter works. I illustrate its operation in a video. I also show in another video how to determine the resonant frequency of a coil.
While the resonant frequency of a tank does correspond to the highest input impedance of the circuit, that is not the parameter I am observing, because that is not the parameter of interest. I want to know the resonant frequency. Hence I look for the purity and amplitude of the _output_ signal produced in a "receiving" coil placed around or near the inductor of the tank circuit I am testing. Take a look at Farmhand's scopeshots to see how the spectral purity of the output cleans up and becomes sinusoidal, and then peaks in amplitude, at the exact resonant frequency. There is no doubt when you get to the right frequency.
But the Arduino does it a little differently, but still corresponding to the same thing, and _still_ using a sharp-edged fast risetime square wave pulse to do it. The Arduino places the inductor under test into a tank circuit with a 2 microFarad cap, then rings the tank by applying a single sharp pulse, then it isolates the tank and observes the ringdown voltage peaks, times them and determines the frequency, then finds the inductance by calculation. A tank rings down at its resonant frequency, and the higher the Q the more countable peaks you will get in the ringdown before you have to "hit the gong" with a sharp pulse again.
(But of course a properly resonant TC hits the gong on every cycle in exactly the right timing.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0)
Any Tesla coiler knows that the key to getting the proper HV VRSWR effect happening in the secondary, is to make the "driving pulse" in the primary to have the most rapid rise and fall times possible: a rectangular pulse, not a sine. This is why Tesla spent so much time on spark gaps, and why the spark gap is so critical to a proper performing TC. And it's why my MOT DC SGTC works so well: I use compressed air to blow out the spark gap, to decrease the rise and fall times of the primary current.
ETA: Looking at the tank directly, as in the videos above, rather than using a second pickup coil, produces the same results but for slightly different reasons.
Wow one sleep and so many comments.
The way I see it the square wave does not actually contain all harmonics, it "possibly" contains all harmonics, a square wave cannot actually be all frequencies at the same time.
If we take some french curves I'm sure we could draw all the harmonics within the square wave but that is just for the theory. To explain things.
I usually always use a square wave to find resonance for my Tesla coils or whatever other coils/transformers. Showing the harmonic was merely to show that the harmonics can be there and can be used. Although proper resonance is more useful. I think when we tune a Tesla coil we don't actually want it tuned spot on, we want it tuned so that when it loads up it becomes in tune, which is not necessarily max impedance or whatever. It's maximum voltage or output we want mostly. I tune for max output power with an output arrangement and max secondary voltage with Tesla coils ( when loaded). The primary of my spark gap Tesla coil is only resonant when the gap is conducting because it has no resonance tuning caps across the primary all the time, only when the cap is discharging. All the Q is in the secondary and extra coils. But if the primary capacitance on discharge is not correct to give the primary "LC resonance" at the correct frequency it won't work so well I use tuning coils to find the right tune for a given experiment. I use a high speed rotary gap of sorting bar design.
I will repeat the tests with a sniffer coil, but I foresee that any difference will be small and the same for both coils, as well as they will ring longer. I like to see the harmonics come together and the sine wave form and peak then the waveform after resonant point is usually pointy, anyway we get a feel for it.
My concern was that if a bifilar coil was used as a DC resonant charging inductor the self capacitance might hold energy in the coil, now that I think about it not such an issue. I can try it and compare since I have comparative coils I can test them in a few different situations.
I didn't aim for any particular frequency, I just found a piece of wire almost 10 meters long that I stripped off a transformer to even up windings and strung it out folded it in half and went from there. Any similarity with the frequency of my Tesla coils is just coincidence.
Yes I might test some magnet lift tests and such, but I don't expect to be using smooth DC much.
The thing I see with resonance is that in some situations or uses we may reduce Q and damp outputs with load or other ways but a coil tuned with a capacitance for a specific frequency is more responsive than one without.
I call that tuning the coils to resonance, even though when in use the Q might be gone and the waves damped.
In my accelerating under load video we can see the setup is loaded up by the coils harmonics which loads the driving motor, then when the load is applied the harmonics and the main wave are flattened, I used a rectifier as well, if I loaded the output coil without the rectifier the effect would have been more pronounced.
The use of a lower resonant frequency of a coil wound to have it is many.
Cheers
Synchro1:
Your motor works on "near-field" magnetic fields generated by your drive coil, I am assuming that you are using an SB coil. You are not operating in the "far-field" realm of radio wave transmission. Plus the radio frequencies are too high relative to your spinning rotor. That article you linked to on "Mechanical Antennas" is wrong. A basic oscilloscope has more than enough bandwidth to allow you to analyze your motor.
MileHigh
TK:
Quote"As you sweep the frequency all that you see is a pure sine wave across the LC resonator. " That's not true (in my experience), even if you use a pure sine wave as stimulation. You don't see the pure sinusoidal output until you are close to the resonant frequency _or a harmonic_.
It's amazing how you can remember stuff from 30 years ago but you can't remember stuff from last year or last week.
I can't explain your observations because of the following: If you start with a sine wave as stimulation, then you have no where else to go. Your device under test has to respond with a sine wave at the same frequency (but not necessarily the same amplitude and phase.) This presumes that the device under test consists of linear components.
The only way generate new frequencies, i.e.; "You don't see the pure sinusoidal output" is if your device under test has non-linear components in it, like a nasty diode. I am assuming that the LC tank circuit is in general pretty damn linear. So it's a mystery to me.
MileHigh
But I think synchro is right about his motor: first it's working as a pulse motor, then it is working as a synchronous AC motor. Call it near-field EM or RF, whatever. The thing does not have to be "responding" to every cycle of the driving wave. The rotor magnet might be rotating at the tenth "subharmonic" of the applied EM or RF and still be getting a push from it.
At the higher speeds it's rotating for the same reason that the compass is rotating in this video. The line between "pulse motor" and "synchronous AC motor" is a fine, blurry line and you can define motors on either side of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd5w8KhYrQk
TK:
Farmhand has a clip where I think you also observe a similar phenomenon. I used the term "metastability." The rotor will stabilize at a base frequency and possibly at one or more higher or lower frequencies for reasons akin to what you outlined.
I used the term "electro-mechanical impedance" for how a pulse motor might respond. In that sense it's yet another "filter." Just like a fancy analog filter might have multiple poles (resonance points) and zeros in the filter response, an electro-mechanical filter can also have it's poles and zeros.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2013, 09:31:25 PM
But I think synchro is right about his motor: first it's working as a pulse motor, then it is working as a synchronous AC motor. Call it near-field EM or RF, whatever. The thing does not have to be "responding" to every cycle of the driving wave. The rotor magnet might be rotating at the tenth "subharmonic" of the applied EM or RF and still be getting a push from it.
At the higher speeds it's rotating for the same reason that the compass is rotating in this video. The line between "pulse motor" and "synchronous AC motor" is a fine, blurry line and you can define motors on either side of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd5w8KhYrQk
Glad you brought that up, I just thought of a pulse motor rotor design to make use of harmonics in an attraction kind of way.
I'll whip a sketch and post it with an explanation a bit later.
Just an idea as an experiment. I have got an optical sensor circuit for a pulse motor (to replace reeds) but I haven't used it with an appropriate
motor setup yet, I tested it with the dodgy coils I made for the acceleration generator video's, but I have bought different magnets and have better shafts now
so I may construct a new pulse motor as a fast spinner. I don't know when but I will probably be out of action for some time soon, if I don't post for a while
it's because of a medical issue, just thought I should mention that. Nothing to worry about, much.
Cheers
Quote from: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 09:31:05 PM
TK:
It's amazing how you can remember stuff from 30 years ago but you can't remember stuff from last year or last week.
I can't explain your observations because of the following: If you start with a sine wave as stimulation, then you have no where else to go. Your device under test has to respond with a sine wave at the same frequency (but not necessarily the same amplitude and phase.) This presumes that the device under test consists of linear components.
The only way generate new frequencies, i.e.; "You don't see the pure sinusoidal output" is if your device under test has non-linear components in it, like a nasty diode. I am assuming that the LC tank circuit is in general pretty damn linear. So it's a mystery to me.
MileHigh
You can get "beat note" rippling superimposed on the main sinusoidal output that happens at too long a time frame to show up on the average display of only a few cycles, and also higher frequencies that show up as a thickening of the trace line. But you are by and large correct, it's just a quibbly point.
However it's certain that using the square pulse produces the same eventual resonant frequency, and it's also true that the square pulse will often produce a measurable output when a sine wave at the same amplitude won't.
Farmhand:
FYI square waves, triangle waves, saw tooth waves, can all be broken down into their fundamental frequency and associcated harmonics. Some waves have only odd harmonics, some even harmonics, some both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave)
MileHigh
P.S.: The attached gif image is animated but I can't see it here, but I can see it on the Wiki entry.
Milehigh, Thanks for the tips with the Function generator, I was thinking of having a look inside, but it's handy in the I don't care too much if I damage it kinda way. I might have a look in there, I've got some temperature probes and non contact thermometers ect.
I do get what you're saying on the square waves and harmonics ect. and I agree you're right, if say you take the square and sine signals you see in the top diagram,
and fed a transformer or such like a Tesla coil with each one at the same amplitude the only difference will be the square wave input will give a higher amplitude resonant sine wave output than with the sine wave input and similarly a triangle wave will give less than a sine, just from memory. With some transformers the resulting sine wave from a square wave input can be a bit "off" shape but uniform when showing the amplitude peak, usually this happens when a core is used other than air. We can get very low frequency "beats" with two transformers almost identical but just a bit different in frequency.
So we can excite the coil with very sharp pulses and if the Q is good enough with no loading we might see only slight damping between the input events of a lower harmonic input frequency, the third harmonic is strong with a pulsed DC input, say for example my transformer is resonant at 750 kHz then if I excite it at somewhere around 250 kHz I can get a
strong and only slightly damped response at 750 kHz, that's basic stuff. I'm not a ham radio man or a full on "coiler", I'm a boilermaker experimenting as a hobby, I can't get too complicated, I don't have time.
I do very much appreciate everybody's input and I will try to respond to posts that are to me. I'll have to work back when I have time later.
Thanks all
Cheers
The optical sensor circuit I have can be used for snipping the center out of a wave ect. as well, "like coil shorting".
ie. I could run a regular pulse motor and use the sensor on an arc adjustment to load the generator coil at just the right moment.
A second circuit can work in burst mode also so it can short and open a coil several times for one trigger event.
Sensor module circuit is linked in the video description.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfkEv8oUUls
Here I test the generator as a motor, (the rotor is actually driving a universal motor shaft which it was mounted on) that is a fair bit of load,
plus as can be seen by the wave form the magnets seem to be inducing a lot in the motor coils or something. Anyway a much better and free spinning
pulse motor can be made with the optical sensor. The output of the optical sensor circuit goes to the switching circuit for the motor coils or to the loading switch.
EDIT: (this video is glitching for me at 9 seconds in, just skip to 12 seconds or something if it does that.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mRVjbXNLBs
Or it can be used to load the resonant rise out of a gen coil maybe, which is what I would like to try some time. ;)
Like make the gen coils resonant then load them just enough to clip the resonant rise off the top. For an experiment.
Forgot to mention the two circuits together can output a variable pulse width for the switches even though the input PW from the sensor is constant.
I'll try to find the drawing for the switching control section.
P.S. An RPR 220 optical sensor is worth about 75 cents and a CD4001 or 4011 chip is worth about 45 cents.
The most expensive parts are usually the mosfet driver chips which are not really necessary anyway I also used a CD 4047 chip to make the bursts.
That's the drawing I'm looking for. :-[
...
Just to add the idea I had before, see attachment pic.
The idea is that when harmonics are present in the motor or generator core the steel inserts might be attracted to them. Maybe a red herring.
Also the pic shows what I mean by using the serial connected bifilar coil as a charging inductor, when the current is interrupted in the charging inductor it
discharges it's energy into the second capacitor which builds a higher charge to discharge through the primary on the next cycle. The built up charge in the second capacitor
depends on the energy released from the charging inductor.
Cheers
Looks like a very nice pulse motor you are evolving there. I can't do the theoretical analysis as easily as MH, I have to build and probe, change and build, change and test, before I think I know what is going on in most circuits.
FWIW, I made another video showing the use of the FG, the scope and the frequency counter to resonate a tank circuit and then calculate the inductance of the coil from the measurements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwCNBHUh0
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2013, 01:48:50 AM
Looks like a very nice pulse motor you are evolving there. I can't do the theoretical analysis as easily as MH, I have to build and probe, change and build, change and test, before I think I know what is going on in most circuits.
FWIW, I made another video showing the use of the FG, the scope and the frequency counter to resonate a tank circuit and then calculate the inductance of the coil from the measurements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwCNBHUh0
Thanks very much for that, I'll watch that for sure, everything helps to build a intuitive "picture", some of us might not "get" things immediately but with time and more learning
the picture forms. I actually find this stuff very interesting and it's easy to get carried away with the circuits and stuff or the theory, study ect.
Not sure what exact arrangement I'll go with first for the pulse motor, but I want to be able to load the shaft a little bit at times so I need a rotating shaft not just a spinner.
And I want to use two opposing drive coils. I want to be able to change rotors or magnet arrangements easily as well. A vertical rotor rather than a horizontal one too. :)
Cheers
Retrod1's spinning a magnet sphere with a vertical Pancake and a sinusoidal 70 hz audio signal at low r.p.m. Coupling my spiral bedini to accelerate the magnet sphere, and switching to a full range signal generator, a higher frequency synchronus motor may be possible run by radio waves. I don't believe this has ever been accomplished before.
From Retrod1:
@"Synchro, you have a good memory. If the drive coil is observed with a scope one can see the interaction of the spinning rotor (magnet) field with the drive coil field. I believe this is what is causing the current decrease in Lidmotor's latest video. Using a pure sine wave on the drive coil makes this easier to observe ".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTvEi_XuaL0&list=UUlgIDBiaYdtIk1O1AvqjK5Q&index=3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTvEi_XuaL0&list=UUlgIDBiaYdtIk1O1AvqjK5Q&index=3)
Transmitting a broadcast spin signal from a distance could delivery "Spin Energy" as a power company, coupled with Lenz free SBSC Spiral output coils. Everyone could have magnet spheres spinning around in the attic! All they would need is starter coils and circuits. The SBSC creates one N pole only in the center, no south. Therefore it pushes the south pole as an output coil.
TK:
Very nice clip. I see you added the resistor and primarily used a sine wave for the excitation. Way cool! Just a minor comment and don't let it spoil the party: I think you put the frequency counter on the LC side of the circuit. It would have been better if you put it on the function generator side of the circuit. It wasn't significant because you were testing a big coil. If you were testing a tiny coil then you would want to have the frequency counter on the signal generator side.
You can also measure inductance using the L/R time constant. Again for any keeners, this test gives you another way to measure inductance, and you can use it to double-check your readings.
A simple circuit with a signal generator set on a square wave connected to a resistor connected to a coil connected to ground is all that you need to see the time constant in action on your scope. You have say a square wave that goes from 0 V to 10 V, and you put your scope across the coil to observe the time constant in "action."
I am linking to two clips that are a bit technical, but very well presented.
One comment about the mysterious "e." "e" is a number, the value is 2.7182818...
This number is the "base of the natural logarithm." Here is what it means: Think of watching a car tire deflate, or water coming
out of a hole in the bottom of a bucket. What you notice is that the rate the air flows is proportional to the air pressure and the rate
water flows is proportional to the water pressure. When you think about that it "acts upon itself." The tire is leaking air at a
certain rate which lowers the pressure which slows down the leaking rate which slows down the lowering of the pressure which
slows down the leaking rate and so on "forever."
The number "e" takes care of that, it's the "natural way things work" so they call it the "base of the natural logarithm."
"e" is used for capacitor and inductor formulas because the same concepts apply. All scientific calculators will have "'e' to the x" on one of the keys.
So if you study these two clips you should be able to measure inductance with your scope, a square wave, and a resistor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81wiYdnZHBs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81wiYdnZHBs)
EDIT: Oops, the link below is way to too complicated, most can ignore it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr1kZJas6U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr1kZJas6U)
Here's the circuit for processing the signal from the photo reflector or interrupter into longer or shorter pulse widths, with or without re-triggering.
I couldn't find it because it wasn't finished yet :P my actual circuit has more parts for re-trigger control
and external shut down. I intend to use the circuit with a microprocessor to control a boost converter
for input voltage control to the motor coils and load switching ect., I've made a board with a picaxe 14M2 chip to control four output mosfets and
has four inputs as well with analogue to digital converters for sensing and pot control ect.
The actual pulse motor circuit is independent of the picaxe, (hardware controlled). An interrupter of any kind will work with it as long as the input
specs of the 4047 chip are respected. The circuit could do with a change or two in design, which I'll get to when necessary.
CD4047 datasheet
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/26874/TI/CD4047.html
Signal processing board. Just to clarify the 5 volts is so I can use the same supply for the picaxe board, the sensor module and the signal processing board chips.
Been a while since I used it but from memory I think the PW is determined by the R/C components, I also used diodes to do the less than 50% duty trick like with 555's, which
I didn't include in the drawing. Switching the re-triggering on and off while in use might be handy for start up ect., when full speed is achieved if the re-trigger is turned off there would be only one pulse per trigger event, (width adjusted by pot).
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 20, 2013, 05:50:06 PM
@Gyula:
Excellent testing and demonstrations. You are doing a lot to clear up the misconceptions held by certain people about what a "Tesla bifilar" coil is and how it works.
There is one other type of "bifilar" coil that is often used and confused with Tesla's design. This is the "hairpin" coil. The hairpin configuration uses the same amount of wire but is non-inductive. If you have the time, you might consider winding a third bolt as a hairpin, and repeat the inductance and electromagnet tests with it.
The hairpin winding is just what you did for the Tesla bifilar, but without cutting and splicing the ends.
....
Hi TinselKoala,
I repeated the "paperclip" tests with nuts and with the two coils separated, you may have seen it here:
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952)
What you suggested above as testing the so called 'hairpin' coil I have done it too by now, albeit I wondered what sense it may have if we all know that such coil you referred to above obviously has no inductance or only a very very little.
Nevertheless, I cut the same 6 meter long piece of enameled+silk insulated wire, OD= 0.3mm (awg #29), I folded the wire into half and wound onto a third identical bolt like the ones used for the other two coils. I started the winding with the folded end of the wire, did not cut it, and guided the two parallel wires close to each other as I progressed with it. Finally I cleaned the two open ends of the wire and connected them to my power supply. DC current I used now was abouit 420mA as earlier and there was not even a single small nut lifted by this electromagnet.
Measuring this coil with an L meter, it showed a fluctuating value between zero and 1uH. When I short circuit the L meter input with a thick piece of short wire it measures zero, unfortunately the most sensitive range it has is 2mH, so this coil must have a less then 1uH inductance.
In the meantime, I freshed up my info on Tesla 'hairpin' experiments because for me it has meant a different setup. Everybody can read it here, only two pages long, including Figures 19a, b and c. See Pages 36 and 37 in this PDF file:
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/1893onlight.pdf (http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/1893onlight.pdf)
And the hairpin shape is created in Fig.19c when the upper ends of the parallel lines B and B1 are shorted with copper bar B2 and the upper 50V lamp remains dark while the lower 100V lamp (not far from the 50V lamp) is bright.
Nowadays such tests are called standing wave tests I think where current and voltage nodes are created on (transmission or here Lecher) lines and the voltage and current levels are changing as per the length of the line and the AC frequency determine it, together with the termination of the line, be it an open or a shorted end or a matched load end (for this latter matched load case there would be no standing waves). Info on Lecher line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecher_lines
rgds, Gyula
I did the nail coil tests and with just a D batt each picked up the same amount of material.
I thought about it a bit more, as we should, and the nail would probably create eddy losses if the field wanted to build quickly. Just thoughts. Also the battery voltage is pretty low, considering Tesla said that more turns, more voltage, more effect.
So I wound a new coil, actually 2. One is made from 14 strands of fine relay coil wire. Once it was wound, I separated the strands(all marked previous to winding) to have 4 leads of 7 strands each. It is wound on a small bobbin for an E core that mostly encases the bobbin. It should have decent capacitance upgrade and inductance inside the core compared to the nails. ;D
Then I made a larger air core coil wound with 26awg x 2 for about 900 turns total. The nails were within spec at 23awg.
The larger coil will be tested as an inductor and a motor drive and/or gen coil.
Got an Arduino board with a touch screen display that will be programmed to run things. Naudin has some vids out with the Arduino controlling a pulse motor and Its very cool. Im going to expand on that model with a menu based testing module. Will post it as I go. Got the display pretty much figured out in programming. Also got an SD card shield for logging and expansion.
Mags
Hi Mags,
Thanks for doing and reporting the tests, this confirms my findings with the bolt tests ( http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357838/#msg357838 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357838/#msg357838) and here is a repeated test: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952
Regarding the transient switch-on moment you mention as eddy current loss possibility in the nails, this is possible of course but remember it must happen in both the normally and the bifilarly wound nails so the eddy loss effect in this case is irrevelant when comparing their performance.
You mention the low battery voltage and that Tesla said the more turns, more voltage, more effect: I think the main message Tesla patent Coil for Electromagnets includes is that choosing parallel guided wires and connecting them in series (aiding phase) there is a (resonant LC) frequency where the coil will have no inductive opposition to a certain AC input current flow due to the resonant effect the increased (and distributed) coil capacitance makes with the coil inductance.
This resonant state cannot be input voltage dependent, it is just a coincidence, Tesla did many tests with high voltages indeed and I think his example in the patent involved 1000V for explanation purposes. He even mentioned in the patent that high voltage capacitors were difficult to make (at the time) so increasing the (distributed) capacitance between the wires by suitable insulation material was a means to solve the HV capacitor issue. I also believe that Tesla did not mean his pancake coils for electromagnet usages only, he has several patents on either single wire or wireless energy transfer where he also showed the pancake coil configurations and the coil resonance had to be involved there for sure, using his series bifilar pancake coils.
Of course it is difficult and mainly restricted by coil construction to build such bifilarly wound coils to fit your various switching frequency necessities for the many tasks i.e. especially for the lower some hundred Hz or less frequencies. You have to know how to increase the capacitance between the wires (for instance using wires with rectangular cross section instead of the normal circular, or use Alu or copper foil windings with thin insulating layer between them, that would increase the facing 'capacitor' areas) and still there can be limits.
Looking forward to your findings with those beautiful coils you have shown above.
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 08, 2013, 11:17:10 AM
Hi Mags,
Thanks for doing and reporting the tests, this confirms my findings with the bolt tests (
No problem. ;D I had to do it. I had to put it to the test with thoughts of what if. If I dont, I may walk away and miss out. I generally wont delve into a large venture replication unless its my idea or if other replicators have flown, but not many of them around.
I just need to put this bifi coil thing to sleep or wake it up. ;) Ive seen some interesting devices that claimed to use bifi coils and in the end, it was never really resolved as to if they really worked or not.
I have some self conflicts with what might the coil be used for and what style of coil would be best for its use if there are any. I dont see them out there anywhere being used much. Why is that? Waste of time? Well I cannot walk away from a 250,000 times increase what ever it is, as long as its not resistance. ;) Maybe that number can be more, or even less depending. I really have not seen 250,000 anything with someone using low voltage, and have not seen much high voltage used except in fewer turns so maybe that needs to be the focus. Start with low voltage and go upward, using a many turn coil of course.
What exactly does 250,000 in this sense mean? Lets say that we have a coil of many turns and the resistance of the coil is 1000ohm with 10v applied to it. It will eventually reach .01 amp once the field has peaked. The max consumption would be 0.1w. Now figure in the number 250,000 with those numbers, any which way we can. It still adds up to a whole lot, whether it is a spike or what ever, that is not something to ignore. Is it?
Maybe Tesla 'is' only talking about an AC current. Does that make the number 250k any smaller in meaning?
I think we need to put that big number on the table until we understand what it means really.
I dont know if Tesla intended to use it in pancake/planar coils or not. If he did, more than likely it would have related to what freq he wanted to work with. Like a primary for a Tesla coil, Ive seen bifi, thick insulated wire, pancake made of few turns. Like less than 10. So there wouldnt be much capacitance and not much coil. So very high freq is the intention.
But if there is advantage to more and more turns, then a thousand turns of pancake is a lot. If there is a purpose, I dont know. So im going for the rolled coils to get more turns, as T said it can be applied to any style of coil. I think the diagrams of pancake coils in the Pat makes for simple understanding of what is intended on how to make it.. ;)
I cant say that the expression of 1000 turns in the pat is just meant for ease of understanding. That doesnt go along with more turns more effect, and clearly the nails dont seem to express any difference. But that may be a bad example to start off with. lol my larger coil shown above mysteriously only about 9 times as many turns, but there is a LOT more capacitance increase because the outer turns of the coil have more length per turn. So cant calculate capacitance as only a 9 times increase. ;) Will check all these. Im interested to see the capacitance of the multi strand coil compared to the large coil. Will do this tonight.
As far as the nail coils, would there be a difference between the 2 if they were run at a freq the bifi nail rings at? maybe nothing. Havnt seen it tried, much less you and I actually doing the initial test. ;)
I wonder why someone would put that up and know that it doesnt work? And show it in its minimalist way. ??? ;) If Tesla did have anything, and some of his writings show it in an inconspicuous way, would there be interest in deflecting the train of thought of those ambitious enough to really study his works? If we are going to continue our endeavors, then this is one device that needs to be understood. Put to sleep or woken up. ;) ;D
Mags
Testing the large coil above, capacitance is 16.8nf - .016uf. Not to shabby. DVMs with cap measure capability must be affected drastically when measuring across an inductor or coil from end to end, conductive ends of the same winding. The coil I pulled half of the bifi from is a single strand of maybe 4000 to 5000 turns. Its still about 4 to 5 times heavier since the bifi wind.
When measuring the capacitance of the big big coil, from end to end I got .1mf - 100uf ??? This is the single strand doner coil.
When I measured the bifi, 1 continuous strand from end to end I got 3.6mf - 3600uf :o Its a much smaller coil than big big. And im just measuring 1 strand from end to end. Wonder what the capacitance reading would be if the 1 strand were wound by itself. I know this is not the 'tool' for measuring an inductor.
It must be how the reading or determining of the capacitance in the meter that way misinterprets this reading, because Im not measuring a cap but an inductor.
Yep, just checked some things. Shorting the meter leads shows in mf 000 like its beyond its reading. Tried some other coils and the ones with the most turns of fine wire show lower than thick wire of fewer turns as the fewer thicker are closer to acting like meter leads shorted. Anyways. ::) lol
When I read the bifi strand for capacitance across the wire, not between the 2 wires I get 3.6mf (thats milli farad, just in case some think Im confusing uf in this post ;D ), 1 strand of 2 from end to end. Then I just put the 2 in bifi series and measured again from end to far end end. Got 3.6mf again. :o ??? Considering I get different results using the cap meter to measure different coils, as long as they are not too stout to overload, why do I get the same readings from 1 strand in this coil whether its just measuring 1 strand or both in series? Something is odd there. Who woulda thunk. Mags thunk it. lol
I just did this test as I posted this. I double checked and still the same weirdness. Dont have an Inductance meter. Gota git one. Im programing the arduino to do things like that but it would be good to have a meter handy.
Ok, broke away to try something. My meter has a tone function that relates to the readings. It functions in cap mode. I hear a chirp every half a second or so. So this must be what is happening with the inductors. The cap meter is sending charge and measuring the time to charge. So the cap meter just may be able to read a range of coils and probably fairly accurate if a chart is made out to relate the capacitance reading to the inductance of the coil. Interesting. For this meter anyways. Wavetek 2030 Oldie but a goodie.
Mags
It's easy to use the Arduino as an accurate inductance meter or capacitance meter. I show here the use as inductance meter. To use as cap meter you basically use the same circuit but put a reference inductor in place of the reference capacitor in the circuit's test tank, and change the math around a little bit. Display of data can be done in the serial monitor, you don't need the fancy LCD screen obviously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx3B89379eQ
Found that site : http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/
but I'm not sure if that similar version is working good... although it has a nice feature of calibration.
TinselKoala, can you merge both circuits to prepare one able to measure frequency,inductance, capacitance and maybe also parallel tank circuit frequency (external RCL circuit with the method of kick into ring down oscillation and count peaks as you described in some video) ?
That would be really useful device !
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2013, 02:40:47 AM
It's easy to use the Arduino as an accurate inductance meter or capacitance meter. I show here the use as inductance meter. To use as cap meter you basically use the same circuit but put a reference inductor in place of the reference capacitor in the circuit's test tank, and change the math around a little bit. Display of data can be done in the serial monitor, you don't need the fancy LCD screen obviously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx3B89379eQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx3B89379eQ)
Very nice. thanks for that. ;)
I chose the 2.8 touchscreen for the ability to do and show many things at once on the screen as a stand alone unit without the pc connected. My WattsUp meter uses a a 2 row display and flashes back an forth between other parameters like every 2 seconds or so. I just wanted more with the possibility of even a tiny scope in the corner along with other updating info. Im happy with what I can do with it. ;D
Will be interesting to see how the inductance meter reads across 1 strand of these bifi coils compared to both strands in series. The cap meter test of the winding vs both windings in series shows the same reading. Checked and double checked. We will see. ;)
Mags
Quote from: forest on May 09, 2013, 04:59:49 PM
Found that site : http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/ (http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/)
but I'm not sure if that similar version is working good... although it has a nice feature of calibration.
TinselKoala, can you merge both circuits to prepare one able to measure frequency,inductance, capacitance and maybe also parallel tank circuit frequency (external RCL circuit with the method of kick into ring down oscillation and count peaks as you described in some video) ?
That would be really useful device !
Thanks Forest ;D More is better. ;) Like the turns of a bifi. :o ;D
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on May 09, 2013, 06:56:46 PM
Thanks Forest ;D More is better. ;) Like the turns of a bifi. :o ;D
Mags
italian site http://www.sillanumsoft.org/Italiano/zrlc.htm (http://www.sillanumsoft.org/Italiano/zrlc.htm)
http://www.sillanumsoft.org/Italiano/screenshot.htm
Quote from: forest on May 09, 2013, 04:59:49 PM
Found that site : http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/ (http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/)
but I'm not sure if that similar version is working good... although it has a nice feature of calibration.
TinselKoala, can you merge both circuits to prepare one able to measure frequency,inductance, capacitance and maybe also parallel tank circuit frequency (external RCL circuit with the method of kick into ring down oscillation and count peaks as you described in some video) ?
That would be really useful device !
The arduino inductance meter I showed in the video places a known capacitor in parallel with the unknown inductance under test, then "pings" this tank, senses its resonant (ringdown) frequency, and then applies some math to calculate the inductance based on the pre-programmed value of the known capacitance. The measured resonant frequency is already displayed for each "ping" on the LCD display.
With a little cleverness and a rotary switch, one could adapt the same circuitry easily to use a known inductor to test an unknown capacitance. And the math performed during the calculation can be "calibrated" by allowing a variable to be controlled externally, by a potentiometer for example, so that the system could be adjusted to read accurately on a known standard.
Here's the circuit schematic for the "front end" that makes the tank circuit, pings it, and reports back to the Arduino. The two capacitors are the tank caps and the position of the unknown inductor is shown. So I'm sure that the clever builders here can make a switch arrangement that used a known capacitor, a known inductor, and allowed switching back and forth, so the tank could be set up to measure either an unknown cap or unknown inductor. The process of ringing the tank and measuring the frequency is exactly the same, so the only mod to hardware is the rotary switch and the known components. Tweaking the Arduino code is also trivial, and adding the pot for calibration only a slight bit more complicated.
To measure frequency of an external system a stand-alone implementation would be better I think, using different functions (more accurate) in the Arduino to measure the frequency.
My Arduino code for the TKInductometer as shown in the video is here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bps78nwtkp5nwnp (http://www.mediafire.com/?bps78nwtkp5nwnp)
Please feel free to play around, improve, criticize, etc. I think I showed the original source where I got the basic sketch in the code comments.
ETA: Now that I see the schematic again, I recall that the comparator I used is a dual unit, two comparators on a single 8pin DIP. So you could use both, one for the inductometer and the other for the capacitometer. Then you'd need a bit more coding, but you could eliminate the need for the rotary switch, just have a board with the two functions running out of the same chip, and select which one to use in the software, with a button or something.
ETA2: I used all scavenged parts, from old TV chassis, so the cost of this meter is essentially zero. You have to factor in the cost of the Arduino and the battery and the optional LCD display, but they are used for so many different things that the marginal cost of them in this meter is only pennies. If you are building a stand-alone meter you'd use a different Arduino designed for permanent installation (cheaper and smaller but runs the exact same program) and the total cost of the meter would probably be about 60 or 65 dollars, half of which is the LCD display.
Your circuit has the nice feature - it can measure resonant frequency of already assembled RC circuit while the circuit from the link I posted can measure precisely inductance,capacitance and frequency. Having all those functions in one device would be an advantage, but I can't imagine the switch needed for switching all those functions...
I think from your circuit can be taken the method of kicking resonant circuit while from the link I posted the measurement of frequency. What do you think ?
Ooops, sorry for off topic. IF there is interest in such meter I will start new thread
Quote from: forest on May 10, 2013, 10:16:04 AM
Your circuit has the nice feature - it can measure resonant frequency of already assembled RC circuit while the circuit from the link I posted can measure precisely inductance,capacitance and frequency. Having all those functions in one device would be an advantage, but I can't imagine the switch needed for switching all those functions...
I think from your circuit can be taken the method of kicking resonant circuit while from the link I posted the measurement of frequency. What do you think ?
Ooops, sorry for off topic. IF there is interest in such meter I will start new thread
Actually, the schematic you posted is pretty much the whole thing. It uses a slightly different method to ring the tank to read L and C (switched by the switch on the left) and feeds this to another comparator, which can also be switched to read frequency directly, again using the same method of detecting zero-crossings of the applied signal. It's all there !
But the complex LCD driver and a lot of the program code is unnecessary if you use the simple and easy to use pre-wired Parallax LCD. It only needs three wires (two power, one data) and very simple code in the arduino to send data to it.
Hi Mags,
I remember a measurement on a single and a bifilarly wound air core solenoid coils, done by Nichelson, using a HP network analyser. See this PDF file: http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf from his site: https://sites.google.com/site/teslanichelson/
Interestingly, he compares the quality factor, Q=XL/R of the single and the bifilar coils and he calles the Q as voltage gain. His single wire coil (207.9 uH) gave a resonant frequency at 19 MHz with its own self-capacitance while the bifilarly wound coil (205 uH) gave him a resonant frequency at 11 MHz with its own self cap. This latter frequency shows that the series bifilar coil has a higher self capacitance than the single wire coil has because for the same number of turns and shape factor the bifilar coil has a much lower self resonant frequency than the single wire coil.
So he found that the calculated and measured voltage gains differ as many as 929%. Practically the measured unloaded Q of the single and bifilar coils are involved and for applications that can preserve the high unloaded Q the bifilar wound coil seems to have advantage.
Nichelson also mentioned the bifilar coil in this paper too: http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/Thermodynamics2.pdf Page 6 and 7. Quote from Page 6: "A bifilar coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter force normal to coils, inductive reactance. It does not allow what Tesla described (Tesla, 1894) as the formation of 'false currents'. Because the electrical activity in the coil does not work against itself in the form of a counter-emf, the potential across the coil quickly builds to a high value."
I still have to understand and figure out how the high voltage gain can be utilized energy-wise in a bifilar coil? This is the same problem if you build a high Q LC tank circuit and try to preserve as high loaded Q as possible, to be able to access the circulating high current, no? At resonance an LC circuit where the coil is say single wound, the counter force shown against the AC input current is also absent, no?
For your recent coils, you could measure and calculate their self capacitances if you have a signal generator and a scope. (for signal generator a function gen or even a pulse gen made from the 555 timer could be used.)
Here are two links how the coils self resonant frequency measurement is done: http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm and http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html The first link uses the coils self capacitance to get a parallel LC resonance while the second link uses two known capacitors to resonate the coils i.e. two caps for each coil.
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: forest on May 09, 2013, 04:59:49 PM
.... can you merge both circuits to prepare one able to measure frequency,inductance, capacitance and maybe also parallel tank circuit frequency (external RCL circuit with the method of kick into ring down oscillation and count peaks as you described in some video) ?
That would be really useful device !
Hi forest,
Albeit it costs USD 69 plus shipping, here is an ebay offer for such meter (frequency, inductance, capacitance and power 1 nW-1 W):
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Frequency-Counter-Micro-Power-Capacitance-Inductance-Meter-L-C-F-Cymometer-/181016599062?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a256e1a16 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Frequency-Counter-Micro-Power-Capacitance-Inductance-Meter-L-C-F-Cymometer-/181016599062?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a256e1a16)
Gyula
Yes, Gyula, as I said many times this is the trick. Once you knew how to eliminate reactive power from the context (well, almost) then there is only the power of LC circuit. Then you have to find other trick and your Q become COP.
That's the essence of real ou without explaining the theory.... ::) (sorry,don't ask)
Took me 12 years to realize that but building a prototype is a hard task not finished yet. First I started from Meyer HHO and his clever videos, tried to build Lawton circuits, Daniel Dingel and many others which obviously don't work without the "backend". Then furtunately I started reading Tesla lectures (sometimes 10 times the same lecture)and old patents. To my surprise I found many ou devices originating from probable the same common concept.Or course I've spotted Bedini and Bearden and still cannot comprehend what they are doing ? If they knew the concept then why they are not telling it clearly ? It's obvious there are some factors which I start to see , to keep it in silence. Again, I don't have the concept proof yet, mainly because my health and ability is bad and I have no support. Quite common, do you agree ? all this free energy devices seems to arise from a garage experiments,to mention just a few guys : Richard Willis, Tariel Kapanadze, Melnichenko and so on.
I hope the future generations would not judge us too severely. The main problem is that "the concept" seems to be in exact opposite to the current economical world with all those corporations and oil/energy cartels.
Let me be a prophet for a moment and foresee that God wants us to change the whole concept of living which is now without any reason for the humanity itself (did anybody asked what is the living purpose of the whole humanity ?). All I know is that energy from ambient should be taken only in small quantities uniformly spread around the whole Earth. Answer yourself if that is in agreement with current world....
Hi forest,
Well you play the same game Tito does even if you say you have not built a prototype.
I wonder why you are certain your theory on extracting reactive power from a resonant LC tank is correct? And as you have not tested it, the chance is only 50%... no?
Are you familiar with Hector's rotoverter setup where he uses a capacitive divider (C1, C2 and C3) and a switching circuit to extract some part of the stored energy in the capacitors of the LC tank. Is your theory similar?
What do you lose on telling your theory?
Bearden etc have theories only there are no working setups they have shown nothing in practice so far with COP > 1.
What is purpose of humanity you ask? Someone just aswered it here (nothing personal against you):
http://www.overunity.com/13485/new-domain-in-deep-space-discovered-here-at-overunity-com/msg359877/#msg359877 (http://www.overunity.com/13485/new-domain-in-deep-space-discovered-here-at-overunity-com/msg359877/#msg359877)
Greetings, Gyula
double post
In the patent where we says the coil has a greatly increased "capacity", he is referring to the energy it can store not the coils "self capacitance". So he isn't saying that the coils "capacitance" itself will be increased, he is saying that the capacity for the coil to hold energy between the windings is increased because of how it's wound.
The 250 000 times as much energy is in reference to the increase in energy the capacitance holds because of the potential difference. It is an increase in the ability of a "coils" capacitance to hold energy. Not an increase in actual capacity.
I was tripped up by the different meanings of capacity. All the energy stored in the coil still is supplied by the supply that charges it.
However a bifilar wound coil does have a lower resonant frequency than the same amount of wire wound as a normal coil, so a bifilar coil does "also" have more inherent self capacitance. At least all the ones I have wound do as compared to the same wire length and core ect. And the resonant frequency is lower, many people might say that a few pF capacitance is nothing but the effect it has on the resonant frequency is a lot.
I issue a challenge, can anybody wind a regular coil and a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS, solenoid, spiral or other coil using the same wire length,size and core ect. and have them both end up at the same resonant frequency ?
I think not, I think the bifilar coil will have more self capacitance in almost every case, and the storing of the extra energy it can hold in the potential between the windings will take time.
Try it. See if it is possible to wind the same wire length as a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS and get anything but a lower resonant frequency for the COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS.
It's an additional effect, be it wanted, intended or just coincidence. My test showed me a much lower resonant frequency, so the self capacitance was more. Regardless even if the self capacitance was the same it must take time for the extra energy stored in the bifilar coils self capacitance to be delivered. Mustn't it ? Capacitors don't charge to higher voltage instantly, it takes time.
Cheers
P.S. What I say is this. "Even if a Coil For Electromagnets had the same self capacitance as the control coil in my test in the second post, the COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS would still have a lower resonant frequency because the extra energy stored in the higher potential between the windings will take time to deliver". However I make that prediction based on Logic alone so I may be wrong. I won't believe anything but the test though so when someone has two "same wire" coils, one regular and wound as a coil for electro-magnets with the same self capacitance then it can be tested.
..
Hi Farmhand,
I agree with the 'capacity' and 'capacitance' clarification, albeit Tesla often used word 'capacity' where we now would use 'capacitance' but it was okay for his era.
There is one issue which is not yet a 100% clear for me (English is a second language for me).
It is the following quote from the patent:
If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it, and the end of A be connected with the starting point of B, the aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns is the same, viz., one thousand, then...
So in case Tesla meant to use the same length of wire for conductor B, does not it mean he actually doubled the total (
aggregate) length of the original winding made first from conductor A? i.e. he meant to make another 1000 turns in parallel with conductor A which already had 1000 turns? Alltogether he had 2000 turns in series, no?
Or the two conductors together had to have a total of 1000 turns, then this means that from conductor A 500 turns should be removed, right? but he did not write it specificaly, it simply comes from the second part of the above quote? (Because Tesla started with 1000 turns for conductor A in Figure 1 as a single wire coil.)
This is what I am unsure in. Is it a 100% sure for you that conductor A should be reduced to 500 turns and conductor B should have also 500 turns to get the total 1000 turns in the series (bifilar) connection?
Quote from: Farmhand on May 11, 2013, 11:13:27 PM
...
However a bifilar wound coil does have a lower resonant frequency than the same amount of wire wound as a normal coil, so a bifilar coil does "also" have more inherent self capacitance. At least all the ones I have wound do as compared to the same wire length and core ect. And the resonant frequency is lower, many people might say that a few pF capacitance is nothing but the effect it has on the resonant frequency is a lot.
In my Reply #63 above I included a link to a PDF file which tested the same situation you wrote in the above quote. The lower self resonant frequency is obvious for a bifilarly wound coil using the same amount of wire like the single wire coil:
http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eonichelson/VOLTGN.pdf)
Thanks, Gyula
http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F13460%2Fteslas-coil-for-electro-magnets%2Fmsg360053%2F%23msg360053&v=1&libId=4763d4ae-ee4f-4f0d-889f-0251f9e27d3d&out=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F~onichelson%2FVOLTGN.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F13460%2Fteslas-coil-for-electro-magnets%2F60%2Fpost%2Fmsg%2F360053%2F&title=Tesla's%20%22COIL%20FOR%20ELECTRO-MAGNETS%22.%23msg360053%23msg360053&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F~onichelson%2FVOLTGN.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13683785259866)
The tester also reports a voltage gain that exceeds theory by 929.3%!
Oh boy...the extra energy it the key. Why this is so hard to grasp ? Are we fishes without water or with very small brains ? Surely not. Sometimes I hate scientist for the amount of support in money and appreciation they get while working on topics so little important that a herd of monkeys could solve in short time....while the most important question is still not answered (really?) ?
WHY IS THE EARTH ROTATING ?
P.S. Do you know it was one of problem which caused totall collapse of Tesla mind and he felt into deep and long sleep and breakdown.....
Quote from: Farmhand on May 11, 2013, 11:13:27 PM
In the patent where we says the coil has a greatly increased "capacity", he is referring to the energy it can store not the coils "self capacitance". So he isn't saying that the coils "capacitance" itself will be increased, he is saying that the capacity for the coil to hold energy between the windings is increased because of how it's wound.
The 250 000 times as much energy is in reference to the increase in energy the capacitance holds because of the potential difference. It is an increase in the ability of a "coils" capacitance to hold energy. Not an increase in actual capacity.
I was tripped up by the different meanings of capacity. All the energy stored in the coil still is supplied by the supply that charges it.
However a bifilar wound coil does have a lower resonant frequency than the same amount of wire wound as a normal coil, so a bifilar coil does "also" have more inherent self capacitance. At least all the ones I have wound do as compared to the same wire length and core ect. And the resonant frequency is lower, many people might say that a few pF capacitance is nothing but the effect it has on the resonant frequency is a lot.
I issue a challenge, can anybody wind a regular coil and a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS, solenoid, spiral or other coil using the same wire length,size and core ect. and have them both end up at the same resonant frequency ?
I think not, I think the bifilar coil will have more self capacitance in almost every case, and the storing of the extra energy it can hold in the potential between the windings will take time.
Try it. See if it is possible to wind the same wire length as a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS and get anything but a lower resonant frequency for the COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS.
It's an additional effect, be it wanted, intended or just coincidence. My test showed me a much lower resonant frequency, so the self capacitance was more. Regardless even if the self capacitance was the same it must take time for the extra energy stored in the bifilar coils self capacitance to be delivered. Mustn't it ? Capacitors don't charge to higher voltage instantly, it takes time.
Cheers
P.S. What I say is this. "Even if a Coil For Electromagnets had the same self capacitance as the control coil in my test in the second post, the COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS would still have a lower resonant frequency because the extra energy stored in the higher potential between the windings will take time to deliver". However I make that prediction based on Logic alone so I may be wrong. I won't believe anything but the test though so when someone has two "same wire" coils, one regular and wound as a coil for electro-magnets with the same self capacitance then it can be tested.
..
How can you say one thing then say the exact opposite. Either it has more capacitance or it doesn't. Self capacitance means more capacitance. This is not negotiable. The increased capacitance is balancing the usual reactance of the traditional coil. This allows the bifilar coil to charge up instantly when compared to the traditional coil. A capacitance meter will not show the actual capacitance because of the self inductance of the coil and the resistance of the wire. You can not measure the capacitance of either coil because it is not a traditional capacitor which the meter is designed to measure. They can not measure the coils capacitance because of the additional features of the coils. This is why they come out the same because you are using a meter that is not designed to work with coils.
Now the charge and discharge of the bifilar coil is being enhanced by all of the factors in the bifilar coil design, especially when you compare it to a traditional coil. This was Tesla's understanding and he did this to reduce the cost and build into a coil enough capacitance to counter the slow charge and discharge of the regular coil to enable them to be used in his disruptive discharge circuits witch increased the conversion of the disruptive discharge into a magnetic component.
The reference to this is the Gegene generator from JLN labs. But the pancake has another feature most are overlooking and that is the ability to use both the upswing and down swing to convert into a one way flow via induction. This effectively doubles the power of the device when coupled with the traditional solenoid coil. Basically this forms an inductive diode and when coupled with a regular coil facilitates an increased output via this inductive diode.
I am also of the opinion that it increases the speed of a discharge hence the increased voltage component when the disruptive discharge is directly injected into the bifilar coil.
The capacity of the coil is vastly increased and hence the ability to discharge faster via this bifilar coil method. Since an inductive component is included it allows the capacitance part of the coil to be charged with little loss of the energy supplied to the capacitance.
One way to avoid the loss traditional capacitors see is to include an inductive coil before the capacitor. Well this is included in this design.
Just some ideas to kick around and a direction to better understand the bifilar method due to increased self capacity being discussed. Tesla was right in saying it the way he did. We just have to change our misconceptions to see it the correct way that Tesla was trying to teach us.
Quote from: jbignes5 on May 12, 2013, 05:20:43 PM
How can you say one thing then say the exact opposite. Either it has more capacitance or it doesn't. Self capacitance means more capacitance. This is not negotiable.
.... snip....
Dear jbignes5,
Self capacitance cannot mean more capacitance, simply it can only mean capacitance and it is different for every coil so values can be higher OR lower wrt each other.
Yes Farmhand first ponders on the amount of the bifilar coil capacitance but finally he deduced it must have higher self capacitance compared to the single wire coil because he mentioned its lower resonant frequency. This latter is shown tested in the Nichelson paper I refered to above.
If you feel like commenting my question in Reply #69 above, please do so when you have some time.
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: forest on May 12, 2013, 04:18:08 PM
Oh boy...the extra energy it the key. Why this is so hard to grasp ? Are we fishes without water or with very small brains ? Surely not. Sometimes I hate scientist for the amount of support in money and appreciation they get while working on topics so little important that a herd of monkeys could solve in short time....while the most important question is still not answered (really?) ?
WHY IS THE EARTH ROTATING ?
P.S. Do you know it was one of problem which caused totall collapse of Tesla mind and he felt into deep and long sleep and breakdown.....
Very simple to answer.
Earth rotate because God made it to, so that you, me and everyone can live temporarily. 8)
Tesla didn't read the Bible and i read it and that his big mistake ;D
Your big tits ;D
A strange thought...
Wind a single layer bifi in series connection having 1 wire on each end.
Now begin a new second layer bifi starting from the same point as the first layer did only wind it in the opposite direction than the first. If the first was clockwise looking at the starting end then the second layer bifi starts counter clockwise.
Now, the second layer is also series connected and has 2 leads, one at each end. This leaves us with 4 leads 2 at each end. If we apply a dc current to the ends of the first coil we will have N at one end and S at the other end of the coil. If we apply the same dc to the second coil, same polarity same ends of the coil, the N and S field will be switched because the second coil was wound counterclockwise.
Now, take the leads of the second coil and connect them to the first coil leads at opposite ends. The coils are wired in parallel now but reverse electrical polarity in reference to the far end connections, but now we have both coil fields with N on one side and S on the other.
Ill draw it if need be. But whats my point?????
In the first and second layer bifi coils there is 50% of input voltage between adjacent windings. BUT, now look at the voltage differences between the adjacent first and second layer windings. If the input is 100v, the difference between the first turn of the first layer and the first turn of the second layer is right near 100v. Not 50v. And its at both ends of the coil this happens. Im not totally sure what happens between successive adjacent layer turns, but I think they diminish toward the middle to the 50-50. Do they? lol. I have to try this later, and see what happens.
I find it to be interesting considering with just the bifi we get the 50% deal between windings, but here we are introducing at least near 100% difference between windings. Even if it just leveled out to 50-50 in the middle of the coil, the added increase outward to the ends of the coil should have some advanced effect beyond the bifi alone.
Hmm, and more layers could be made. Or, hmm, offsetting the starting point of the second layer, could we get maybe 75v between all adjacent layer windings? Dunno. Just thinkin. ;) I feel a little of my 'spark' coming back with this project. ;D
Mags
The lower resonant frequency of a series bifilar coil shows that the self-capacitance is higher, but not by much, perhaps 40% to 70%. With a regular coil you might have one volt of potential between turns and in a series bifilar coil you might have 50 volts of potential between turns. That's were the moderately larger self capacitance has a higher "capacity" to store energy because of the increased potential difference between the "plates" (adjacent turns) of the self capacitance.
An equivalent to a series bifilar coil would a regular coil in parallel with a high-voltage capacitor. The capacitor can be any size so it's much more flexible.
You can experiment with series bifilar coils or regular coils hooked up as LC tank circuits and observe their behaviour, and you won't find any "extra energy."
MileHigh
P.S.: The Earth is slowing down! That's why we have leap-seconds.
Quote from: Magluvin on May 12, 2013, 07:32:35 PM
A strange thought...
Wind a single layer bifi in series connection having 1 wire on each end.
Now begin a new second layer bifi starting from the same point as the first layer did only wind it in the opposite direction than the first. If the first was clockwise looking at the starting end then the second layer bifi starts counter clockwise.
Now, the second layer is also series connected and has 2 leads, one at each end. This leaves us with 4 leads 2 at each end. If we apply a dc current to the ends of the first coil we will have N at one end and S at the other end of the coil. If we apply the same dc to the second coil, same polarity same ends of the coil, the N and S field will be switched because the second coil was wound counterclockwise.
Now, take the leads of the second coil and connect them to the first coil leads at opposite ends. The coils are wired in parallel now but reverse electrical polarity in reference to the far end connections, but now we have both coil fields with N on one side and S on the other.
Ill draw it if need be. But whats my point? ??? ?
In the first and second layer bifi coils there is 50% of input voltage between adjacent windings. BUT, now look at the voltage differences between the adjacent first and second layer windings. If the input is 100v, the difference between the first turn of the first layer and the first turn of the second layer is right near 100v. Not 50v. And its at both ends of the coil this happens. Im not totally sure what happens between successive adjacent layer turns, but I think they diminish toward the middle to the 50-50. Do they? lol. I have to try this later, and see what happens.
I find it to be interesting considering with just the bifi we get the 50% deal between windings, but here we are introducing at least near 100% difference between windings. Even if it just leveled out to 50-50 in the middle of the coil, the added increase outward to the ends of the coil should have some advanced effect beyond the bifi alone.
Hmm, and more layers could be made. Or, hmm, offsetting the starting point of the second layer, could we get maybe 75v between all adjacent layer windings? Dunno. Just thinkin. ;) I feel a little of my 'spark' coming back with this project. ;D
Mags
Ooooooooouch ! I think you touched my coil which I wanted to patent later he he . Don't worry, I do not expect to finish it in my current financial situation...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 12, 2013, 07:44:33 PM
The lower resonant frequency of a series bifilar coil shows that the self-capacitance is higher, but not by much, perhaps 40% to 70%. With a regular coil you might have one volt of potential between turns and in a series bifilar coil you might have 50 volts of potential between turns. That's were the moderately larger self capacitance has a higher "capacity" to store energy because of the increased potential difference between the "plates" (adjacent turns) of the self capacitance.
An equivalent to a series bifilar coil would a regular coil in parallel with a high-voltage capacitor. The capacitor can be any size so it's much more flexible.
You can experiment with series bifilar coils or regular coils hooked up as LC tank circuits and observe their behaviour, and you won't find any "extra energy."
MileHigh
P.S.: The Earth is slowing down! That's why we have leap-seconds.
It also mean higher charge stored, I think nicely distributed among coil wires...
Quote from: forest on May 13, 2013, 01:19:39 AM
Ooooooooouch ! I think you touched my coil which I wanted to patent later he he . Don't worry, I do not expect to finish it in my current financial situation...
Sorry. :o ;D
Thought again and just a first and second layer, opposing windings, not bifi will have 100% difference between each adjacent layer winding. Will have to try both ways.
Mags
I guess a caduceus coil interleaved and connected like I said above would be the same. The coils where the turns are close together but cross over each other once every turn.
Mags
The Tesla bifilar builds it's own internal capacitive charge spontaineously, without any artificial input. This is what the term "Self Capacitance " refers to.
Quote from: Magluvin on May 13, 2013, 02:12:40 AM
I guess a caduceus coil interleaved and connected like I said above would be the same. The coils where the turns are close together but cross over each other once every turn.
Mags
Mag's, I think going by what I can deduce from various experiments that with a multi strand coil with twisted wire (like Litz wire) when we series connect the strands "Tesla style" we only get more self capacitance but not the increased potential between turns like the Tesla Patent coil does.
Gyula, I'm not sure ! I'll need to re read the patent, it helps for myself to take the time and read the whole thing from start to finish each time I gain a new perspective, and that's with any patent in general I think. I would think for the advantage to be not resistance the wire would be say 1 x strand 1000 feet long for a regular coil and 2 x strands 500 feet long for the Tesla Electro-magnet coil. I haven't re-read it yet though. I'll try to make time.
To all/anyone, I wonder if when using a dedicated charging coil as in my pulse motor or Tesla's IGNITER FOR GAS ENGINES PATENT would the capacitor the coil discharged into ( C2 in my motor drawings) be charged to a higher voltage because of the higher "capacity" of the Tesla type winding, I realize if it did the input would be more because the coil would take in more energy, logically. But the point is the voltage gained for the size of the coil and the "extra" inherent delay involved in that "lower resonant frequency as well".
But would the same turns in a Tesla type winding produce more voltage into a capacitor than a regular single wind if switched for a given time say 3 mS, (as in a resonant charging circuit case) ? Hmmmm. it must, Logic says so and the input energy would be more for the 3 mS time connected to the supply if done at the right frequency so as to cancel the self inductance of the charging coil. Big input, lots of energy small coil. Sounds good. ;)
Cheers
Quote from: synchro1 on May 13, 2013, 11:33:33 AM
The Tesla bifilar builds it's own internal capacitive charge spontaineously, without any artificial input. This is what the term "Self Capacitance " refers to.
The term self capacitance in connection with coils has always meant: "The capacitive component of a coil, which reduces its impedance at high frequencies and can lead to resonance and self-oscillation, is also called self-capacitance as well as stray or parasitic capacitance."There can be other meanings of self capacitance, some are here where I took the above quote too:
http://www.answers.com/topic/capacitance#Self-capacitance (http://www.answers.com/topic/capacitance#Self-capacitance)
Quote from: Farmhand on May 13, 2013, 11:53:35 AM
Mag's, I think going by what I can deduce from various experiments that with a multi strand coil with twisted wire (like Litz wire) when we series connect the strands "Tesla style" we only get more self capacitance but not the increased potential between turns like the Tesla Patent coil does.
I realize that. For one, the interlaced windings replaces having immediate next turns close to each other by having the other coils windings in between them. This is probably what really helps to reduce the self inductance along with the additional capacitive attraction due to higher voltage differences. It works with the voltage divisions amongst the windings and rearranges them to provide the highest voltage difference between adjacent turns thus increasing capacitive nature in the coil because of these voltage differences.
So my suggestion of a 2 layer, each layer, series bifi in themselves, and winding the second layer from the same starting point as the first layer but wound in the opposite direction as the first, we have the capacitance within each layer, also 'more' capacitive action between the layers. And that capacitive nature has 100% voltage difference between layers, not 50% as within each layer already.
Maybe its nothing, but I have not seen it except for possibly a tightly wound caduceus coil with the wire flip for each turn or half turns, as one would see fit.
But this 2 layer where each bifi interacts through layers while each layer is bifi already may be something different.
If it is 2 layers, I will approach it as a large diameter to increase inductance so the coil wont have to be so long.
Ive set up my pulse motor to try some things with speedup while I finish the Arduino programming. Till the controller is set up, I set up the motor to run using reeds and testing the bifi as a gen with loads and some other things.
Mags
Quote from: gyulasun on May 13, 2013, 06:10:46 PM
The term self capacitance in connection with coils has always meant: "The capacitive component of a coil, which reduces its impedance at high frequencies and can lead to resonance and self-oscillation, is also called self-capacitance as well as stray or parasitic capacitance."There can be other meanings of self capacitance, some are here where I took the above quote too:
http://www.answers.com/topic/capacitance#Self-capacitance (http://www.answers.com/topic/capacitance#Self-capacitance)
Tesla bifilar's generate and store a self charge that's nearly twice the capacitance of an equal single wire solinoid. This charge eliminates any resistance to change in current direction in the coil, decreasing switch time and permiting smoother running at higher speeds.
Compass deflection between the two types of non charged coils would reveal the real difference between the two types of coils.
Synchro1:
QuoteThis charge eliminates any resistance to change in current direction in the coil, decreasing switch time and permiting smoother running at higher speeds.
The basic operating principle of a coil is that applying a voltage to the coil will slowly induce current to flow in the coil. The larger the coil the longer it takes the same applied voltage to induce current flow. It's identical to spinning up a large and heavy flywheel mounted on very good bearings with your arms. It's very hard to change the speed of the flywheel.
So the charge associated with the self-capacitance will not in fact eliminate any resistance to the current direction in the coil. As we discussed in another thread, the self-capacitance of a coil is insignificant in comparison to the inductance of the coil and in the vast majority of cases you can simply ignore it.
My gut feeling is the Tesla series bifilar coil patent is being grossly misinterpreted on the free energy forums. He states in the patent that he did the wiring like that because there were no high-voltage capacitors readily available.
My suggestion for those interested is to master the basics of inductors and capacitors and truly understand how they work in both the time domain and the frequency domain. An inductor acts like an open circuit at high frequencies, a capacitor acts like a short circuit at high frequencies. An inductor acts like a short circuit at low frequencies and a capacitor acts like an open circuit at low frequencies. Those are the kinds of concepts that I suggest you focus on.
It's all up to you guys but I think that you are focusing too much energy on that Tesla bifilar pancake coil patent. In the context of doing experiments on your bench right now, it's not significant.
Just my two cents.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 13, 2013, 11:04:34 PM
As we discussed in another thread, the self-capacitance of a coil is insignificant in comparison to the inductance of the coil and in the vast majority of cases you can simply ignore it.
My gut feeling is the Tesla series bifilar coil patent is being grossly misinterpreted on the free energy forums. He states in the patent that he did the wiring like that because there were no high-voltage capacitors readily available.
It's all up to you guys but I think that you are focusing too much energy on that Tesla bifilar pancake coil patent. In the context of doing experiments on your bench right now, it's not significant.
Just my two cents.
"As we discussed in another thread, the self-capacitance of a coil is insignificant in comparison to the inductance of the coil and in the vast majority of cases you can simply ignore it."
You are ignoring other details. If we have 1 coil regular and one bifi, both of equal total number of turns, as we increase the number of turns on each, the capacitance of the normal coil becomes more insignificant because the more turns, the more voltage division of the total Vin, thus less voltage difference between each turn and adjacent turn. But the bifi, no matter how many turns you have, 1000 or even 1 million turns, every winding will be next to another winding that is 50% of Vin in reference to each other. This is not insignificant. And this coil definitely fits into the 'vast minority' cases when it comes to coils. Look around. There arent any. ;)
"My gut feeling is the Tesla series bifilar coil patent is being grossly misinterpreted on the free energy forums.
Maybe that is your gut feeling. My gut feeling is the opposite of yours. That doesnt make you or I wrong, yet. Lets continue and see what comes of it and decide in the end. ;)
"He states in the patent that he did the wiring like that because there were no high-voltage capacitors readily available."
Actually, he said they were too bulky and expensive, not that they were not available. ;D
"It's all up to you guys but I think that you are focusing too much energy on that Tesla bifilar pancake coil patent. In the context of doing experiments on your bench right now, it's not significant."
You seem to want to offer help with your knowledge in discovering fundamentals of these things. Why is this so insignificant? Once we actually see what we can see and gain real experience with it, then we will know for sure if it has any use or not. There is a lot of this and that about this coil configuration out there. So lets try and get it straight once and for all.
We cannot just throw a few numbers out there like 40 to 70% as if that covers it. The more turns each coil has, regular and bifi, the difference becomes more clear. Testing a tiny 100 microhenry coils, bifi and regular, there is not enough turns to signify a difference between the two coils.
We will see what comes of it here as we go along. We did take this subject out of the delayed lenz effect thread and someone started this one. So why suggest that we dont make use of it?
Mags
Some Example:
Let´s build an electromagnet with 100V operating voltage, DC, 5Watt DC losses if turned on.
current = power / voltage = 5W / 100V = 50mA
to achieve that we would need wire with DC resistance = voltage/current = 100V / 50mA = 2000 Ohms.
The thing shouldn´t be too heavy - so we run for an AWG38 Wire.
Using some tool: http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html
we end up with 3033ft of AWG38 wire.
...thats about 15.000 turns on somewhat 1 1/2 inch bobin.
Lets make the coil with 2 wires side-by side and 7500 turns - and connect them in series.
We´ll probably end up with a few nanofarad distributed capacity - and would spare the external
rc in that situation.
This coil "trick" makes only sense in a certain impedance window.
Yes fritz, I agree, and for an electromagnet with a great many turns and a lot of self inductance if we want it to turn on fast (current to flow as quick as possible)
then we need to look at cancelling it's self inductance in order for it to turn on quicker. Wouldn't we ?
Also if the capacitance that cancels the self inductance is distributed it might cancel the self induction at a different rate, as it goes around kind of thing. :-\
I think i can see with my pulse motor that when the coils are near resonance the current can really flow. :) At least it appears that way to me.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on May 14, 2013, 06:51:12 AM
(...) if we want it to turn on fast (current to flow as quick as possible) then we need to look at cancelling it's self inductance in order for it to turn on quicker. Wouldn't we ?
As already pointed out - I think the technical relevance of that tesla patent is about "these" types of coils - and it´s no practical approach for quick switching due to the ohmic losses in such coil.
Its all about about no cap and less isolation distance needed, I suppose.
The usual way for a "quick turn on" is to use high voltage and current control.
If you want a stepper motor with high speed and torque you typically use for example a "3V" motor and operate it with 48Volts.
The voltage for such motors is rated for DC losses at 3Volts. If you have a pulsed driver with 48Volts in chopper mode - and limit the current+adjust the chopper timings to keep the ohmic losses within the same range as operated with "pulsed 3V DC".
A "3V" motor has lower DC resistance and lower inductivity than a motor rated for higher voltages (DC).
So I would design towards low inductance, low DC resistance, high voltage and smart switching/chopping.
For half-bridge designs, I would use a "snubber" to limit "turning off" time.
With an H bridge - you could feed the energy back into the caps of the powersupply.
rgds.
(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif)Re: Magnetic Overunity Motor Design (http://www.overunity.com/12553/magnetic-overunity-motor-design/msg331278/#msg331278)« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2012, 03:48:10 AM »Quote (http://www.overunity.com/12553/magnetic-overunity-motor-design/post/quote/331278/last_msg/333182/)
Update #1:
Wound the coils in bifilar manner; windings are parallel. Each coil is 1000 turns, 9.1 Ohms. My goal was to create the same number of Ampere turns with less resistance and lowered voltage. What I discovered is that I was way wrong about how it would actually work. So this is for all those aspiring folks out there: Powering the 2 coils in parallel DOES NOT double the turns just because you have two coils wound together, it only allows more current flow at the same voltage because of the lowered resistance. Winding bifilar coils and connecting them in parallel is the same as using a larger gauge wire.
With this letdown under my belt there is a silver lining, sorta. Powering them in series does make a stronger electromagnet. Not sure why yet but it does. This assertion is based on force measurements I made between the bifilar coil and a single strand wound coil. And according to Tesla's patent, it allows extra storage of "magnetic" field energy (2X when compared to a single strand coil of the equivalent turns),!
Quote from: fritz on May 14, 2013, 10:18:53 AM
As already pointed out - I think the technical relevance of that tesla patent is about "these" types of coils - and it´s no practical approach for quick switching due to the ohmic losses in such coil.
Its all about about no cap and less isolation distance needed, I suppose.
.....
Hi Fritz,
I agree with most what you mentioned in your above post, except for what I quoted in bold. The reason is that Tesla wrote in his patent:
"I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity (i.e. capacitance)
that permits, a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction." So he drove the series bifilar coil with an AC current whose frequency was the same as the self resonant frequency of his series bifilar coil and this way the usual inductive reactance every coil manifests (away from resonance) did not oppose the initial input current: the input current was determined only by the coil's ohmic resistance in his circuit. So the advantage of his coil construction was two fold: he did not have to use a dedicated HV capacitor for tuning the coil and the other advantage was the input current
did reach its maximum value possible without delay, dictated by the ohmic coil wire resistance only. This latter is not the case for coils operated (i.e. pulsed) below their own resonance frequency: current can only increasy exponantially during the 5*L/R time duration.
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: synchro1 on May 14, 2013, 12:32:22 PM
(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif (http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif))Re: Magnetic Overunity Motor Design (http://www.overunity.com/12553/magnetic-overunity-motor-design/msg331278/#msg331278)« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2012, 03:48:10 AM »Quote (http://www.overunity.com/12553/magnetic-overunity-motor-design/post/quote/331278/last_msg/333182/)
Update #1:
Wound the coils in bifilar manner; windings are parallel. Each coil is 1000 turns, 9.1 Ohms. My goal was to create the same number of Ampere turns with less resistance and lowered voltage. What I discovered is that I was way wrong about how it would actually work. So this is for all those aspiring folks out there: Powering the 2 coils in parallel DOES NOT double the turns just because you have two coils wound together, it only allows more current flow at the same voltage because of the lowered resistance. Winding bifilar coils and connecting them in parallel is the same as using a larger gauge wire.
With this letdown under my belt there is a silver lining, sorta. Powering them in series does make a stronger electromagnet. Not sure why yet but it does. This assertion is based on force measurements I made between the bifilar coil and a single strand wound coil. And according to Tesla's patent, it allows extra storage of "magnetic" field energy (2X when compared to a single strand coil of the equivalent turns),!
Hi synchro1,
Unfortunately I have to deduce from his posts that when travin69 changed the coils to bifilar wound types his single wound coils earlier had also 1000 turns?? Because if the single coils had 1000 turns and he wound the bifilar coils with also 1000 turns to create the same number of Amper turns, then it is obvious he got stronger electromagnet when powering the bifilar coil in series! 2 x 1000 turns makes stronger electromagnet than 1 x 1000 turns.
(When powering the 2 x 1000 turns in parallel, he noticed it was the same as using a thicker wire to make the coil. First he wished to make the bifilar coil with comparable Amper turns to the single coil, hence the 1000 turns in parallel bifilar.)
Gyula
"Based on the force equation for electromagnets and coils, force increases based on the face area of the poles"
This force equation might help explain one advantage of Tesla's pancake design for electromagnets..
He goes on to describe his experiment to TK:
Tinsel:
I wound two seperate wires simultaneously parallel to each other. What I was led to believe (stupid me) was that if I powered them in parallel, I could add each coils windings together and halve the current. BKGD: Each coil is 200 ft of 26AWG wire and makes about 1100 turns or so on the coil. This in fact is false and to double the ampere turns, i have to double the amperage. Since I am trying to keep my I2R losses to a min, I am just going to wind them IAW Tesla's patent. Currently, they are about 0.925" long. I want to get them down under 0.75" if possible. I have heard that as the windings get further away from the core, the outer windings aren't as coupled to the core. I have not seen this actually printed in any of the books I have read.
After some recent research, I have discovered that some coils are wound with different gauge wire and wound more like a transformer with windings on top of windings. I would like to put 22 AWG wire on first, say 300 turns, then finish it off with 26 AWG wire wound on top, like 700 turns. If I am not mistaken, the outer coil's magnetic field should concentrate the inner field and result in a more uniform magnetic field. This method is done at many of the research labs to get magnetic fields in excess of 30 Teslas
I am assuming a lot of you know the Hyperphysics web site. It's a great resource.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html#c2)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1)
Here is something to ponder: When you look at a coil, you can separate it into individual loops of wire. Each loop will generate a magnetic field that looks like the familiar toroid that extends out to infinity. So you simply add the magnetic fields together from each loop to get the true magnetic field generated by the coil. The only tricky thing to remember is that the magnetic field is represented by a vector that has both magnitude and direction. Therefore all of the additions are vector additions.
And when you strip it down to it's bare-bones reality, that's all there is.
If there is a core inside the coil, then each loop will tend to have more of the magnetic flux it generates travel through the core. If the windings are many layers thick, the outer windings see a core that is further away with some "air" in between. Since the "air" is much less conducive to the passing of magnetic flux than the core, almost all of the magnetic flux generated by the outer loops will also travel through the core. So there is very little difference between a loop that's wrapped directly around the core material and an outer loop that's effectively 1/2 inch away from the core. Both loops will contribute a nearly equal amount of magnetic flux through the core. Naturally the outer loop will contribute a bit less because a very small amount of flux will flow through the "air gap."
You can use the terminology "lossy" for the outer loops in the sense that a very small amount of the flux they generate does not flow through the core. So that's arguably "lost" flux.
What that means is many "exotic" coil winding schemes are exercises in futility. I know I am using somewhat strong terms but it's true. All the circuit cares about with respect to a coil is its inductance. You can wind a coil in many fancy ways. ZeroFossilFuel made "hemisphere" coils. No doubt the magnetic field pattern generated by the hemisphere coils will be a bit different. You can visualize it in your head, each loop creates the toroidal magnetic field pattern. Some are larger than others and they are also offset from each other. Big deal, you add up all of the magnetic field vectors and you are still left with an inductor, or an electromagnet. If you plug the coil into an electrical circuit, the shape and the winding pattern of the coil means essentially nothing. All that the circuit sees is that the coil has an inductance. We are going to assume that the capacitance of the coil is minuscule and irrelevant and does not affect the operation of the circuit.
Now, think of some exotic coil winding configuration being used as a drive coil in a pulse motor. Same deal, all the pulse motor cares about is that the coil has a certain inductance and generates a magnetic field. Think of all the pulse motor clips with exotic drive coil winding schemes and break them down in your mind into individual turns, and add the magnetic field generated by each turn to get the final field generated by the coil.
What's the point? The point is that if you are working with coils, just a regular coil winding on a spool of some diameter and some length and some number of turns will be fine. All exotic coil winding configurations ultimately are not that much different from you basic standard cylindrical coil that you can see anywhere.
Think of a pancake coil and do the same thought experiment were you look at it turn by turn. If you have never done that thought experiment and do it now you will realize that there is a significant amount of flux self-cancellation going on in a pancake coil, much more than a standard coil. The larger outer windings will work against windings in the middle of the coil in the "air gap" betwween the two windings.
My favourite "bad boy" coil is a Rodin coil. Ultimately, there is not a single thing that a Rodin coil can do that a regular coil cannot do better. A regular coil will always be able to do what a Rodin coil can do with less wire, so a regular coil is more efficient from a materials point of view. Think about how much self-cancellation there is going on in a Rodin "starship" coil. The points of the star are useless and do nothing for the coil. When you think of it, the adjacent star points are engaging in flux cancellation with their neighbouring star points. So at least that aspect will reduce the inductance of the "Rodin starship" coil.
Perhaps the funky coil windings in a Rodin coil give it more self capacitance and for some unusual reason you want that. BFD, just put a super tiny capacitor in parallel with a regular coil.
Anyway, that's for you guys and girls to contemplate. Coils are basic circuit building blocks or electromagnets. There is no real reason to investigate all sorts of exotic winding techniques. Likewise some people believe that a coil's windings have to be perfectly neat. A messily wound coil and a neatly wound coil will be virtually identical.
Wow, that was a big posting!
MileHigh
Nice post MileHigh, and to add, neatly wound coils look nice and take up less space but they get hotter easier and take longer to cool because of a lack of airflow through the windings. Wrapping the outside of the coils with tape also allows heat to build up, I don't think a bit of warm is bad for coils unless they get actually too hot or radiate unwanted heat to other things, sealing up a coil (like with tape) can show better if it is dissipating energy through heat, by making it more noticeable. Bottom line with neat coils is they take up a lot less space when trying to fit stuff in a box.
What about aluminium wire, why can't we use insulated aluminium wire to make coils ? It's a lot less weight. What is the lightest core material with the best qualities ?
What do we need to make the lightest high energy electromagnet/motor coils we can make, like for applications in bicycles and such things ?
Cheers
Quote from: MileHigh on May 15, 2013, 12:28:37 AM
I am assuming a lot of you know the Hyperphysics web site. It's a great resource.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html#c2)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1)
Here is something to ponder: When you look at a coil, you can separate it into individual loops of wire. Each loop will generate a magnetic field that looks like the familiar toroid that extends out to infinity. So you simply add the magnetic fields together from each loop to get the true magnetic field generated by the coil. The only tricky thing to remember is that the magnetic field is represented by a vector that has both magnitude and direction. Therefore all of the additions are vector additions.
And when you strip it down to it's bare-bones reality, that's all there is.
If there is a core inside the coil, then each loop will tend to have more of the magnetic flux it generates travel through the core. If the windings are many layers thick, the outer windings see a core that is further away with some "air" in between. Since the "air" is much less conducive to the passing of magnetic flux than the core, almost all of the magnetic flux generated by the outer loops will also travel through the core. So there is very little difference between a loop that's wrapped directly around the core material and an outer loop that's effectively 1/2 inch away from the core. Both loops will contribute a nearly equal amount of magnetic flux through the core. Naturally the outer loop will contribute a bit less because a very small amount of flux will flow through the "air gap."
You can use the terminology "lossy" for the outer loops in the sense that a very small amount of the flux they generate does not flow through the core. So that's arguably "lost" flux.
What that means is many "exotic" coil winding schemes are exercises in futility. I know I am using somewhat strong terms but it's true. All the circuit cares about with respect to a coil is its inductance. You can wind a coil in many fancy ways. ZeroFossilFuel made "hemisphere" coils. No doubt the magnetic field pattern generated by the hemisphere coils will be a bit different. You can visualize it in your head, each loop creates the toroidal magnetic field pattern. Some are larger than others and they are also offset from each other. Big deal, you add up all of the magnetic field vectors and you are still left with an inductor, or an electromagnet. If you plug the coil into an electrical circuit, the shape and the winding pattern of the coil means essentially nothing. All that the circuit sees is that the coil has an inductance. We are going to assume that the capacitance of the coil is minuscule and irrelevant and does not affect the operation of the circuit.
Now, think of some exotic coil winding configuration being used as a drive coil in a pulse motor. Same deal, all the pulse motor cares about is that the coil has a certain inductance and generates a magnetic field. Think of all the pulse motor clips with exotic drive coil winding schemes and break them down in your mind into individual turns, and add the magnetic field generated by each turn to get the final field generated by the coil.
What's the point? The point is that if you are working with coils, just a regular coil winding on a spool of some diameter and some length and some number of turns will be fine. All exotic coil winding configurations ultimately are not that much different from you basic standard cylindrical coil that you can see anywhere.
Think of a pancake coil and do the same thought experiment were you look at it turn by turn. If you have never done that thought experiment and do it now you will realize that there is a significant amount of flux self-cancellation going on in a pancake coil, much more than a standard coil. The larger outer windings will work against windings in the middle of the coil in the "air gap" betwween the two windings.
My favourite "bad boy" coil is a Rodin coil. Ultimately, there is not a single thing that a Rodin coil can do that a regular coil cannot do better. A regular coil will always be able to do what a Rodin coil can do with less wire, so a regular coil is more efficient from a materials point of view. Think about how much self-cancellation there is going on in a Rodin "starship" coil. The points of the star are useless and do nothing for the coil. When you think of it, the adjacent star points are engaging in flux cancellation with their neighbouring star points. So at least that aspect will reduce the inductance of the "Rodin starship" coil.
Perhaps the funky coil windings in a Rodin coil give it more self capacitance and for some unusual reason you want that. BFD, just put a super tiny capacitor in parallel with a regular coil.
Anyway, that's for you guys and girls to contemplate. Coils are basic circuit building blocks or electromagnets. There is no real reason to investigate all sorts of exotic winding techniques. Likewise some people believe that a coil's windings have to be perfectly neat. A messily wound coil and a neatly wound coil will be virtually identical.
Wow, that was a big posting!
MileHigh
"What that means is many "exotic" coil winding schemes are exercises in futility."
Wow. You really dont want us to mess with these coils do you.? ;D Im not going to fight here, but I will respond as I see fit.
The first thing Im seeing with the bifilar is it takes on a charge much faster than a normal coil. With a coil that has more turns, the resistance is higher, sure, and the inductance is higher also. But it doesnt seem to act like a large inductor does with with an uphill climb in current due to high impedance. So it seems that the difference is that the bifi takes in current quicker and produces the magnetic field to its max much quicker, possibly instantaneously as compared to a normal coil of the same dimensions. This is far from just adding a cap across a coil. Will do some vids as I get things set up to see things more clearly.
"All the circuit cares about with respect to a coil is its inductance"
Thats not true. If there is capacitance in the coil, it should be ignored, right? If we were to put a cap across a normal coil as you say, if we pulsed it like in a pulse motor, the very first thing the circuit sees is the capacitance and the circuit charges it before much happens in the coil. But in the bifi, the charging of the capacitance happens through the windings of the coil, and since the capacitance neutralizes the self inductance till the capacitance of the coil is fully charged. Talking a DC pulse of course.
"If you plug the coil into an electrical circuit, the shape and the winding pattern of the coil means essentially nothing."
If we wound a random ball of wire, and a nice neat coil of the same wire and length, there are many differences between them. ;)
"We are going to assume that the capacitance of the coil is minuscule and irrelevant and does not affect the operation of the circuit."
Why exactly should 'we' 'assume' this? What if we didnt? ;)
"Think of a pancake coil and do the same thought experiment were you look at it turn by turn. If you have never done that thought experiment and do it now you will realize that there is a significant amount of flux self-cancellation going on in a pancake coil, much more than a standard coil. The larger outer windings will work against windings in the middle of the coil in the "air gap" betwween the two windings."
Personally I dont think the pancake is a good choice for a pulse motor driver or pickup coil. If the magnetic field of the magnet cuts only a mall portion of the coil at a time, like passing only a section of windings as it passes, the inductance of the rest of the coill works against current flow. Its better to have the windings bundled up so that the field 'cuts' all and as much of the windings on one side of the coil as possible. Even better to have an opposite magnet field cutting the other half of the coil at the same time to avoid the inductance hindering currents to flow quickly. Look at the windings of an alternator and look at the gaps in the core where the magnetic field is 'dragged' through in order to 'cut' the windings to induce current flow. They are not wound on spools wound in a circle. They are wound lengthwise and the portions of the windings that are not in a position for the magnetic fields of the rotor(with field core inside) to 'cut' them, are very short and bend around to the next core gap. So most of the coil in the alternator, both sides at the same time are being induced by the rotor with little left virtually untouched by the rotors passing field where the windings bend and turn into the next core gap.
These cores are what many motor builders should concentrate on in order to make the best use of controlling how the fields cut the windings as a gen coil and controlling and condensing the drive fields also. I Have a reply for Farmhand to one of his posts today in the confirming delayed lenz thread, where ill show the inside of my bike motor and another little treasure that I found from spare parts at work from a VW Touareg that I will be working with soon. ;D
When we make pulse motors with 1 drive coil, if we dont capture and direct as much of the field of the coil to the rotor, then we are wasting energy. If we have 1 coil and not using the back end of the coil we are wasting a lot. That 1 coil can be configured to apply both ends of the coil to the rotor using core materials and the rotor will essentially act like 2 coils were used instead of 1. ;) Doing this will give more rotor torque and speed using the same single coil.
"There is no real reason to investigate all sorts of exotic winding techniques."
Welp, Im gunna do it anyhoo. ;D
"Likewise some people believe that a coil's windings have to be perfectly neat. A messily wound coil and a neatly wound coil will be virtually identical."
Can you provide a good link that describes what you are saying in the above quote? ;)
Thane uses messy wound coils from what I hear. ;)
Mags
Magluvin:
Good luck in your investigations and I will make a few comments.
QuoteThe first thing Im seeing with the bifilar is it takes on a charge much faster than a normal coil. With a coil that has more turns, the resistance is higher, sure, and the inductance is higher also. But it doesnt seem to act like a large inductor does with with an uphill climb in current due to high impedance. So it seems that the difference is that the bifi takes in current quicker and produces the magnetic field to its max much quicker, possibly instantaneously as compared to a normal coil of the same dimensions. This is far from just adding a cap across a coil. Will do some vids as I get things set up to see things more clearly.
When you say "charge" I am assuming that you mean current flowing through the coil to energize it. If we assume that a series bifilar coil gets the inter-coil capacitance charged right away (which would have to be verified), and we are really simplifying things here, it's still impossible to escape the fact that it takes electrical work to energize the coil and build up the magnetic field. There seems to be a train of thought that somehow a series bifilar coil allows the coil to energize very quickly, seemingly implying that this can be done at very little energy cost. It's simply impossible, to build up a magnetic field takes electrical work. That work ends up being stored in the magnetic field. The stored energy is 1/2 L i-squared. Note for a flywheel it's 1/2 MoI omega-squared - the same formula.
There is just no "jailbreak" for energizing a coil, be it a regular coil or a series bifilar coil, which as we know is just a different winding pattern for a regular coil. Beyond that, I am not aware of any serious analysis of this on YouTube or elsewhere. I don't want to be a party pooper, but to the best of my knowledge this issue simply never comes up in the real world.
The true actual dynamics of how a series biflar coil actually will actually react is not trivial at all and is probably beyond the capabilities of most forum experimenters. It's possible that your testing will show something, and it's just as easily possible that the effects will be so small that it will be hard to discern what is causing them.
For example, look at this Spice model and analysis of a transformer:
http://fmtt.com/Transformer%20SPICE%20Model%202-14-08.pdf (http://fmtt.com/Transformer%20SPICE%20Model%202-14-08.pdf)
This image is called, "Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of single-phase power transformer windings."
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S037877961000060X-gr1.jpg (http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S037877961000060X-gr1.jpg)
So if you are going to get "hardcore" the actual modelling of how series bifilar coil works and reacts to an outside stimulus could get incredibly complicated.
I suppose the question is is it worth the trouble? Perhaps just an A-B comparison between two coils with the same number of turns, one regular, one series bifilar would be a good test. Supposing you notice a tiny current inrush on the series bifilar when you energize it and you don't see that with regular coil. Like I already said, there is no magic bypass for the energy it will take to energize either coil.
So this possible tiny current inrush, does it mean anything? Can you do anything practical with it? That's the real question.
The theme behind my posting is to try to recognize what's relevant and what's not relevant when you experiment. That is an important basic fundamental skill worth learning. Do you spend hours and hours doing some kind of special winding for a coil or do you spend 20 minutes and just wind an ordinary coil, or do you buy a spool of wire at the electronics store and have an "instant coil?"
MileHigh
Quote from: Farmhand on May 15, 2013, 05:32:30 AM
What about aluminium wire, why can't we use insulated aluminium wire to make coils ? It's a lot less weight. What is the lightest core material with the best qualities ?
What do we need to make the lightest high energy electromagnet/motor coils we can make, like for applications in bicycles and such things ?
Cheers
Ugh!!! just tried to post the pics of my bike motor. And I lost a long post. The files were too much to post and when I went back to pull some pics and post them in another post it was all gone. Ugh!!!
heres the pics, will post the text in a bit. Spent an hour sizing and writing. Ugh ugh. ;D
Ok figured it out. Some pics were not resized.
Ill condense my post here.
The bike motor is asymmetrical where the coils fire off at different times for smooth torque and reduce cogging. I want to replace the bikes control board with an Arduino to reduce the restrictions programmed in. Different number of mags vs coils.
The last 2 pics are of the main parts of an alternator from a 2004 5L twin turbo Touareg. it has permanent magnets!! Never seen that before. And I can configure it like the bike motor to be a motor. Its asymmetrical also but just a different number of elements. Ill use this to test and try the Arduino as a controller before I build for the bike.
Removing the core of the bike motor is a serious effort. Putting it back in I will have to make a jig. Were talking a lot of force here. Squash finger like grape. Mr Miagi said. ;D
Also the alternator is a sweet setup to mess around with otherwise. Using motors that are already made and modding them will give the advantages of premade framework to control the flux efficiently within the motor. Making motors with 1 round coil that doesnt even take advantage of the back side of the coils fields and is extremely inefficient. Lots of waste of input. This goes for motors and gens. Its ok for comparison testing and gathering field collapse, but not much torque or gen activity from the motoring part. RC motors are great bases to work with. Larger motors are probably easier to rewind and less costly is many ways. The RC motors can get pretty expensive for such a small package. Some are reasonable.
Had a lot more in the lost post but I gota git. ;D
Mags
QuoteThats not true. If there is capacitance in the coil, it should be ignored, right? If we were to put a cap across a normal coil as you say, if we pulsed it like in a pulse motor, the very first thing the circuit sees is the capacitance and the circuit charges it before much happens in the coil. But in the bifi, the charging of the capacitance happens through the windings of the coil, and since the capacitance neutralizes the self inductance till the capacitance of the coil is fully charged. Talking a DC pulse of course.
Ignoring the capacitance of the coil or not ignoring the capacitance of the coil depends on what you are doing. If you are using the coil as a drive coil for a pulse motor or as a pick-up coil for a spinning rotor then yes, you can ignore the capacitance. Remember I crunched Farmhand's measurements on one of his coils and noted that the capacitive energy in the coil was 1/17,000th of the inductive energy in the coil under typical conditions?
If you are talking about a small coil that's on a PCB that's part of a very high frequency analog circuit design, then you probably have to consider the capacitance of the coil. Nobody on the forums is doing very high frequency analog circuit design.
Quotethe capacitance happens through the windings of the coil, and since the capacitance neutralizes the self inductance till the capacitance of the coil is fully charged.
What do you and Farmhand and possibly others really mean when you say "neutralizes" in this context?
QuoteWhy exactly should 'we' 'assume' this? What if we didnt?
It goes back to the theme of my posting. You want to try to direct your energies and your time to where it counts. You mechanic says to you that you should check/change your oil every 3000 miles. Most people might only change it every 6000 miles and not check it at all and just change their oil three or four times a year. So do you stop your car every 100 miles and get out, check the old level and smell it and contemplate changing it? Is that good use of your time?
In a way you can say that there are kind of "electronic fetishes" that run rampant in the free energy forums and they waste a lot of people's time. Worrying about the minuscule transient capacitance in a pulse motor drive coil would be one of them. Some people have battery fetishes where they believe their circuit has to be connected to a battery to work properly and a regular bench power supply will "kill the effect." Several years ago people played with car ignition coils and they noticed that their CFL lights light up brighter when they made a connection to earth ground. So there was a crazy belief that "power comes up from the ground." That one is still running rampant.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 15, 2013, 09:17:39 PM
Magluvin:
Good luck in your investigations and I will make a few comments.
When you say "charge" I am assuming that you mean current flowing through the coil to energize it. If we assume that a series bifilar coil gets the inter-coil capacitance charged right away (which would have to be verified), and we are really simplifying things here, it's still impossible to escape the fact that it takes electrical work to energize the coil and build up the magnetic field. There seems to be a train of thought that somehow a series bifilar coil allows the coil to energize very quickly, seemingly implying that this can be done at very little energy cost. It's simply impossible, to build up a magnetic field takes electrical work. That work ends up being stored in the magnetic field. The stored energy is 1/2 L i-squared. Note for a flywheel it's 1/2 MoI omega-squared - the same formula.
There is just no "jailbreak" for energizing a coil, be it a regular coil or a series bifilar coil, which as we know is just a different winding pattern for a regular coil. Beyond that, I am not aware of any serious analysis of this on YouTube or elsewhere. I don't want to be a party pooper, but to the best of my knowledge this issue simply never comes up in the real world.
The true actual dynamics of how a series biflar coil actually will actually react is not trivial at all and is probably beyond the capabilities of most forum experimenters. It's possible that your testing will show something, and it's just as easily possible that the effects will be so small that it will be hard to discern what is causing them.
For example, look at this Spice model and analysis of a transformer:
http://fmtt.com/Transformer%20SPICE%20Model%202-14-08.pdf (http://fmtt.com/Transformer%20SPICE%20Model%202-14-08.pdf)
This image is called, "Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of single-phase power transformer windings."
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S037877961000060X-gr1.jpg (http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S037877961000060X-gr1.jpg)
So if you are going to get "hardcore" the actual modelling of how series bifilar coil works and reacts to an outside stimulus could get incredibly complicated.
I suppose the question is is it worth the trouble? Perhaps just an A-B comparison between two coils with the same number of turns, one regular, one series bifilar would be a good test. Supposing you notice a tiny current inrush on the series bifilar when you energize it and you don't see that with regular coil. Like I already said, there is no magic bypass for the energy it will take to energize either coil.
So this possible tiny current inrush, does it mean anything? Can you do anything practical with it? That's the real question.
The theme behind my posting is to try to recognize what's relevant and what's not relevant when you experiment. That is an important basic fundamental skill worth learning. Do you spend hours and hours doing some kind of special winding for a coil or do you spend 20 minutes and just wind an ordinary coil, or do you buy a spool of wire at the electronics store and have an "instant coil?"
MileHigh
"it's still impossible to escape the fact that it takes electrical work to energize the coil and build up the magnetic field."
I realize that. Never said that less energy would be used with a bifi. Just saying it seems to get to peak much faster than a normal coil. Looking into it still.
"There seems to be a train of thought that somehow a series bifilar coil allows the coil to energize very quickly, seemingly implying that this can be done at very little energy cost."
I dont see how energizing the coil more quickly 'implies' that there is less energy cost. But that quick to energize is not the norm for a big coil.
"There is just no "jailbreak" for energizing a coil, be it a regular coil or a series bifilar coil, which as we know is just a different winding pattern for a regular coil. Beyond that, I am not aware of any serious analysis of this on YouTube or elsewhere. I don't want to be a party pooper, but to the best of my knowledge this issue simply never comes up in the real world."
Well we dont know this for sure yet. And yes there isnt much serious definitions of functionality of bifi out there that match what Tesla says about it.
"but to the best of my knowledge this issue simply never comes up in the real world"
Well there may be more than one reason for that, not just that it is useless or a waste of time. Using them in a simple pulse motor may not show all its colors. This is why Im choosing to use the Arduino to accurately time the pulses to see if the coil really produces a stronger field quicker than a normal coil.
"So if you are going to get "hardcore" the actual modelling of how series bifilar coil works and reacts to an outside stimulus could get incredibly complicated."
No more than a normal coil, right? ;)
"I suppose the question is is it worth the trouble? Perhaps just an A-B comparison between two coils with the same number of turns, one regular, one series bifilar would be a good test."
Yes, and yes. Ive made another plexi bobbin for a normal coil also. Like I said earlier, to get the most difference we have to have more turns. The normal coil looses its capacity with more turns, but the bifi increases it.
A single turn coil will only have any close proximity capacitance where the ends of the coil meet. A tiny area. A 2 turn regular coil will have the 50% difference between the 2 turns measured next to each other like a bifi, but this difference decreases with every additional turn. The bifi does not.
"Do you spend hours and hours doing some kind of special winding for a coil or do you spend 20 minutes and just wind an ordinary coil, or do you buy a spool of wire at the electronics store and have an "instant coil?" "
I mostly wind my own coils. Some are old passive crossover coils. Bifi using just a role of speaker wire, the insulation would reduce the capacitance(the actual capacitance) between windings. Been looking at different litz that use larger rectangular insulated conductors woven very neatly with very little air space between each other. Then at the ends separate them into 2 bundles to create 2 separate woven windings in 1.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on May 15, 2013, 07:52:05 PM
I Have a reply for Farmhand to one of his posts today in the confirming delayed lenz thread, where ill show the inside of my bike motor and another little treasure that I found from spare parts at work from a VW Touareg that I will be working with soon. ;D
Forgot to mention that I realized it was this thread that Farmhand posted. Got lost with my original second post. ;D Pics above.
Mags
Kenneth Corum and James Corum.
There is a lot of misunderstanding and even disinformation about Tesla, Tesla coils, and the Tesla bifilar winding patent, and series bf vs. parallel bf vs. ordinary winding, etc. The Corums get it right, but their work is highly technical and hard to find in "condensed" form.
Tesla wanted low resonant frequencies with as little wire as possible and without the expense and difficulty of large and expensive and dangerous HV capacitors. A precisely constructed and tuned, flat pancake "series bifilar" coil's greatly increased self-capacitance allowed him to achieve that goal. His purpose was to attain very fast (for those days) rise and fall times in the primary coils of his power systems. The faster the transitions in the primary, the greater the voltage induced in the secondary. This is why, for example, modern square-wave SSTC drivers are able to pump up such high secondary voltages without HV in the primary or spark gaps: the fast rise and fall times of the pulses is accomplished by the modern semiconductors and the driver circuitry.
The "ideal" Tesla coil/power transmission system might consist of a low-frequency secondary, driven by a Tesla bifilar primary, using no tank capacitor but only the coil's self-capacitance, to attain a low resonant frequency of its own, matched to the secondary. Such a coil would have to be physically large and very precisely constructed, and it's doubtful that even modern semis, like large IGBTs, would be able to handle the stress of driving it at high power levels.
There are winding schemes that have "special" effects on coils. I think these do things like change the ratio of DC resistance to the inductance attained in the coil. Take a look at some old radio RF coils or chokes. You will see all kinds of mysterious winding patterns. Even my simple loopsticks have a dual coil, separated by a specific gap, and each coil is wound in a herringbone crossover pattern, very neatly, with cotton-covered, enamelled Litz wire. You can be sure that the makers would not have bothered to do this if a simple single, random-wound coil of the same amount of wire would 'do the trick'.
Nice motor and alternator Mags, I'll have to have a close look at the pictures, thanks ! Not using one side of the magnetic field of a very low loss inductor will not waste much energy Mags, at most it will waste some space I think. If the inductor has zero Ohms DC resistance it would have almost no losses, the loss is in the heat from the resistance or how you use the coil. ;)
MileHigh, Some of us do experiment with high frequency stuff, and when we tune a circuit to resonance every pF of capacitance matters quite a bit in some places. ie, a few pF is nothing to the 240v input or even the 2000v out from each MOT at 50 Hz but a few pF in the elevated toroid or sphere terminal is what we tune with or to. It cannot be ignored period. If we did ignore it we would never get our big coils tuned properly and throwing large sparks continuously or any light from fluro's in the hand with small coils ect. If a resonant coil is working at around 1 mHz or so and it only has 30 or 40 pF in it's entire resonating circuit then 2 pf makes a big difference, if there was no need for resonance it wouldn't make any difference. Maybe a lot of Tesla's stuff doesn't make much sense unless the resonance aspect is considered as part of the intended working principal of the circuit. Without worrying about resonance a few hundred pF means nothing yes, no doubt about it. But if we want resonance and the capacitance is small (and the frequency high) every pF matters.
Cheers
P.S. MileHigh, By "neutralizing the self inductance" we mean "neutralizing" the effect of the delay in the flow of current because of the self inductance, which is what Tesla wrote in the patent. At resonance we can have a lot more current flow more easily through a coil, my pulse motor is a prime example when the circuit is not at or near resonance frequency the inductance restricts the flow of current as in the usual way, but when at or near resonance current flows without much regard to the inductance because the current limiting effects are neutralized. We still get the magnetic power of the high inductance coil but the current can flow more than with no resonance, that's the point. Why wait so long for the current to flow through a coil if we don't need to or try to force it.
..
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2013, 06:16:14 AM
Kenneth Corum and James Corum.
There is a lot of misunderstanding and even disinformation about Tesla, Tesla coils, and the Tesla bifilar winding patent, and series bf vs. parallel bf vs. ordinary winding, etc. The Corums get it right, but their work is highly technical and hard to find in "condensed" form.
Tesla wanted low resonant frequencies with as little wire as possible and without the expense and difficulty of large and expensive and dangerous HV capacitors. A precisely constructed and tuned, flat pancake "series bifilar" coil's greatly increased self-capacitance allowed him to achieve that goal. His purpose was to attain very fast (for those days) rise and fall times in the primary coils of his power systems. The faster the transitions in the primary, the greater the voltage induced in the secondary. This is why, for example, modern square-wave SSTC drivers are able to pump up such high secondary voltages without HV in the primary or spark gaps: the fast rise and fall times of the pulses is accomplished by the modern semiconductors and the driver circuitry.
The "ideal" Tesla coil/power transmission system might consist of a low-frequency secondary, driven by a Tesla bifilar primary, using no tank capacitor but only the coil's self-capacitance, to attain a low resonant frequency of its own, matched to the secondary. Such a coil would have to be physically large and very precisely constructed, and it's doubtful that even modern semis, like large IGBTs, would be able to handle the stress of driving it at high power levels.
There are winding schemes that have "special" effects on coils. I think these do things like change the ratio of DC resistance to the inductance attained in the coil. Take a look at some old radio RF coils or chokes. You will see all kinds of mysterious winding patterns. Even my simple loopsticks have a dual coil, separated by a specific gap, and each coil is wound in a herringbone crossover pattern, very neatly, with cotton-covered, enamelled Litz wire. You can be sure that the makers would not have bothered to do this if a simple single, random-wound coil of the same amount of wire would 'do the trick'.
"There is a lot of misunderstanding and even disinformation about Tesla, Tesla coils, and the Tesla bifilar winding patent, and series bf vs. parallel bf vs. ordinary winding, etc."
;)
"His purpose was to attain very fast (for those days) rise and fall times in the primary coils of his power systems."
;)
"The faster the transitions in the primary, the greater the voltage induced in the secondary."
;D
"Even my simple loopsticks have a dual coil, separated by a specific gap, and each coil is wound in a herringbone crossover pattern, very neatly, with cotton-covered, enamelled Litz wire."
I remember these. Some with a tube core with an adjustable core in the vertical tube and some with 2 coils like you say but spaced apart. Found a pic shown below. Its not exactly as I remember. I had an old AM SW MW radio when I was a kid that I found in a building of an old abandoned park from the early 1900s. The wood case was lierally disintegrated. But I got that thing to work. ;D It had the tuning eye tube. Remember those? ;D I loved that radio. Learned a lot from it. Memories. ;D
Here is a site that talks about different coils and why. ;) English on the left. Deutsch on the right.
http://www.oldradioworld.de/gollum/hcoils.htm
"driven by a Tesla bifilar primary, using no tank capacitor but only the coil's self-capacitance"
Hmm, just put the spark gap across the input leads? Nice. ;)
Thanks ;)
Mags
Quote from: Farmhand on May 16, 2013, 09:32:47 AM
Not using one side of the magnetic field of a very low loss inductor will not waste much energy Mags, at most it will waste some space I think.
No no. what I mean is that other side of the coil , for imaginary purposes, can drive another rotor without speed drop of the first rotor. Geddit? ;) So if you had a core that directs the N and S of the coil to just one rotor where the N of the coil is pulling on the rotor magnet and the S of the coil is pushing at the same time, you will get more motive force on the rotor. That was all I was suggesting. ;)
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on May 15, 2013, 09:46:28 PM
Ignoring the capacitance of the coil or not ignoring the capacitance of the coil depends on what you are doing. If you are using the coil as a drive coil for a pulse motor or as a pick-up coil for a spinning rotor then yes, you can ignore the capacitance. Remember I crunched Farmhand's measurements on one of his coils and noted that the capacitive energy in the coil was 1/17,000th of the inductive energy in the coil under typical conditions?
If you are talking about a small coil that's on a PCB that's part of a very high frequency analog circuit design, then you probably have to consider the capacitance of the coil. Nobody on the forums is doing very high frequency analog circuit design.
What do you and Farmhand and possibly others really mean when you say "neutralizes" in this context?
It goes back to the theme of my posting. You want to try to direct your energies and your time to where it counts. You mechanic says to you that you should check/change your oil every 3000 miles. Most people might only change it every 6000 miles and not check it at all and just change their oil three or four times a year. So do you stop your car every 100 miles and get out, check the old level and smell it and contemplate changing it? Is that good use of your time?
In a way you can say that there are kind of "electronic fetishes" that run rampant in the free energy forums and they waste a lot of people's time. Worrying about the minuscule transient capacitance in a pulse motor drive coil would be one of them. Some people have battery fetishes where they believe their circuit has to be connected to a battery to work properly and a regular bench power supply will "kill the effect." Several years ago people played with car ignition coils and they noticed that their CFL lights light up brighter when they made a connection to earth ground. So there was a crazy belief that "power comes up from the ground." That one is still running rampant.
MileHigh
"What do you and Farmhand and possibly others really mean when you say "neutralizes" in this context?"
And possibly others? lol Tesla had the patent and he said it. What do you think it means in your context? ;)
"In a way you can say that there are kind of "electronic fetishes" that run rampant in the free energy forums and they waste a lot of people's time. Worrying about the minuscule transient capacitance in a pulse motor drive coil would be one of them."
Fetishes? :-* Why dont you top it off with a used condom across the page. That would be a huge deterrent. ;D You really dont like the idea that people work with this coil do you? ;)
This is what I like about the idea of the coil reacting quicker for a pulse motor. There will be more of an impulse than a gradual climb in current flow when the coil is being pulsed. We are talking 'pulse' motors. A quick pulse has more impact, impulse. It pops, no waiting period, no mooshy mooshy. Like using a small sledge hammer vs a rubber mallet of the same size.
Another thing is, lets say we have a simple pulse motor. 12v batt, normal coil, rotor with magnets and a reed switch. When we close the reed, it will take some time for the field to build due to impedance. And when it finally peaks or even sustains peak for the duration of the switch closure and the reed releases and waits for the next mag pass. But once we get to higher revolutions, the pulse times will be shorter with less time for the field to build. But the fast acting bifi will be able to react more quickly with more controlled on and off times and better high rpm performance.
Now we try something different. We use a large inductor and a diode added to the circuit. What we are going to do is use the reed to charge up the new large inductor and when the reed releases, let the collapse current of the large inductor dump into the motor driver coil to run the motor. But oh, the motor driver coil will not accept the collapse current due to impedance so the reed burns instead.
But if the motor driver coil is a bifi, even a big one, it will accept that collapse current, not the 'norm', which will charge that tiny capacitance of the bifi to possibly many hundreds of volts. :o :o :o :o and :o
This is an idea I have from understanding the workings of the 'Igniter for Gas Engines' and the 'Coil for Electro-magnets', as to what is described, where we use the large inductor efficiency from the igniter to charge the bifi for a pulse at a higher potential than the batt input. We are charging the bifi capacitance with an inductor not from the battery directly, or we would lose half the energy used from the battery to charge the cap directly. ;) This is a much different way of doing things than we are used to.
And its way more fun than building a universal motor. Been there done that been done. Lets move on to new things. ;) Standing still will get you nowhere.
Mags
I am just catching up! No time to read other thread.
Farmhand:
I can never remember which is which so I had to check. Looking up LC circuit yet again....
Wiki quotes....
The charge flows back and forth between the plates of the capacitor, through the inductor. The energy oscillates back and forth between the capacitor and the inductor until (if not replenished by power from an external circuit) internal resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance) makes the oscillations die out. Its action, known mathematically as a harmonic oscillator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator), is similar to a pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum) swinging back and forth, or water sloshing back and forth in a tank. For this reason the circuit is also called a tank circuit. The oscillation frequency is determined by the capacitance and inductance values. In typical tuned circuits in electronic equipment the oscillations are very fast, thousands to millions of times per second.
In a series configuration, XC and XL cancel each other out. In real, rather than idealised components the current is opposed, mostly by the resistance of the coil windings. Thus, the current supplied to a series resonant circuit is a maximum at resonance.
The parallel LC circuit connected in series with a load will act as band-stop filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-stop_filter) having infinite impedance at the resonant frequency of the LC circuit. The parallel LC circuit connected in parallel with a load will act as band-pass filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-pass_filter).
.......
I view a self-resonating coil as a parallel LC circuit. Which would mean it blocks a signal passing through it at the resonant frequency. I am just not sure how you are applying whatever resonance concepts to your circuit or motor. If either form of resonance is associated with "neutralizing the self inductance" keep in mind we are talking about a pure sinusoidal excitation waveform. You don't normally see a pure sinusoid and deviations from the pure sinusoid mean that there is other harmonic content in the waveform that is not in resonance and does its own thing.
TK:
I think the fancy coil patterns in old radios are related to their roll-off frequencies and stuff like that. So indeed, that's a case of where it's by design for a particular purpose. It also might not be true, and it's just a manufacturing technique. I really don't know.
Pulling out the big guns, this guy is great and he really knows his radio circuits. Radios are all about resonant circuits. He also teaches a lot about electronics. Plus, it's simply fun to see how things were designed and manufactured so long ago:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio/videos?view=0&flow=grid
He does respond to questions in case someone wants to ask him about the herringbone coils.
Let me again share some thoughts about a self-resonating coil vs. an LC resonator, i.e.; two separate components. The self-resonating coil is a kind of kludge. You don't have a regular, ordered exchange between stored capacitive energy and stored magnetic energy. They are intermixed with each other and if real push came to shove you would need a supercomputer crunching away to model it. On the other hand, a LC resonator is smooth like butter. The capacitor discharges into the coil, then the coil discharges into the capacitor. The current flows back and forth, the voltage goes up and down. That transfer of energy can be visualized as a rotating vector. It's the way it's supposed to work. In comparison to that a self-resonating coil is a different animal. That's what I envision in my head.
Now realistically, if you scoped a self-resonating coil you would probably see a voltage waveform that was a sine wave across the ends of the coil. At the same time it can only store a tiny fraction of the of energy of a comparable LC circuit - an inductor mated with a capacitor of comparable size. I realize it's all relative to what you want to do. I am just not sure what that is. Nonetheless, a self-resonating coil is like a short faint wisp of stored energy at a crazy high frequency that disappears quickly compared to making a real loud and ringing LC resonator bell made with the same coil.
MileHigh
Magluvin:
QuoteThis is what I like about the idea of the coil reacting quicker for a pulse motor. There will be more of an impulse than a gradual climb in current flow when the coil is being pulsed. We are talking 'pulse' motors. A quick pulse has more impact, impulse. It pops, no waiting period, no mooshy mooshy. Like using a small sledge hammer vs a rubber mallet of the same size.
Another thing is, lets say we have a simple pulse motor. 12v batt, normal coil, rotor with magnets and a reed switch. When we close the reed, it will take some time for the field to build due to impedance. And when it finally peaks or even sustains peak for the duration of the switch closure and the reed releases and waits for the next mag pass. But once we get to higher revolutions, the pulse times will be shorter with less time for the field to build. But the fast acting bifi will be able to react more quickly with more controlled on and off times and better high rpm performance.
The only way to get a faster reaction out of the coil is to increase the drive voltage. The coil integrates voltage with respect to time to yield current. How do you get a flywheel to spin up faster? More torque.
Without increasing the voltage your impulse might charge some capacitance. That will not give the coil any push against the rotor. The only way to get the coil to push is to have it generate a magnetic field which leads back to the question of the drive voltage over time.
Your point about the higher RPM meaning less switch-on time and hence lower maximum current through the coil is dead on. It's all part of the pulse motor finding a quiescent speed. You can try to optimize stuff like Farmhand is doing and that's finding a higher quiescent speed.
The parameters are the amount of inductance, the switch timing, and the drive voltage. Faster RPM by default limits the switch-on time, so you can experiment with the amount of inductance and the drive voltage to pump more power into the coil which pumps more power into the rotor to balance out the air and bearing friction. Hence my fantasy of slowly cranking up the voltage to see what fails first. Push the sucker past its design limits.
So the inductance is still a wall that you have to push against, series bifilar or not.
QuoteWhat we are going to do is use the reed to charge up the new large inductor and when the reed releases, let the collapse current of the large inductor dump into the motor driver coil to run the motor. But oh, the motor driver coil will not accept the collapse current due to impedance so the reed burns instead.
I will rephrase that as a question: What happens when Coil A with current A discharges into Coil B with current B?
QuoteBut if the motor driver coil is a bifi, even a big one, it will accept that collapse current, not the 'norm', which will charge that tiny capacitance of the bifi to possibly many hundreds of volts.
Exactly, but that won't push on the rotor! But what happens after that and how does that relate to the question above?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 12:52:10 AM
Farmhand:
Wiki quotes....
The charge flows back and forth between the plates of the capacitor, through the inductor. The energy oscillates back and forth between the capacitor and the inductor until (if not replenished by power from an external circuit) internal resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance) makes the oscillations die out. Its action, known mathematically as a harmonic oscillator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator), is similar to a pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum) swinging back and forth, or water sloshing back and forth in a tank. For this reason the circuit is also called a tank circuit. The oscillation frequency is determined by the capacitance and inductance values. In typical tuned circuits in electronic equipment the oscillations are very fast, thousands to millions of times per second.
In a series configuration, XC and XL cancel each other out. In real, rather than idealised components the current is opposed, mostly by the resistance of the coil windings. Thus, the current supplied to a series resonant circuit is a maximum at resonance.
The parallel LC circuit connected in series with a load will act as band-stop filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-stop_filter) having infinite impedance at the resonant frequency of the LC circuit. The parallel LC circuit connected in parallel with a load will act as band-pass filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-pass_filter).
.......
I view a self-resonating coil as a parallel LC circuit. Which would mean it blocks a signal passing through it at the resonant frequency. I am just not sure how you are applying whatever resonance concepts to your circuit or motor. If either form of resonance is associated with "neutralizing the self inductance" keep in mind we are talking about a pure sinusoidal excitation waveform. You don't normally see a pure sinusoid and deviations from the pure sinusoid mean that there is other harmonic content in the waveform that is not in resonance and does its own thing.
I do understand what you are saying in a layman's way, and I have read that series resonance means no resistance and parallel resonance means infinite resistance, but I don't buy it. Simply because if a condition of parallel resonance actually meant infinite resistance we would never see it because it would be impossible, unattainable.
And likewise no resistance would mean superconductor current from very low voltages and we don't see that.
If a parallel resonance condition created an infinite resistance then how can current flow to cause it. When we tune a crystal radio receiver output coil to parallel resonance at the frequency we want to hear it works. Maybe at some point there is infinite resistance but at what point. Can you show us what infinite resistance looks like in a circuit tuned to parallel resonance ?
Bottom line is it sounds impossible to me.
When we tune a Tesla coil primary to parallel resonance we see to begin with when there is no resonance the input is very small, not much power can be input without resonance, but when we get the primary and secondary tuned to each other the primary can have parallel resonance or very close to it and much more power can be input.
Maybe not actually at full resonance but close to it. Thing is without the parallel resonance on the Tesla coil primary less power can be input. How can more resistance mean easier current flow ?
EDIT: The control circuit in these two video's is a fixed frequency CMOS logic gate oscillator with a fixed pulse width and it is not changed so the exciting pulses are unchanged, the only change in the video is tuning the primary to parallel resonance. JUst ignore the ringing on the gate I fixed that I think from memory.
In the video below when I adjust the primary capacitor to parallel resonance the input increases a lot and the secondary resonates much stronger. How is that possible with infinite resistance ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJZoENDhero
If I tune away from resonance the output and input is virtually nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEX9MKBhVZk
So you can see why I don't buy it.
Cheers
Quote from: Magluvin on May 16, 2013, 08:42:32 PM
No no. what I mean is that other side of the coil , for imaginary purposes, can drive another rotor without speed drop of the first rotor. Geddit? ;) So if you had a core that directs the N and S of the coil to just one rotor where the N of the coil is pulling on the rotor magnet and the S of the coil is pushing at the same time, you will get more motive force on the rotor. That was all I was suggesting. ;)
Mags
Mags I don't think that is the case, my experiments tell me that if the coil pushes a rotor from both ends less energy will be recovered from the collapsing magnetic field because more energy is imparted to the second rotor. So basically I think if the input is fixed voltage and current then driving a second rotor will slow down the first one or return less energy from the magnetic filed collapse, if the input power is not fixed then I think the input power would increase.
Bottom line is I don't think it is free work to drive a rotor with a coil. How can it be ? How could the rotor get energy if not from the coil ? And if it gets energy from the coil then the coils energy must decrease or the input must increase. Seems like good logic to me.
I can actually see the voltage in my charging cap increase when I move the charging coil away from the rotor and the cap voltage decreases when I move it in to speed up the rotor. It's pretty conclusive to me when the coil drives a rotor energy is imparted to the rotor from the coil and the coils magnetic field energy decreases. As it must, or the rotor would get no energy and not turn.
Just what I'm seeing, I've got video of that.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on May 17, 2013, 06:30:36 AM
Mags I don't think that is the case, my experiments tell me that if the coil pushes a rotor from both ends less energy will be recovered from the collapsing magnetic field because more energy is imparted to the second rotor. So basically I think if the input is fixed voltage and current then driving a second rotor will slow down the first one or return less energy from the magnetic filed collapse, if the input power is not fixed then I think the input power would increase.
Bottom line is I don't think it is free work to drive a rotor with a coil. How can it be ? How could the rotor get energy if not from the coil ? And if it gets energy from the coil then the coils energy must decrease or the input must increase. Seems like good logic to me.
I can actually see the voltage in my charging cap increase when I move the charging coil away from the rotor and the cap voltage decreases when I move it in to speed up the rotor. It's pretty conclusive to me when the coil drives a rotor energy is imparted to the rotor from the coil and the coils magnetic field energy decreases. As it must, or the rotor would get no energy and not turn.
Just what I'm seeing, I've got video of that.
Cheers
Oh, then why build it as a motor at all if the 'object' to collect collapse currents? You could just pulse the coil alone and do that. Or are you just trying to split the difference and get some motive force and some collapse gathering in what your saying?
From what I have found is that if im driving a rotor with an air core while collecting collapse currents, when I introduce a core to the coil my rotor is faster and I get increased collapse output. The core helps control, concentrate and direct the coils field increasing the coils ability to do both better at the same time.
Maybe what you are doing and your goals are different somehow.
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 01:57:13 AM
Magluvin:
The only way to get a faster reaction out of the coil is to increase the drive voltage. The coil integrates voltage with respect to time to yield current. How do you get a flywheel to spin up faster? More torque.
Without increasing the voltage your impulse might charge some capacitance. That will not give the coil any push against the rotor. The only way to get the coil to push is to have it generate a magnetic field which leads back to the question of the drive voltage over time.
Your point about the higher RPM meaning less switch-on time and hence lower maximum current through the coil is dead on. It's all part of the pulse motor finding a quiescent speed. You can try to optimize stuff like Farmhand is doing and that's finding a higher quiescent speed.
The parameters are the amount of inductance, the switch timing, and the drive voltage. Faster RPM by default limits the switch-on time, so you can experiment with the amount of inductance and the drive voltage to pump more power into the coil which pumps more power into the rotor to balance out the air and bearing friction. Hence my fantasy of slowly cranking up the voltage to see what fails first. Push the sucker past its design limits.
So the inductance is still a wall that you have to push against, series bifilar or not.
I will rephrase that as a question: What happens when Coil A with current A discharges into Coil B with current B?
Exactly, but that won't push on the rotor! But what happens after that and how does that relate to the question above?
MileHigh
"The only way to get a faster reaction out of the coil is to increase the drive voltage."
You are talking about a normal coil. You ignore what Tesla, TK(above) and I have been saying about the bifi coil. You just revert back to there is only inductance in the coil. You deny that anything is different in the bifi coil, yet never built one nor tested one as I read it.
"Without increasing the voltage your impulse might charge some capacitance. That will not give the coil any push against the rotor." ??? ::)
So what level of voltage does it take to give 'any' push to the rotor? You are not making any sense. People run motors off of less than 1.5v and up.
"So the inductance is still a wall that you have to push against, series bifilar or not."
Again you are ignoring and refuse to accept what we are discussing in this thread and never built or experienced a bifi coil. If the bifi were made to oscillate at say 1khz, the pulsing that coil with a 1ms pulse would be accepted into the coil very well as it is in the freq range.
"I will rephrase that as a question: What happens when Coil A with current A discharges into Coil B with current B?"
Again, and I went over this in my post, you are ignoring facts about the bifi operation because you just cant get past the idea that the bifi is any different than a normal coil. There really isnt much sense in me trying to describe it to you any further as its clear you are in denial and full rejection of what is being stated in the patent, or you are just not understanding it. I, or anyone can only go so far to break down your wall of disbelief.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on May 17, 2013, 08:43:28 AM
Oh, then why build it as a motor at all if the 'object' to collect collapse currents? You could just pulse the coil alone and do that. Or are you just trying to split the difference and get some motive force and some collapse gathering in what your saying?
From what I have found is that if im driving a rotor with an air core while collecting collapse currents, when I introduce a core to the coil my rotor is faster and I get increased collapse output. The core helps control, concentrate and direct the coils field increasing the coils ability to do both better at the same time.
Maybe what you are doing and your goals are different somehow.
Mags
Mags, It doesn't have anything to do with collecting the magnetic field energy, it just proves to me that driving a rotor uses some of the magnetic field energy.
When I see that when the charging coil of a resonant charging circuit is helping to drive the rotor is producing less voltage into the charging capacitor than when it doesn't help drive the rotor that is conclusive proof to me that using both ends will reduce the magnetic field energy more than using one end and so the first rotor will get a weaker field for the same input power. It makes no difference if the collapse is collected or not afterwards, driving a rotor takes energy from the field so driving two will take some away from the first.
It's an easy experiment to do and see the actual result.
In case you haven't noticed or don't remember I'm returning the unused magnetic field energy to be reused mainly. So what the rotor uses and losses is the input.
I'm designing and testing a motor to try to make best use of one switching phase and the collapse of magnetic fields to produce torque in a pulse motor.
What is your objective ? I was responding to you saying not using both ends is wasteful, it isn't necessarily wasteful. A boost converter can be well over 90 % efficient and it uses no ends of the coil core. It's solid state. Waste is losses and there are not losses involved in not using one end of a coil if the remaining magnetic field energy is utilized.
Why have a pulse motor and not collect or reuse the remaining energy of the magnetic field to cause more current.
Remember I first doubted the current from the collapse went through the coil, and did the comparison between a snubbed motor coil and one that allows an orderly field collapse
and when snubbed the coil current stops immediately. This means the coil stops pushing the rotor suddenly rather than tapering off the push and pulling the next opposite polarity magnet.
I'm trying to build a more efficient, more powerful and useful form of pulse motor. So far it looks good.
Cheers
Farmhand:
QuoteI do understand what you are saying in a layman's way, and I have read that series resonance means no resistance and parallel resonance means infinite resistance, but I don't buy it. Simply because if a condition of parallel resonance actually meant infinite resistance we would never see it because it would be impossible, unattainable.
You will recall that TK recently did the coil resonance tests. If you look at Itsusable's videos he also did some coil resonance tests several months ago. You have the signal generator output going to the resistor going to the coil. When you hit the coil's self-resonance point you see maximum amplitude across the coil. So what does that suggest? There is a part of that test that I haven't seen done to my recollection. That's to check the voltage across the resistor. When you think about it, checking the voltage across the resistor is telling you how much current is flowing through the coil at resonance. Sounds like a good test but you have to use a real sine wave.
What it suggests is that if you have maximum voltage across the coil at resonance, then the coil is sustaining the most or all of the voltage drop from the signal source. Therefore you would expect that very little or none of the voltage drop will be sustained across the resistor. Therefore just from the fact that you know the signal generator is producing a sine wave and the self-resonating coil is producing a similar sine wave, you can conclude that the LC resonator is at maximum impedance. i.e.; it's acting like a parallel LC resonator at very high impedance and blocking the current flow. You are welcome to check for yourself.
What that means is that in parallel LC resonance the LC resonator is meeting the driving signal source volt for volt. The signal source wants to put out 3 volts, and the LC resonator is also putting out 3 volts. So the LC resonator is "pushing back" against the signal generator and no current flows.
Now, is this happening on your bench in your setup? I don't know and I am not sure which schematic or configuration you are using today, etc, etc. But if you do the basic test and confirm what I say, that would be interesting. To be more practical, I can suggest that you try it with a real parallel LC resonator also. At resonance you should see zero or near-zero current flow.
Then hopefully you can apply this knowledge to what you are doing. The first thing that comes to mind is that if you put a resistive load in parallel with a parallel LC resonator, and feed it power from a signal generator through a resistor, will that actually give you some advantages in driving a resistive load across the LC resonator. You know the LC resonator will get "charged up" from your signal source until it meets the voltage of the signal source, so if you add a "power drain" resistor across it, is that conducive to good energy transfer? Sort of like can you take lemons and turn them into lemonade.
MileHigh
Yes well that may be true for a resonator with no load and the impedance is not infinite except the load voltage and phase matches the supply. What then happens when the secondary is loaded and energy is removed from the system ?
The very technical words and the skirting the issues does not concern me.
If the circuit was tuned to resonance before the supply was connected then in the first instant the primary is energized the supply faces no such impedance. True?
And generally speaking a Tesla transformer has the primary coil tuned to a slightly lower frequency than the secondary because the secondary resonance frequency drops when loaded. Then the secondary resonance frequency better matches the primary and energy is cast out of the system quite quickly. But it keeps on drawing power from the supply or it would not work.
This coil below won't work like that unless the primary is tuned to resonance frequency just a tad lower than the secondary resonance frequency (unloaded). Input is about 250 to 480 Watts :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkJtrKCdFg
Cheers
P.S. Technically you are probably correct but, to the layman or the intuitive experimenter it doesn't matter that much as long as we understand what is going on. We do that by doing and observing. If the impedance is maximum then that is a lot different to infinite.
My Tesla coil primary is only shunted by the primary capacitors when the spark gap fires, when the gap is not conducting the primary has no capacitors. ;)
..
Magluvin:
QuoteYou are talking about a normal coil. You ignore what Tesla, TK(above) and I have been saying about the bifi coil. You just revert back to there is only inductance in the coil. You deny that anything is different in the bifi coil, yet never built one nor tested one as I read it.
Well if you can restate what's different and show some test results from past or current experiments that would be great. I discussed these coils as stand alone entities without dealing with a pulse motor setup where we know that either type of coil will export energy to the rotor. As stand-alone entities there is no "magic fast energizing" for a series bifilar coil that has the same inductance as a regular coil. I can't see them being different as a drive coil.
It's possible that you and Farmhand are leading yourselves down the wrong garden path. It can happen to anybody. So it's a good exercise to give these concepts a critical analysis. Throwing a slogan at a technical point with no sound technical basis behind it is unwise. Right now there is no sound technical basis to state that a series bifilar coil will energize faster and give you better performance for reasons already explained.
QuoteYou are not making any sense.
No, I am making perfect sense. The only ways to get current to flow through a coil faster is to increase the excitation voltage and/or decrease the inductance of the coil. It has nothing to do with 1.5 volt pulse motors.
QuoteIf the bifi were made to oscillate at say 1khz, the pulsing that coil with a 1ms pulse would be accepted into the coil very well as it is in the freq range.
Hard to say because there is not enough information. If you are talking self-resonance here, that's one big mother of a coil.
QuoteAgain, and I went over this in my post, you are ignoring facts about the bifi operation because you just cant get past the idea that the bifi is any different than a normal coil. There really isnt much sense in me trying to describe it to you any further as its clear you are in denial and full rejection of what is being stated in the patent, or you are just not understanding it. I, or anyone can only go so far to break down your wall of disbelief.
The patent and your bench pulse motors have nothing to do with each other and it's a mistake to suggest that they do. If you have "facts" about bifilar operation and can clearly demonstrate them then please do so.
MileHigh
Mags, this picaxe controlled boost converter looks fairly efficient. It can pass 50 to 60 Watts of power from 12 into 24 volts potential.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLnNgfaha10
I can provide the schematic and the code if anyone wants it, but the code has to be optimised for the coils.
Cheers
Farmhand:
QuoteP.S. Technically you are probably correct but, to the layman or the intuitive experimenter it doesn't matter that much as long as we understand what is going on. We do that by doing and observing. If the impedance is maximum then that is a lot different to infinite.
I have already stated that in electronics things are not always what they seem at first glance. And I have stated that it's not easy to visualize the operation of a circuit or a pulse motor. The bench is your reference, keeping in mind the "first glance" caveat. And you can't forget that the more bench skills and experience and background knowledge you have, the better off you are on the bench. But there are things that you can visualize too.
If there are Sacred Cows where it's interesting to kick the tires and have a second look, so much the better. Using the "power comes up from the ground" as an example, avoiding months of experimenting with false conceptions in your mind would be a really good thing! You yourself have already seen things like this before, as I suppose all of us have. Just a few weeks ago we had, "the series bifilar coil makes a more powerful electromagnet" topic come up - it wasn't true.
How about this basic idea for the most efficient pulse drive coil setup and timing: Lets assume a standard pulse motor configuration. Let's say top-dead-center is zero degrees. As the rotor magnet moves past TDC the angle increases. Let's say the magnet feels the most torque from the drive coil at 8 degrees past TDC.
So if 8 degrees is the "sweet spot angle," why not energize the coil at say 4 degrees, and then cut the power at say 9 degrees. Assume the coil has a snubber diode across it, so that it both discharges through the diode and gives a push on the rotor say between 9 and 12 degrees.
If you do your timing right at a given quiescent RPM and make sure the drive coil is pushing on the rotor both before and after the sweet spot angle for maximum torque, and you are recouping a good chunk of the remaining energy in the coil as part of the main rotor push, doesn't that seem sensible?
For completeness, there is overall geometry of the motor to think about also. And very importantly, how much inductance do you use, how many turns? Do you use a core or not, etc? And even the excitation voltage comes into play, you can't ignore it. There is a relationship between the excitation voltage and the inductance and the spinning rotor. Certainly, you could say that your excitation voltage is fixed. Then the amount of inductance in combination with the export of energy to the spinning rotor can be balanced relative to your excitation voltage.
I am always operating on the assumption that your goal is the maximum RPM for a fixed excitation voltage and a minimum power draw from the power supply or battery.
Cheers.
MileHigh
P.S.: For extra completeness, I am going to split hairs even further because it's important. Assume a fixed excitation voltage, and you have complete control over all of the other parameters. Well, if you go purely for maximum RPM, it's safe to assume that you may have a high current draw and a high power draw. So that isn't necessarily the most efficient motor configuration. You could create the unit "RPM per input watt of power" and that would be very interesting because somewhere in the range of RPM, there is a "sweet RPM" that gives you the highest ratio of RPM per input watt of power. What the actual power consumption is at that "sweet RPM" and what the "sweet RPM" is could be determined by measurements. Just a thought.
Finally, I think that you are more interested in driving a generator and putting a useful real-world load on your pulse motor setups. Needless to say, similar efficiency issues could be considered.
Tesla's Claims in the patent are correct that is the main thing.
QuoteWhat I claim as my invention is
1. A coil for electric apparatus the adjacent
convolutions of which form parts of the
circuit between which there exists a potential 45
difference sufficient to secure in the coil a capacity
capable of neutralizing its self induction as hereinbefore described.
2. A coil composed of contiguous or adjacent
insulated conductors electrically connected 50
in series and having a potential difference of
such value as to give to the coil as a whole a
capacity sufficient to neutralize its self induction
as set forth. NIKOLA TESLA
Here is what I think the claims are saying. If the voltage is too low, then the distance between the capacitor "plates" is too great for the capacity to be effectively used.
ie. If the conductors have insulation 5 mm thick then using 1 volt won't utilize the capacity very well and the capacity will not then contribute to the lowering of the resonance frequency. Kinda like trying to use 1 volt with a HV parallel plate air capacitor with 10 mm spacing between the plates, it won't work very well.
It makes sense to me.
Weather or not the coil is special is not a concern to me. The patent claims are correct and I think that is what he means when he says the words in bold above.
Rather than trying to argue angles or such things why not just take the claims and find if they are correct or not. Tesla's patents do not need to be dismissed or defended if they are making claims that are true. Simple. Any claims not made by Tesla are other peoples making.
..
MileHigh, I do understand, it is important to stay grounded. But I don't know why you would assume all I want to do is spin a rotor faster when I am doing load tests. I want to power loads if I can, if not it won't go past a prototype. What would be the point ?
Same with the pulse motor build off. What do they judge on ? Is it the prettiness or the micro power draw for no work ?
Or is it the most work for the least cost like what motors are for ?
My circuit has provision for voltage increase so I don't need to wait for 5 minutes for the rotor to speed up, it takes 5 seconds instead maybe 8 max. :) And that's fair dinkum, no kidding. ;D
Have you seen a pulse motor before with my design ? Why can't it be comparable to a conventional motor ? And flexible.
I'm not claiming any free energy, I'm just making things.
Tesla never claimed any OU, he had devices that collected energy from the environment like a solar panel or wind turbine does.
All the crazy OU claims are made by others.
Cheers
Farmhand:
I am not sure exactly what he means by "neutralizing its self-induction." This is 19th century technical English that is sometimes also reworded for 19th century lay people.
I interpret it as the coil is self-resonating such that the inductance is "occupied" and part of an LC resonator. It doesn't mean that it's "neutralized" and can be more easily energized.
Alternatively, from an AC excitation perspective we know that a self-resonating coil will not exhibit the property of AC inductance anymore with a 90 phase shift and a power factor of zero. The inductance will be "neutralized" and appear as an AC open circuit, or as an AC short circuit. Do you think that's what it means?
I asked Magluvin and he bowed out and threw the question back at me. What do you think?
One thing is for sure, there is nothing at all in the patent about pulse motors or using the coil configuration in a pulse motor. Nada.
Timing and the related conduction angle is probably the most important aspect to the operation of the pulse motor. All pulse circuits are based on timing analysis.
MileHigh
P.S.: Not sure what the criteria are that they use for the judging in the pulse motor build-offs. Certainly "coolness factor" carries a lot of weight.
MileHigh, I hope you were not referring to me when you said about claiming "the power comes up from the ground". I never claimed that. Not ever.
Yes I do realize the timing of the pulses and the resulting current times are important that is why I am experimenting with it.
And I can't recall claiming that a Tesla type bifilar coil would make a better pulse motor coil, my coils are wound normally why would I do that ?
I think I mentioned that the neutralizing of the inductance allows the current to flow as if the was no self inductance, just the DC resistance.
Didn't you read the patent ? Lines 40 to 45.
QuoteI have found that in every coil there exists 40
a certain relation between its self induction
and capacity that permits a current of given
frequency and potential to pass through it with
no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance
or in other words as though it possessed no self induction. 45
QuoteWhat do you think?
I'm not going to answer directly your question because it doesn't really matter what I think, what matters is what
is.
Cheers
Farmhand:
I wasn't attributing those statements to you. Sorry I am tired and was not clear enough.
Thanks also for pointing out the lines in the patent again. There Tesla is clearly describing a series LC resonator. So a series LC resonator can become an AC short circuit at the resonance frequency. That means AC power will flow straight through the series LC resonator except for the power dissipated in the series resistance of the wire. I made reference to that in my previous posting.
Can that property of series LC resonance be used to advantage in a pulse motor? Do you observe it in anybody's pulse motor? I will leave that up to you guys to explore that. Certainly it looks like the tests in the YouTube clips make a stand-alone coil in self-resonance appear to act like a parallel LC resonator.
QuoteI'm not going to answer directly your question because it doesn't really matter what I think, what matters is what is.
I have to disagree with you here. If this concept is one of the central themes for this thread, surely everybody should be on the same page as to the understanding of exactly what it means. If you don't then it just becomes a catch phrase with no substance behind it.
MileHigh
No Problem then, Yes the resonance is the key to a lot of his stuff but not all, some of them it is just better to have it and some don't have it.
As far as pulse motors and series resonance goes, I just do what comes naturally to me and what seems like a good idea because there is no law against it and it stops me injuring myself doing other harder work type stuff, I've got a busted neck. I think in my setup there are a lot of different things going on and I make no real claims as yet except I get two driving phases from one switching phase and there is energy returned and adds to the potential of the circuit, that's resonance in one way I think.
But I as far as I can tell the parallel capacitor in my Tesla coil DC HV primary circuit is sometimes in parallel and sometimes in series with the supply.
It's in parallel because it's across the voltage charging it and it's in series because it's the only load when it's charged, so it must be. It is only in parallel with the primary when the spark gap is conducting, the close coupling and the Large primary diameter means it just rings along with the secondary when not excited like it's not there, almost. :D My guess is it actually causes havoc and it is definitely not a continuous wave transformer. But I will build one one day.
As for series resonance capacitors in Tesla coil primary circuits they are in parallel with the primary when the spark gap conducts as well. Are they not ?
Cheers
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 07:06:36 PM
I asked Magluvin and he bowed out and threw the question back at me. What do you think?
Yes I did throw it back at you. ;) It seems no matter how I describe it you continue to post as if I have not and keep questioning "What does neutralizing self inductance mean?"
Im tired of it already. ::) Im not here to teach you how to read. Im not here to give links to the definitions of 'neutralize' nor 'self inductance'. Should not have to with your self proclaimed experience from '30 years ago'. I know you know some things. Why cant you understand what that statement means "neutralize self inductance'? Between all of us here in the thread, you are the only one that seems to have a problem with it. What gives?
And the idea that a messy coil is no different than a tight, neatly wound coil beyond saying that different winding techniques from the norm have no differences either, I think you need to hit the books before you make such claims. ;)
Mags
I'm interested in what you're doing Mags because you have a bike, I like bikes with motors. ;) And I like all different kinds of motors too and engines and other machines as well.
One example of a good use for a pulse motor might be to raise water, I have rain water tanks both elevated and ground level, if I had a reasonably powerful and efficient pulse motor it could move air as a fan and pump water from the ground tank to the elevated tank when I want it to so then the water can flow back down and out of the tap under it's own weight. It doesn't matter how long it takes to pump 1000 litres of water if the motor is running all the time anyway as a big fan with a shaft and some coupling arrangement to the pump. It gets mighty hot here in summer usually so fans go day and night. No air con here.
The energy to run the motor would be free from the sun and it could run easily non stop from my solar charged batteries using an amp or two when it's hot outside.
A free energy machine might be a machine that uses lots of free energy provided by the sun. hehehehe
pulse motors would seem to be able to work on bikes as a motive aid, so that might be fun.
If something works for you Mags do it. We're here to talk and share and help each other. I seem to find myself disagreeing with everyone at some point.
I think we all should remember that we all have different wants and objectives. I like to build stuff and learn new things in my own way and I find these forums have helpful people even if I do need to argue the information out of them. :)
Cheers
Really Magluvin?
I am going to quote you:
QuoteWe talked about the capacitance neutralizing the self inductance the other day.
If we have a coil with a cap across it, and then we just apply a dc source across it, the cap will charge virtually instantly, but the inductor wont. This might imitate a neutralizing of self inductance of the coil, where the current flows easily through the cap. We are talking about applying DC here.
If the capacitance is 'in' the coil, well that current that charges that capacitance goes 'through the coil' neutralizing the self inductance. And if it neutralizes self inductance, then maybe we could think, does that mean that the magnetic field is neutralized also, or just the effect of impedance is neutralized and outer magnetic field is unaffected. If so then initially there could be a very intense field pulse, as compared to a slowly building standard inductive field build, depending in the inductance.
That internal capacitance is charged through a coil that can make an external field like any other coil and the impedance is neutralized. So until this capacitance is charged, this coil might be acting like a super electromagnet. Sounds like a heck of an idea to patent. (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fwink.gif&hash=0d9aacf9391b7fda4adbf7cd091f687bfd283341)
If we consider the cap connected to a coil, there probably isnt any purpose for it in the DC world. But here the capacitance is in the coil, and in my opinion, there should be a difference.
Also I stated earlier about the ability of holding power over time. Well if the field is huge in the beginning through the object being held, this may give us that stronger hold over time, instantly instead.
QuoteThats not true. If there is capacitance in the coil, it should be ignored, right? If we were to put a cap across a normal coil as you say, if we pulsed it like in a pulse motor, the very first thing the circuit sees is the capacitance and the circuit charges it before much happens in the coil. But in the bifi, the charging of the capacitance happens through the windings of the coil, and since the capacitance neutralizes the self inductance till the capacitance of the coil is fully charged. Talking a DC pulse of course.
Everything I highlighted above in your statements is completely wrong. Tesla was talking AC impedance in a series LC resonator going to zero - that's the "neutralizing of self-inductance." So you started this thread with a completely incorrect impression of what this concept was all about and you made statements about basic electronics that don't make sense. And I will repeat again that none of what Tesla stated in the patent had anything to do with pulse motors and you are incorrectly applying it to pulse motors.
First line is mine and the second line is yours:
Quote"What do you and Farmhand and possibly others really mean when you say "neutralizes" in this context?"
And possibly others? lol Tesla had the patent and he said it. What do you think it means in your context?
Honestly I think you actually were stymied and weren't able to answer the question after reading the ongoing discussion so you threw it back at me as an attempted diversion.
Quoting you again:
QuoteI know you know some things. Why cant you understand what that statement means "neutralize self inductance'? Between all of us here in the thread, you are the only one that seems to have a problem with it. What gives?
From your comments further above, it's crystal clear that you are the one that didn't understand what the statement meant.
Nice try at being the "cool dude with the poker face," but I ain't buying it. Better luck next time.
QuoteAnd the idea that a messy coil is no different than a tight, neatly wound coil beyond saying that different winding techniques from the norm have no differences either, I think you need to hit the books before you make such claims."
Really? Let's hear you explain where I am wrong then. Please no throw-backs or ducking the question. Why should I have to hit the books with respect to my statement?
MileHigh
Quote from: Farmhand on May 17, 2013, 09:11:09 PM
I'm interested in what you're doing Mags because you have a bike, I like bikes with motors. ;) And I like all different kinds of motors too and engines and other machines as well.
One example of a good use for a pulse motor might be to raise water, I have rain water tanks both elevated and ground level, if I had a reasonably powerful and efficient pulse motor it could move air as a fan and pump water from the ground tank to the elevated tank when I want it to so then the water can flow back down and out of the tap under it's own weight. It doesn't matter how long it takes to pump 1000 litres of water if the motor is running all the time anyway as a big fan with a shaft and some coupling arrangement to the pump. It gets mighty hot here in summer usually so fans go day and night. No air con here.
The energy to run the motor would be free from the sun and it could run easily non stop from my solar charged batteries using an amp or two when it's hot outside.
A free energy machine might be a machine that uses lots of free energy provided by the sun. hehehehe
pulse motors would seem to be able to work on bikes as a motive aid, so that might be fun.
If something works for you Mags do it. We're here to talk and share and help each other. I seem to find myself disagreeing with everyone at some point.
I think we all should remember that we all have different wants and objectives. I like to build stuff and learn new things in my own way and I find these forums have helpful people even if I do need to argue the information out of them. :)
Cheers
If i were to conjure up your idea right here, this would be my approach.. ;)
First we have to know how much pressure we are dealing with to pump water up. Then purchase a pump that can handle the pressure. If it is going to be a pulse motor, I might suggest a flywheel rotor to keep the wheel going between pulses, as I imagine the pressure of the water in the up tube to possibly be quite great and working against the rotor being driven. As for the coils, use as many or more than the number of magnets on the rotor/flywheel and tie the drive coils in series. Here is why in series...
Like speaker systems, if you power a speaker 4ohm at 100w, and get 100db, you can now use 2 speakers to get more db with the same input. ;) Here is why... and how...
The single speaker, 4ohm, with 100w signal produces 100db. If we double the input to 200w we get an increase of 3db to 103db.
Now, when we series wire 2 speakers, and input 100w, each speaker will only see 50w but we get 103db, for the same input 100w. Follow me.
1 speaker at 50w only delivers 97db, a loss of 3db. Double the wattage, increase 3db. Halve the wattage decrease 3db.
So we have 1 speaker with 50w putting out 97 db. WHEN WE ADD ANOTHER SPEAKER WITH AN INPUT OF 50w, WE GET A 6db INCREASE!!!! :o :o ;D ;D
How can that be? But it is. We get the same output from 2 speakers with 100w total input as we would 200w into 1 speaker!! ;)
Thats why coils in series. More efficiency.
4 speakers in series. 4 ohm each, now 16 ohms and 25w/94db each 100w total.
1 speaker 25w 94db
2 speakers, 25w each, 50w total add 6 db 100db
Add 2 more speakers for a total of four speakers and input total of 100w 106db!!!
1 speaker would need to be powered with 400w to produce the 106db!!!
lol, now tune port those boxes to 30hz and run 100w total 30hz in, add another near 8db typical. Thats some resonance effects for ya. ;) Thats like 1 speaker with 800w but only 100w in. :o ;) Geddit?
And the tuned box at 30hz, the speaker cone isnt visibly moving, but the port air is, a lot. Did custom car audio professionally for almost 20 years. Biggest system 17kw, 24 12s and way too many mids and highs for my taste. I like real stereo, none of that surround sound distracting mumbo jumbo. Im a purist. ;D Close your eyes and you can see the band out in front of the car in your mind. Difficult to do but not impossible.
I believe these pulse motors can be thought of this way. ;) In fact, its just about a direct correlation. ;) Electrical input to magnetic field to motive force. Same thing. ;)
Now, if you were going to make an electric car. Would you use 4 motors, 1 in each wheel, or just 1 motor? ;)
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 09:27:05 PM
Really Magluvin?
I am going to quote you:
Everything I highlighted above in your statements is completely wrong. Tesla was talking AC impedance in a series LC resonator going to zero - that's the "neutralizing of self-inductance." So you started this thread with a completely incorrect impression of what this concept was all about and you made statements about basic electronics that don't make sense. And I will repeat again that none of what Tesla stated in the patent had anything to do with pulse motors and you are incorrectly applying it to pulse motors.
First line is mine and the second line is yours:
Honestly I think you actually were stymied and weren't able to answer the question after reading the ongoing discussion so you threw it back at me as an attempted diversion.
Quoting you again:
From your comments further above, it's crystal clear that you are the one that didn't understand what the statement meant.
Nice try at being the "cool dude with the poker face," but I ain't buying it. Better luck next time.
Really? Let's hear you explain where I am wrong then. Please no throw-backs or ducking the question. Why should I have to hit the books with respect to my statement?
MileHigh
"First line is mine and the second line is yours:
Honestly I think you actually were stymied and weren't able to answer the question after reading the ongoing discussion so you threw it back at me as an attempted diversion."
Twist it any way you want. I was just tired of explaining it to you. I explained it before the first quote block in your post and the block shows that. But you didnt copy those quotes did ya. Sly old dog you. :P
I do see one mistake in my first block you quoted where I say the cap and coil get dc connected across and the cap charges instantly but the coil does not. After 'not' I should have wrote 'but the coil does not charge instantly' I can see how that might not have been well taken.
It was an example I used to get you to understand the difference between the coil of an LC and the 'coil' of the bifi. If we applied dc and watched closely, the lc 'coil' will not take on the initial current from the dc, the cap would. But the bifi, the cap is in the coil. How does that capacitance charge in the coil? Through the windings, thats how. So the bifi coil does take on initial currents, unlike the standard coil of an LC. But you still wont get what Im saying.
"Really? Let's hear you explain where I am wrong then. Please no throw-backs or ducking the question. Why should I have to hit the books with respect to my statement?"
Well there Im refering to you mentioning that all coils are just standard coils no matter how you wind them. Even TK does not agree with that but you still just keep on keepin on. And the other reason is you have used the excuse that you have been out of actually working with this stuff for 30 years and its your reason for when someone finds you wrong and you cant dig yourself out of it. Like the LEDs that work at 1.2v. Remember that one and what you said when I corrected you that its near minimum 2v for an led to conduct, red ones especially, other colors all the way above 4v before conducting. But you blamed it on "Its been 30years, so I made a mistake." Well then, even I have trouble remembering every detail of things from that long back. But I keep on keepin on with a lot of things, to keep it fresh and whats new.
So your flagrant tossing of facts that are not true about coils and their various windings and functions needs to be revised. Books, web, its all there. ;)
I understand that Tesla used the word 'frequency' which does signify AC not DC. But then we also have to look at the title of the patent. 'Electro-magnet' I have never seen Tesla refer to any of the coils in his HV devices or transmitters/receivers as 'Electro-magnets'. Nope.
What is your definition of an electro-magnet? And if you were to use an electro-magnet, by your definition, would you us DC or AC? ;)
I did a lot of experiments on a coffee table for a while, and on my dresser, for a while. It doesnt take much to actually do some experiments like these, you do know? ;)
Mags
Hmm...so Tesla had a LC tank circuit without capacitor , very clever. My question : what kind of LC circuit it is ? Series or parallel ? Or maybe it depends how you connect things together ? :o I surely know that the secret of effective device is to match two resonances.... ::) I think Tesla knew very well about that except LC resonance there is also longitudinal standing wave resonance. I saw once in Colorado Notes cryptic statement about adjusting primary for resonance and how it's hard to do it obviously (because we cannot find the best match for all parameters here.
Magluvin:
"Really? Let's hear you explain where I am wrong then. Please no throw-backs or ducking the question. Why should I have to hit the books with respect to my statement?"
You didn't even try to answer the question, you ducked it. It's a technical question and it calls for a technical answer and you apparently can't do it.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of it. People can read the thread and decide for themselves. The basic point is to not have the misconception that so-called "series bifilar" coils have some imagined advantages when it comes to making a pulse motor, whether it be as drive coils or as pick-up coils. You want to not have beginners spend months or more with this false notion. The worst case scenario is it becomes another "power comes up from the ground" misconception that takes on a life of it's own. The minuscule capacitance in a series bifilar coil will not affect the operation of a typical pulse motor. You look at the situation and analyze it rationally and arrive at a logical conclusion. No need for fantasy hunches that you want to assume are correct until proven otherwise. No relation to the Tesla patent at all, perhaps the "worst" fantasy.
You remember the RomeroUK pulse motor I am sure. There were nine pick-up coils and eight rotor magnets. All of a sudden people starting saying, "Woooo! There is a 'magical' counter-swirling magnetic interaction because of the 8/9 ratio that travels around the rotor in the opposite direction of the rotation! Maybe that's the secret to the over unity in the RomeroUK motor!!!"
That's the kind of nonsense that you want to avoid happening with series bifilar coils in a pulse motor. In this application there is essentially no difference from ordinary coils and it's important to debate that so newbies can hopefully learn and decide for themselves.
And I have tons of more effective bench experience than you and I really don't learn anything of substance from you, just to make that clear. You are just trying to put on a brave face.
I have made my technical points and hopefully that will help some experimenters and prevent them from wasting time chasing dead ends. That's a good thing.
MileHigh
Gah. Everybody's right, and everybody is talking past each other.
1. Farmhand is right about Tesla's patent.
2. Tesla was right about HIS design of bifilar spiral coils operating at high voltages with low self-inductance--- low enough to be effectively "cancelled" by the inter-turn capacitance of a _carefully built_ spiral coil with the series-bifilar hookup. I've already said why he wanted these characteristics. Obviously if the increased capacitive reactance of a bifilar coil is to cancel the inductive reactance (not the inductance) then that inductance must be fairly small to begin with, meaning short wire length (relatively), non-saturable core of low permeability (like air) and high voltage difference between adjacent turns.
3. MileHigh is right when he says there isn't a _fundamental_ difference in coil winding techniques _in general_. Tesla's patent and the phenomenon he describes are important in a very specific design case: High potential difference between closely-spaced windings in a specific design of coil. He also used this same concept of increased capacitance in later work with his "disruptive discharge apparatus" which uses a specially-constructed secondary coil and pulsed DC stimulation.
4. Magluvin is right about there being differences in behaviour--- but these are second-order effects. Take two equal lengths of wire and two identical iron rod cores. Wind one coil as neatly and tightly as possible and wind the other one randomly, loose and messy. Now compare their magnetic field strength at the poles when they are powered by the same DC current. You will find that the field from the neatly-wound coil is stronger. Why? Simply because more of the turns are closer to the core. That's all. Now sweep both coils with AC and look at the resulting waveform. You will notice that the randomly-wound coil is "noisier" or rather has more complex waveshapes at certain frequencies than the neatly-wound coil does. This is because the _distributed_ inductance of the random windings is "lumpy" and disturbs the internal field, and ditto the distributed capacitance within the windings. The tightly wound coil will also dissipate heat less effectively and will be less affected by magnetostriction in the windings.
5. Take a coil and a capacitor. Hook them together, one end of the cap to one end of the coil, the other end of the cap to the other end of the coil, making a complete circuit loop, a LC tank. Are the components in series, or are they in parallel? Think about it. Also compare the resonant frequency of a series tank with a parallel tank made of the same components.
6. I'll bet Farmhand is right about using resonance in a pulse motor, too. If you think about it, a pulse motor that is self-triggered like a Bedini or even one that reads a fixed sensor then triggers a coil after a proportional delay, that tries to accelerate until it reaches equilibrium with its total drag... is a mechanically resonant situation, attempting to "grow' the RPM, which is only limited by the "Q" of the system: its power dissipation from bearing and aero and eddy drags. If this could be combined with resonant coils using minimum power (because of the minimized AC impedance) it could be a significant innovation (if it is an innovation; I am not familiar with the literature so I can't say if motors using resonant coils are already out there in the wild.)
Quote from: forest on May 18, 2013, 01:52:33 AM
Hmm...so Tesla had a LC tank circuit without capacitor , very clever. My question : what kind of LC circuit it is ? Series or parallel ? Or maybe it depends how you connect things together ? :o
....snip....
Hi forest,
Series or parallel? Well, it is BOTH... The distributed capacitance between the parallel wires makes the coil resonant at many frequencies, in fact you can consider the parallel wires as a transmission line. Amateur radio operators use coils made from coaxial cable and use it as a frequency selective switch for their short wave antennas. See this link for such 'coaxial' coil:
http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/index.htm (http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/index.htm) and scrolling down in that link you can see how the impedance of such coil (connected as described in the Tesla patent) depends on the frequency:
http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png (http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png)
Of course these coils work from the some MHz frequency ranges and much higher, and if you wish to bring down the operational range even to the some ten kHz range you would have to increase the distributed capacitance significantly between the parallel wires. A good approach to do this is to use insulated rectangular wires and wind them in parallel with their flat sides facing each other to increase the capacitor surface areas or use flat copper or Alu ribbon or foil with high dielectric insulating material sandwiched in-between (just follow the formula for flat plate capacitors, C=(eps*A)/d where eps is the dielectic constant for the insulating material, A is the surface area and d is the distance between the facing metal surfaces).
Of course there are practical limitations on building such bifilar coils to be resonant ,say, in the some 10 Hertz range.
Gyula
Quote from: Farmhand on May 17, 2013, 07:53:11 PM
...
It is only in parallel with the primary when the spark gap is conducting, the close coupling and the Large primary diameter means it just rings along with the secondary when not excited like it's not there, almost. :D My guess is it actually causes havoc and it is definitely not a continuous wave transformer. But I will build one one day.
As for series resonance capacitors in Tesla coil primary circuits they are in parallel with the primary when the spark gap conducts as well. Are they not ?
Yes, I also understand the input capacitor for the primary coil in a Tesla coil setup is basically in series with the primary coil, it charges up from the AC input source and then the spark gap fires, connecting the capacitor in parallel with the primary coil.
(A useful link is here, out of many others: http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/operation.html (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/operation.html) )
Gyula
TK:
Quote2. Tesla was right about HIS design of bifilar spiral coils operating at high voltages with low self-inductance--- low enough to be effectively "cancelled" by the inter-turn capacitance of a _carefully built_ spiral coil with the series-bifilar hookup. I've already said why he wanted these characteristics. Obviously if the increased capacitive reactance of a bifilar coil is to cancel the inductive reactance (not the inductance) then that inductance must be fairly small to begin with, meaning short wire length (relatively), non-saturable core of low permeability (like air) and high voltage difference between adjacent turns.
In theory there in no need to have low inductance. In some kind of LC arrangement, there will always be a resonant frequency whee the two reactances cancel each other out.
In terms of a practical build I would assume that you are correct in the sense that they would want to make the device resonate at a reasonable frequency. Do you know what Tesla did with these types of coils? Were they used to generate a short high-frequency oscillation to drive other circuits or something akin to that?
Quote4. Magluvin is right about there being differences in behaviour--- but these are second-order effects. Take two equal lengths of wire and two identical iron rod cores. Wind one coil as neatly and tightly as possible and wind the other one randomly, loose and messy. Now compare their magnetic field strength at the poles when they are powered by the same DC current. You will find that the field from the neatly-wound coil is stronger. Why? Simply because more of the turns are closer to the core. That's all. Now sweep both coils with AC and look at the resulting waveform. You will notice that the randomly-wound coil is "noisier" or rather has more complex waveshapes at certain frequencies than the neatly-wound coil does. This is because the _distributed_ inductance of the random windings is "lumpy" and disturbs the internal field, and ditto the distributed capacitance within the windings. The tightly wound coil will also dissipate heat less effectively and will be less affected by magnetostriction in the windings.
Let's not say the same length of wire but rather say the same number of turns. The field strength at the poles will be nearly identical, probably out to a few decimal places. There will be very little difference in field strength due to the wire loop distance from the core. The flux going through the from an inner loop and and an outer loop will be nearly the same because the core induces all the flux to flow through it. When you sweep the coils with AC within a reasonable frequency range the coils will behave essentially identically. You will not encounter any "lumpiness" and I don't know what you mean by "distributed inductance." Assuming that you are sweeping the coil with a sine wave, then you won't see any complex waveshapes. The coil is a linear device be it neatly wound or messily wound and therefore it can't "generate" it's own frequency content, it can only filter the input sinusoid waveform and output a sinusoid at the same frequency. It can't generate any harmonics by itself because it's a linear device.
What's the context here? It's a pulse motor. So the point is that if you are going to make a drive coil or a pick-up coil for your pulse motor, do you need to spend a few hours slowly winding the coil and ensuring that the wires are as neat as possible? The answer is no you don't, you can wind your coil in 10 minutes and it will work perfectly fine in the pulse motor. The inductance will be the same, the magnetic field pattern will be the same, and the frequency transfer function within a reasonable frequency band will be the same. That's the point, and it's an important one. Separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to what's important and what's not important if you are going to build a pulse motor. Learn the basic fundamentals and apply that knowledge when you do a build. Don't work in a "voodoo electronics" world, work in the real world of electronics.
Quote6. I'll bet Farmhand is right about using resonance in a pulse motor, too. If you think about it, a pulse motor that is self-triggered like a Bedini or even one that reads a fixed sensor then triggers a coil after a proportional delay, that tries to accelerate until it reaches equilibrium with its total drag... is a mechanically resonant situation
It's not a mechanically resonant situation, it's a situation that reaches a quiescent RPM where the average power input is balanced by the average power dissipated. The pulsing is at some "operating frequency" as opposed to a "resonant frequency." You might recall that I made the same point about a Joule Thief. It's very encouraging to see that Farmhand is looking at both the voltage and the current waveforms in his setups. If he can exploit some kind of coil resonance that is aligned with the operating frequency of the pulse train that drives the motor will be interesting to see. I know that Itsusable added capacitors across his pick-up coils or drive coil(s) or both in his clips where he investigated pulse motor resonance. In other words, the only way to get a pick-up coil to resonate with the passing rotor magnets is to add a capacitor across the pick-up coil to bring the resonant frequency down. I looked at those clips about six months ago and to the best of my recollection he did not have any remarkable findings to report.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
Four ways to increase electromagnetic strength. Your posts limit the ways to the first two!
1.- Increase the number of coil turns.
2.- Increase the current passing through the coil.
3.- Increase the voltage passing through coil.
4.- Tight wndings.
Electromagnets:
Moreover, you're dead wrong about another thing. You're good at covering outrageous falsehoods like these with slick sophistry!
"When the wire is wound into a coil, all the individual magnetic fields line up. They flow through the center of the coil and back out around the outside. The tighter the coil is, the greater the magnetic field."
Read more: How Does the Tightness of the Coil Affect the Strength of an Electromagnet? | eHow (http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5043013_tightness-coil-affect-strength-electromagnet.html#ixzz2TfTsSVWu) http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5043013_tightness-coil-affect-strength-electromagnet.html#ixzz2TfTsSVWu (http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5043013_tightness-coil-affect-strength-electromagnet.html#ixzz2TfTsSVWu)
Quote from: Magluvin on May 17, 2013, 10:43:20 PM
....
Like speaker systems, if you power a speaker 4ohm at 100w, and get 100db, you can now use 2 speakers to get more db with the same input. ;) Here is why... and how...
The single speaker, 4ohm, with 100w signal produces 100db. If we double the input to 200w we get an increase of 3db to 103db.
Now, when we series wire 2 speakers, and input 100w, each speaker will only see 50w but we get 103db, for the same input 100w. Follow me.
1 speaker at 50w only delivers 97db, a loss of 3db. Double the wattage, increase 3db. Halve the wattage decrease 3db.
So we have 1 speaker with 50w putting out 97 db. WHEN WE ADD ANOTHER SPEAKER WITH AN INPUT OF 50w, WE GET A 6db INCREASE!!!! :o :o ;D ;D
How can that be? But it is. We get the same output from 2 speakers with 100w total input as we would 200w into 1 speaker!! ;)
Thats why coils in series. More efficiency.
4 speakers in series. 4 ohm each, now 16 ohms and 25w/94db each 100w total.
1 speaker 25w 94db
2 speakers, 25w each, 50w total add 6 db 100db
Add 2 more speakers for a total of four speakers and input total of 100w 106db!!!
1 speaker would need to be powered with 400w to produce the 106db!!!
lol, now tune port those boxes to 30hz and run 100w total 30hz in, add another near 8db typical. Thats some resonance effects for ya. ;) Thats like 1 speaker with 800w but only 100w in. :o ;) Geddit?
And the tuned box at 30hz, the speaker cone isnt visibly moving, but the port air is, a lot. Did custom car audio professionally for almost 20 years. Biggest system 17kw, 24 12s and way too many mids and highs for my taste. I like real stereo, none of that surround sound distracting mumbo jumbo. Im a purist. ;D Close your eyes and you can see the band out in front of the car in your mind. Difficult to do but not impossible.
I believe these pulse motors can be thought of this way. ;) In fact, its just about a direct correlation. ;) Electrical input to magnetic field to motive force. Same thing. ;)
Now, if you were going to make an electric car. Would you use 4 motors, 1 in each wheel, or just 1 motor? ;)
Mags
Hi Mags,
Your series speaker system connection with its higher output possibility at the same input power reminds me to an experiment (I mentioned it to Farmhand in the other thread) by Ian from some years ago. See his post here:
http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg35080/#msg35080
His idea of using more and more identical coils in series and also in parallel combinations so that the resultant coil inductance and DC resistance remains the same as for the single coil sounds good (albeit it would not insure excess output), efficiency would increase for sure. (Back then I toyed with the idea of using a rotor disk of 30-40 cm OD and fixing many small but strong magnets on it while the many stator coils would be arranged like Ian described, using a moderate number of windings of thicker wire but I did not have the mechanical means for the bigger rotor mechanics.)
While I do not fully agree with Ian on all his statements as a final outcome, the more and more total flux involved can give more and more output torque for sure, versus the single same coil - single same magnet setup (albeit the COP > 1 is still a question with it).
Ian compared his single coil pulse motor setup to a 8 coil setup, using the same rotor mass and same input power for both setups. Here is his single coil description http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg31932/#msg31932 and here is his 8 coil setup video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gAKrn5pl4
So there seems to be an interesting analogy between the series speaker output power increase you observed and output torque increase by series coils in pulse motors, for both cases at the same input power. (For the latter pulse setup the many coils could also be arranged in series and the series groups in parallel as Ian described above and each such coil would have its facing magnet on a big rotor, the torque increase would surely be significant.)
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 18, 2013, 02:59:59 PM
Hi Mags,
Your series speaker system connection with its higher output possibility at the same input power reminds me to an experiment (I mentioned it to Farmhand in the other thread) by Ian from some years ago. See his post here:
http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg35080/#msg35080 (http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg35080/#msg35080)
His idea of using more and more identical coils in series and also in parallel combinations so that the resultant coil inductance and DC resistance remains the same as for the single coil sounds good (albeit it would not insure excess output), efficiency would increase for sure. (Back then I toyed with the idea of using a rotor disk of 30-40 cm OD and fixing many small but strong magnets on it while the many stator coils would be arranged like Ian described, using a moderate number of windings of thicker wire but I did not have the mechanical means for the bigger rotor mechanics.)
While I do not fully agree with Ian on all his statements as a final outcome, the more and more total flux involved can give more and more output torque for sure, versus the single same coil - single same magnet setup (albeit the COP > 1 is still a question with it).
Ian compared his single coil pulse motor setup to a 8 coil setup, using the same rotor mass and same input power for both setups. Here is his single coil description http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg31932/#msg31932 (http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg31932/#msg31932) and here is his 8 coil setup video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gAKrn5pl4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gAKrn5pl4)
So there seems to be an interesting analogy between the series speaker output power increase you observed and output torque increase by series coils in pulse motors, for both cases at the same input power. (For the latter pulse setup the many coils could also be arranged in series and the series groups in parallel as Ian described above and each such coil would have its facing magnet on a big rotor, the torque increase would surely be significant.)
Gyula
Hmm, come to think of it, if they are in parallel, and just input less power we can get the same advantages. So what it really boils down to is the number of coils/speakers is what makes it better. So it can go one way or the other. So having more magnets and coils, covering more surface area, more motive force for the same input. A whole bunch of tiny magnets and tiny coils. ;D
Thanks Gyula
Mags
I just re-performed "Tesla Coil's" bifilar nail experiment and got his 2x the strength results. Two problems: one; Lash winding and Two; Failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures.
Precise and tight wire wraps are essential in this experiment. This is how Tesla earned a patent for an electromagnet coil. He had to demonstrate a practical advantage to his U.S. Patent examiners. Also, the SBC won't work cold! It has to be "Energized". I charged both the SBC and the single wire coil with 12 volts, and tested their field strengths with 6 volts. After energizing the SBC, it lifted two paper clips from the table surface, where the single wire coil would only attach one to the face.
"Lorentz" explained how this additional magnetic strength results from electron interaction in the SBC.
Quote from: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 04:48:13 PM
I just re-performed "Tesla Coil's" bifilar nail experiment and got his 2x the strength results. Two problems, one; Lash winding and failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures.
What does this mean specifically? "Two problems, one; Lash winding and failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures."
Let me know what Im doing wrong so I can correct it. I have them already wound, ready for action. ;D
Mags
Quote from: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 04:48:13 PM
Also, the SBC won't work cold! It has to be charged.
"Has to be charged" Ok, does that mean connecting the battery to the coil ends but where the coil is connected in series is where we should have our make and break switching, all so that each winding, one is fully positive and the other is fully negative because they are connected to the battery already? ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 05:01:36 PM
What does this mean specifically? "Two problems, one; Lash winding and failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures."
Let me know what Im doing wrong so I can correct it. I have them already wound, ready for action. ;D
Mags
Are the nail cores magnetic iron? Are the wraps 26 gauge, tight against the iron core in one layer, and precision wound with no overlay? Did you "Energize" the SBC coil with High Voltage shock?
Quote from: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 05:12:03 PM
Are the nail cores magnetic iron? Are the wraps 26 gauge, tight against the iron core in one layer, and precision wound with no overlay? Did you "Energize" the SBC coil with High Voltage shock?
"Did you "Energize" the SBC coil with High Voltage shock?" LOL, no I did not. Can you show some link or reference to this subject or describe it a bit more?
Mags
Quote from: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 04:48:13 PM
I just re-performed "Tesla Coil's" bifilar nail experiment and got his 2x the strength results. Two problems: one; Lash winding and Two; Failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures.
Precise and tight wire wraps are essential in this experiment. This is how Tesla earned a patent for an electromagnet coil. He had to demonstrate a practical advantage to his U.S. Patent examiners. Also, the SBC won't work cold! It has to be "Energized". I charged both the SBC and the single wire coil with 12 volts, and tested their field strengths with 6 volts. After energizing the SBC, it lifted two paper clips from the table surface, where the single wire coil would only attach one to the face.
"Lorentz" explained how this additional magnetic strength results from electron interaction in the SBC.
Hi synchro1
See this link to the Tesla patent in question: http://www.tfcbooks.com/patents/0512340.htm
And see the 'No Model' notice on the original patent paper. It means that the inventor did not show any model or setup etc on his invention when he applied for the patent.
Please tell me where you got your info that Tesla had to demonstrate his coil to the patent examiners.
Can you show a photo on your electromagnet coil please? Would like to see your coil holding the clips or whatever you used for the comparison.
Gyula
Quote from: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 05:19:17 PM
"Did you "Energize" the SBC coil with High Voltage shock?" LOL, no I did not. Can you show some link or reference to this subject or describe it a bit more?
Mags
Danial McFarland Cook was granted a Canadian Patent for a "Battery" that consisted of two SBC's in series. This L.L. tank generated power like a capacitor as the resonance drained away. Naturally, the "Cook Battery", basically two SBC's has to be charged to run like any other battery. Tesla notes his SBC has 250.000 times the voltage differential as a single wrap. The SBC is inert like empty capacitor plates untill it's charged. It runs down over time, but generates it's own power and is technically a battery. A strong electric shock brings the SBC coil to full high voltage power. Charging has no effect on the single wire model.
I'm trying to track my still photographer down right now. My laptop stopped working to upload videos.
The Tesla Patent has (no model) then directly beneath that a model number No: 512,340. Could that be an abreviation meaning number model?
Quote from: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 06:59:45 PM
I'm trying to track my still photographer down right now. My laptop stopped working to upload videos.
The Tesla Patent has (no model) then directly beneath that a model number No: 512,340. Could that be an abreviation meaning number model?
No. The No: 512,340 is the patent number. You can see the 'No Model' notice in the main heading of the patent once again, under the figures:
COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS.SPECIFICATION forming part of Letters Patent No. 512,340, dated January 9, 1894.
Application filed July 7, 1893. Serial No. 479,804. (No model.)
I just returned from the shop where I re-ran the experiment and captured nine still shots with my cell phone. The Tesla series wrap bifilar raises two long "trombone" steel paper clips, while the single wrap raises merely one. The single wire model dosen't even come close to attracting a second paper clip. Zero cling on the second clip, while the SBC cleanly raises two whole paper clips high over the test bench. Try charging the SBC like "Leedskalnin's" PMH first, then repeat the experiment with the SBC raised to full potential.
Where does the Earth's magnetic field come from if not the ground? Power comes from the ground because the molten iron core revolves faster then the crust acting as a huge dynamo. Tesla understood this and sought to electrify the Planet through it! This sounds preposterous to some blind cynics.
My feeling on where the magnetic field of the Earth comes from is that the core of the Earth is not solid or liquid but is a piece of ejected solar plasmasphere spinning round and round. The entire core is spinning and the electrons move as they would in a coil. This causes magnetic field effects. The big magnetosphere. This plasma current is not uniform by any stretch of the imagination. It appears to have taken on many states of angular momentum and polarity over the ages. This may be due to solar activity where the solar magnetic field changes intensity and polarity. The plasmasphere currents on the Sun create many magnetic poles. Some people belive that they have found various rhythmic field strength changes but 8 or 20 minute cycles in the order of microteslas isnt very much power.
Quote from: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 08:54:13 PM
I just returned from the shop where I re-ran the experiment and captured nine still shots with my cell phone. The Tesla series wrap bifilar raises two long "trombone" steel paper clips, while the single wrap raises merely one. The single wire model dosen't even come close to attracting a second paper clip. Zero cling on the second clip, while the SBC cleanly raises two whole paper clips high over the test bench. Try charging the SBC like "Leedskalnin's" PMH first, then repeat the experiment with the SBC raised to full potential.
....
Please show me where did Tesla write his coil construction (defined in his patent) is to be charged first with high voltage and then use it with a lower voltage?
Did you check whether the nail manifested a remanent magnetism after your 12V charge up treatment? (I am not saying your nail manifested remanence magnetism, just a possibility for explaining your test result.)
When I did my own tests first with paper clips I noticed that due to
the inherently very small touching surfaces of the clips the tests were not fully convincing for me, even though the difference in the number of lifted clips was evident, and when I repeated the tests I decided to change the clips to small sized nuts: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952)
So the small nuts have made the tests more convincing for me and more repeatable. I suggest you also use small nuts or
just cut up your "trombone" clips to many small (say 3 or 4 millimeter long) pieces and do the tests again.
Here is your post from last night and I highlighted some words in your text I wish to answer:
Quote from: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 04:48:13 PM
I just re-performed "Tesla Coil's" bifilar nail experiment and got his 2x the strength results. Two problems: one; Lash winding and Two; Failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures.
Precise and tight wire wraps are essential in this experiment. This is how Tesla earned a patent for an electromagnet coil. He had to demonstrate a practical advantage to his U.S. Patent examiners. Also, the SBC won't work cold! It has to be "Energized". I charged both the SBC and the single wire coil with 12 volts, and tested their field strengths with 6 volts. After energizing the SBC, it lifted two paper clips from the table surface, where the single wire coil would only attach one to the face.
"Lorentz" explained how this additional magnetic strength results from electron interaction in the SBC.
Well, see the first picture Magluvin uploaded in his post here:
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705)
He has wound nice coils, precise and tight, no lash winding on his nails, right? And he did find equal performance for the single and the bifilar (SBC) coils just like I did with my 'lash' winding. So we got the test results independently from whether the windings were precise or lash, right?
Gyula
Dang, Looks like I missed a lot, I got entranced by my experiments, I've made significant headway towards understanding what I'm doing. I found I had a bad diode which was causing bad wave forms and bad performance.
Tinsel, Your point (6) about resonance in a pulse motor, I think there is already people claiming resonant pulse motors but I'm not sure what is the actual claims. Some say resonance is just the return of energy that builds system potential or energy some say otherwise. I want it all, I want sine waves from pulses and energy returned when the frequency means no sine waves. In other words the harmonics should not interfere, they are processed in a way. It is difficult to get the visual out of my head for people to grasp I guess, I think you get it though.
I now have a nice "h" wave with a flat top without a charge battery and efficient high speed running with no load and no charge battery but using a charge battery is still a bit better and the reason is that the battery makes the currents look smoother, the return set up makes waves, but it just a matter of tuning the circuit. If the capacitor is small the voltage on the drain at the discharge portion of the "H" wave is high and short so the current is more intense but shorter (kinda like when a charge battery is used), and like with a battery, when really feeding in the power fast I get a steep climb in voltage on the drain which fires the neons and noise upsets the picaxe which shuts down the boost converter (I think) and that drops the input.
If I feed power in slower and speed the rotor up slower I get the fastest speeds with a charge battery followed closely by my return setup, but if I snub the fly back to the supply or around the coil it just will not accelerate.
I get the best result as far as loading goes when I use a larger return capacitance so that the drain voltage stays lower, however I intend to replace the NE2 neons with 220 volt gas discharge tubes from the drain to ground for now but I think that is a bad idea I think a safety valve from the drain back to the supply might be better, I think in my setup the circuit noise is causing me problems when it becomes too much so I need to keep it in mind.
I think for pulse motors they can be kinda like a self triggered (pseudo synchronous motor) because when I switch in the extra charging capacitance that the charging coils empty into the frequency and speed of the motor slow quickly as a result of the braking effect from the change in phase of the charging coil current. Kind of synchronous to it's circuit frequency.
I'll get a shot of one of my (h) waves. in a minute. I'll need to make another post to reply more anyway.
The way I see it even an ordinary pulse motor of any kind if the pulses make sine waves then I see no reason why it cant be smooth quiet and powerful. Now when I get to high speed the most noise comes from the windage on the rotor, it's full of holes, can hardly hear the pulsing, still not properly balanced though. I'm going to take most of the current video clips down because they are now obselete. I can easily out perform the 18 Watt fan that beat me last time. And considering my motor is much bigger it should beat it for efficiency with the same load. The main thing is I need the computer control, once I get command of all variables I think I can make it work well.
Head down making progress. I'll get the shot. First thing.
Oh I was also only running on three bangs a revolution too, my sensor was ignoring one reflector strip because it was too small. >:(
Cheers
These wave forms show why I chose to use a resonant charging circuit and how I made the inductive energy return to try to match the effects of a charge battery.
It's quiet because the powerful rectangle pulses are just adding to a sine wave, the sine wave is driving the rotor. :)
New clip of quiet running unloaded. (except for the wind noise sorry bout that). :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrlL099cz2Q
...
Gyula, My Tesla transformer primary circuit doesn't use a series capacitor, ( I used to) but the setup now is as the drawing shows, but there is the spark gap in the positive HV line to the primary.
The spark gap can be two shorting bars out of phase or one. It's a very narrow series gap due to the design and I have three points to use on the gap two in phase and one out of phase so I can use two in series if I want, one is good.
Anyway the primary caps in a resonant charging circuit which is the diode the charging inductor (a MOT secondary) and the primary capacitors, if the resonance between the charging inductor and the primary capacitor is too low then the power is restricted. If the charging inductor does not have enough inherent inductance then the spark discharge can draw energy directly from the supply through the charging inductor then the primary. At reonance we get the highest voltage into the HV primary capacitors, the resonance is between the charging inductor and the primary capacitors all the time, but the capacitors are only in parallel with the primary when the gap is conducting, and never in series. Because of the circuit design. This is true of all two way blocking switches in such an arrangement. But not one way (blocking) switches like mosfets. Maybe why IGBT is preferred dunno. Sorry for the highlighting. :-[
I have series inductors. ;)
We can also see by my drawing there that the infamous "Avremenko plug" is nothing more than half of a FWBR and a capacitor ect. . I use A FWBR in two halves which are exactly the same as the diode arrangement for an "Avremenko plug" .
Cheers
P.S. Most of the microwave oven transformers I have posses about the same figure as the supply voltage in mH ie. mine are 236 mH so with 39 uf I am close to 50 Hz resonance for the power factor to be good. It drops the line voltage a bit too I noticed whatever that means. But I can get reliable power measurements behind the 240 line filter at the control box. So no real interference back through the supply lines. I think that's important to do without using a lot of resistors. For efficiency.
C7-C8-C9 and C10 are my primary capacitors there are no others. the primary swings freely, it's just one turn of two 6 mm copper tubes 5 mm below the secondary.
The thinking is that having primary "resonance capacitors" always connected would lower the "q" factor of the secondary which is high because of the 1 mm wire, very little resistance. I figure it at almost 4000. 760 kHz. I can't recall the exact measurements to post.
..
Hi Farmhand,
Thanks for returning to the series or parallel cap topic at the Tesla primary coil, (it has been okay with me) the fireing spark gap put the capacitor in parallel with the primary and the cap was discharged by the primary in that moment. What you show now in the drawing I understand too.
It is interesting you mention Avramenko plug as half of a FWBR and indeed the two diodes' half seem to copy two 'plugs' but remember an Avramenko plug is driven by a single wire while the FWBR (or half of it) is driven by two wires, so this difference must have a different loading effect on the source.
Gyula
Oh I see, yes, I think when the primary capacitors are being charged they are in series with the supply and the charging inductor. but when they are being discharged they are in parallel with the primary.
I think it's always both, unless the capacitor does not discharge Tesla style. Then a series capacitor is just a series capacitor.
It's the finer points that are difficult to explain, I see you understand it well Gyula. Misunderstanding on my part, sorry. :-[
Cheers
I always thought that in a Tesla transformer oscillations in the primary are maintained by the power supply and coupled to the secondary through the capacitance of the gap. As the oscillations are damped in the secondary the energy stored in the primary is passed into the secondary via ac coupling of the two tanks through the capacitor the gap represents. This makes the whole transformer self-regulating and increases voltage to be distributed to loads far more efficiently than the pole pigs westinghouse was selling and continues to sell to this day.
Tesla sometimes used arrangements such as mine, near the beginning of the Colorado Springs Notes he mentions that he sometimes did not bother with primary "resonance" caps he didn't put it quite like that, but he showed an arrangement with two primaries as well one primary with the resonance caps to reinforce the secondary but not directly powered and another primary coil with the spark gap in it's circuit. And he mentions that it's not always necessary if the primary rings well enough. When we use mosfets the primary is connected to the caps for half the cycle of the sine through the body diode when the current reverses.
It can be done many ways, the objective is to get a wave with as little damping as possible by having a high "q" isn't it. What's the "q" factor of a primary of 1 turn with next to no inductance and resistance and with 14 nF (which is in series with the primary I think when resonating), I do not know. But from doing it I can see it's better not have it. in a rotary spark gap the gap is over an inch when the shorting bar is not there. I don't see how it can couple. My transformer works, did you see the video ? rather than have primary tap points on a multiple winding primary I used a "regulating coil" as Tesla did, and at the bottom of the secondary is another one for fine tuning to different experiments. In a low voltage setup it's easier to have tuning capacitors. but with HV coils are easier. My transformation rate does not change with adjustment I don't think. Transformation rate is about 1:200, with around 4 to 6 kV input mostly. Of course I don't think it's developing 1.2 million volts, quite a bit less than that more like a couple of hundred kV.
Don't be fooled by the wooden frame on the spark gap, it's dodgy looking but finely adjusted, at the end of a long run at high power and low break rate the shorting bars are just clipping the electrodes due to heat expansion. that's the noise at the end of the clip. At higher break rates the power drops off because resonance in the charging circuit is passed. I can go to break rates over 2 or 3 kHz if I want. :)
The hard white conductions heat up the gap more I think. The power is restricted to about 500 or 600 Watts. See the twirling of the arcs it makes double helix arcs and pictures can have like fingerprint looking type arcs due to shutter time which is kinda cool. The helices twist up then throw themselves apart if they don't find a hard conduction, if they do they seem to twist back down again..
Link again. Enjoy. Sound Warning it loud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkJtrKCdFg
Cheers
Sorry to go off topic but the resonance aspect is very prevalent in Tesla's patents I think.
If I put another ground connected and tuned resonant coil near it the second coil lashes out at the first and it can light incandescent bulbs from what would be the primary of the second coil no problem. Tesla did those kinds of experiment so I tried it it works. I don't think there is much to doubt about the majority of what he says but only if he is the one who said it.
...
Quote from: gyulasun on May 19, 2013, 06:08:26 AM
Please show me where did Tesla write his coil construction (defined in his patent) is to be charged first with high voltage and then use it with a lower voltage?
Did you check whether the nail manifested a remanent magnetism after your 12V charge up treatment? (I am not saying your nail manifested remanence magnetism, just a possibility for explaining your test result.)
When I did my own tests first with paper clips I noticed that due to the inherently very small touching surfaces of the clips the tests were not fully convincing for me, even though the difference in the number of lifted clips was evident, and when I repeated the tests I decided to change the clips to small sized nuts: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952)
So the small nuts have made the tests more convincing for me and more repeatable. I suggest you also use small nuts or just cut up your "trombone" clips to many small (say 3 or 4 millimeter long) pieces and do the tests again.
Here is your post from last night and I highlighted some words in your text I wish to answer:
Well, see the first picture Magluvin uploaded in his post here:
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705)
He has wound nice coils, precise and tight, no lash winding on his nails, right? And he did find equal performance for the single and the bifilar (SBC) coils just like I did with my 'lash' winding. So we got the test results independently from whether the windings were precise or lash, right?
Gyula
I restored my laptop and plan to video tape and upload the experiment for you to let you decide what to make of it. The SBC stores it's pico farad capacitance in kilovolts and nano amps. A 100 turn SBC has 250,000 times the voltage potential between the wraps as a single wire coil. How do you imagine this power gets into the coil if it's not sent there? The high voltage spike from the magnetic field collapse charges the SBC to full potential. This happens automatically when the coil's pulsed, but you need at least one strong field collapse to generate the high voltage that's stored in the bifilar windings. The collapse dosen't effect the single wire coil because it lacks the storage potential. This high voltage storage capacitance eliminates reactance to current direction change in the coil windings, and generates double the field strength from the resulting Lorentz force. I got the experiment to work. You're asking me why yours caused trouble. Please put your thinking cap on!
Electrons are attracted to one another as they pass head on. There's no influence between them on the perpendicular. The head on electrons turn when there's no reactance to direction change from the high bifilar windings potential. Imagine two electrons orbiting each other. What happens? Think about it!
Quote from: synchro1 on May 19, 2013, 11:02:52 AM
I restored my laptop and plan to video tape and upload the experiment for you to let you decide what to make of it. The SBC stores it's pico farad capacitance in kilovolts and nano amps. A 100 turn SBC has 250,000 times the voltage potential between the wraps as a single wire coil. How do you imagine this power gets into the coil if it's not sent there? The high voltage spike from the magnetic field collapse charges the SBC to full potential. This happens automatically when the coil's pulsed, but you need at least one strong field collapse to generate the high voltage that's stored in the bifilar windings. The collapse dosen't effect the single wire coil because it lacks the storage potential. This high voltage storage capacitance eliminates reactance to current direction change in the coil windings, and generates double the field strength from the resulting Lorentz force. I got the experiment to work. You're asking me why yours caused trouble. Please put your thinking cap on!
Well, you have to understand. We were doing the nail experiment as it was described. It did not work. So in reality your experiment has added ingredients as compared to the 'experiment' from the web page.
But if there is something missing, I would be happy to see it. ;)
Is your nail ending up permanently magnetized in the process of kicking it with HV? That is the first thing that comes to mind of what might happen.
Looking forward to the vid. Before you stated the use of KV, I thought you meant precharging the bifi like below.
Mags
Hi Gyula, I get you on the AV plug I think. So if I may could I ask a couple of questions please. Would it be true to say that with the plug and capacitor there is a second instance of displacement current ? The first instance between the capacitor plates and the second instance in series with that capacitor's plates and whatever it can go to, maybe a tin plate or the bench or the ground/air ect. ? And if yes that the quality and value of the second capacitive coupling will give the AV plug it performance in a specific situation ? The plug uses the second displacement current path for the return ?
I think that would be the principal of the receiving of the wireless power transmission of Tesla's last patent. The displacement current path might be possible from the top of the tower's air capacitance to the Earth and the sending Plant's transformer is connected to both as well. There is just no diodes, resonant coils do it all.
Cheers
Doesn't an AV plug work like the drawing shows or similar ? If yes than the AV plug is really just half of a FWBR. :) Nooooooo darn I think I drew the currents flowing the wrong way hahahaha but I think you can see what I mean.
I think Tesla describes the effect in his high frequency lectures, he knew what was happening. And that he could use it.
I think if we had say a 1/4 wavelength of say 100 meters then if we place a resonant receiver coil there it would get maximum excitement, but if we place it at 3 x 1/4 wavelengths the wave would be more attenuated or down graded. He may have over estimated the efficiency of doing that at HF though 35 kHz max he said for transmitting at distance through the ground so as to avoid too much degradation of the current waves.
Does displacement current flow in EM waves ?
Cheers
Farmhand:
For the AV plug you are correct. The key factors are the frequency of the AC signal in the single wire, the amplitude, and how much capacitive coupling the power source has to ground and the charging capacitor has to ground. For every rising edge of the AC source, a tiny "puff" of charge passes through the forward diode to charge the cap. For every falling edge, a tiny puff of charge flows through the reverse diode and that also charges the cap. The tiny puff of moving charge though the diode is the displacement current. It's the same current that is capacitively coupled to ground at both the source and destination ends of the current flow. It's a two-wire charging system that only has one physical wire.
Sometimes you can have a an audible high-frequency oscillator on your bench and by bringing your hand near to it you can make the pitch change. Same idea, the capacitive effect of your hand in proximity to the oscillator will cause very faint displacement currents and affect the oscillator.
The higher the frequency and the higher the amplitude of the signal the larger and more frequent the puffs are and the faster the capacitor charges. The stray coupling capacitance to ground will act like any capacitor and conduct AC more readily the higher the frequency.
MileHigh
Quote from: Magluvin on May 19, 2013, 12:01:03 PM
Well, you have to understand. We were doing the nail experiment as it was described. It did not work. So in reality your experiment has added ingredients as compared to the 'experiment' from the web page.
But if there is something missing, I would be happy to see it. ;)
Is your nail ending up permanently magnetized in the process of kicking it with HV? That is the first thing that comes to mind of what might happen.
Looking forward to the vid. Before you stated the use of KV, I thought you meant precharging the bifi like below.
Mags
A capacitor discharge would charge the coil well too. The final coil voltage is a function of the wraps. I just finished the video. I detected a noticeable amount of magnetic remnance in the SBC core, so I connected the nail heads untill the core attractions equalized. The experiment again demonstrated the 2x SBC magnetic force as before. I'll start uploading the video soon!
Tinselkoala could run the paper clip test experiment on his two kinds of coreless pancake coils, and help factor any magnetic core remnance issue out entirely.
Synchro1:
QuoteI restored my laptop and plan to video tape and upload the experiment for you to let you decide what to make of it. The SBC stores it's pico farad capacitance in kilovolts and nano amps. A 100 turn SBC has 250,000 times the voltage potential between the wraps as a single wire coil. How do you imagine this power gets into the coil if it's not sent there? The high voltage spike from the magnetic field collapse charges the SBC to full potential. This happens automatically when the coil's pulsed, but you need at least one strong field collapse to generate the high voltage that's stored in the bifilar windings. The collapse dosen't effect the single wire coil because it lacks the storage potential. This high voltage storage capacitance eliminates reactance to current direction change in the coil windings, and generates double the field strength from the resulting Lorentz force. I got the experiment to work. You're asking me why yours caused trouble. Please put your thinking cap on!
Electrons are attracted to one another as they pass head on. There's no influence between them on the perpendicular. The head on electrons turn when there's no reactance to direction change from the high bifilar windings potential. Imagine two electrons orbiting each other. What happens? Think about it!
I can suggest a good test for you. If you have a compass and arrange your setup so the regular coil and SBC will try to deviate the compass from magnetic North you can then measure the relative strength of the fields from the two types of coils at different compass positions. Say the compass is a foot away from the regular coil and when you energize the coil it deflects 30 degrees. Now try the same thing with the SBC and see if the compass also deflects by 30 degrees. This test will be much more accurate than picking up paperclips.
I will remind you that you need to know the current through the coils. So you measure the DC resistance of the coil and then measure the voltage across the coil when you connect the battery. You might not know if the battery is freshly charged or nearly discharged. That will affect the battery voltage under load so you must read the voltage and then calculate the current. Alternatively you can use your multimeter to measure current. One way or the other, assuming that you are comparing two coils with the same number of turns and the same core material, you have to measure both setups and be sure the current through both types of coils will be the same when you do the tests. You should present that data as part of your test results to your audience.
Looking forward to seeing your clip. We can see if there is any evidence of very high voltage.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 19, 2013, 01:54:31 PM
Synchro1:
I can suggest a good test for you. If you have a compass and arrange your setup so the regular coil and SBC will try to deviate the compass from magnetic North you can then measure the relative strength of the fields from the two types of coils at different compass positions. Say the compass is a foot away from the regular coil and when you energize the coil it deflects 30 degrees. Now try the same thing with the SBC and see if the compass also deflects by 30 degrees. This test will be much more accurate than picking up paperclips.
I will remind you that you need to know the current through the coils. So you measure the DC resistance of the coil and then measure the voltage across the coil when you connect the battery. You might not know if the battery is freshly charged or nearly discharged. That will affect the battery voltage under load so you must read the voltage and then calculate the current. Alternatively you can use your multimeter to measure current. One way or the other, assuming that you are comparing two coils with the same number of turns and the same core material, you have to measure both setups and be sure the current through both types of coils will be the same when you do the tests. You should present that data as part of your test results to your audience.
Looking forward to seeing your clip. We can see if there is any evidence of very high voltage.
MileHigh
You do it!
QuoteYou do it!
It's not going to happen!
Hi Farmhand,
Milehigh answered your question on the Avramenko plug so I make some additions only. You surely know that a piece of wire freely hanging in the air has a self capacitance with respect to the ground, measured between any one wireend and a ground pole. This link shows a formula to calculate the CH capacitance of a horizontal wire with L length, d diameter and H height above ground: http://www.strobbe.eu/on7yd/136ant/#CapTop (http://www.strobbe.eu/on7yd/136ant/#CapTop) So the single wire capacitance to ground behaves as the "second wire" in the power transfer and of course it is frequency dependent too. This explains why the Avramenko plug is not really "working" at 50 or 60 Hz frequencies, high capacitive reactance is the limiting factor at low frequencies.
I do not know if you have read the patent by Avramenko et al here is a link https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US6104107.pdf (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US6104107.pdf)
I attached a pdf file on practical measurements with single wire power transfer, I find it interesting. (I found it on the net, referenced by someone on a forum I cannot recall.)
Gyula
Scrap yard magnets are Tesla pancake SB coils attached to flat iron disks. There's a capacitor, a six volt battery and a DPDT current reversing switch. The electromagnet face drops into a pile of scrap, the capacitor charge pulses the iorn disk and a PMH bond attracts the scrap. This electromagnet is OU now minus the cost of a comparison powered coil. Current reversal drops the load. The bifilar nail test of "Tesla Coil Builder" crudely demonstrates this PMH effect of Tesla's SBC.
Magnetic lock valves, car door locks, magnet conditioners, and countless other devices find ways to make use of this effect. Tesla's patent for "Electromagnets" is a coil for "Making Electromagnets". Portions of Tesla's patent are missing.
This lockng effect is a "Lorentz" force. Gravity bends light, E=Mc2. Magnet fields bend electric current. This effect can't be explained with Ampere's law, and is not inductive magnetization which can't unlatch.
Synchro1:
Go do some research on scrap yard electromagnets if you want to. Right now your talk is mostly fantasy talk. There is no OU related to scrap yard electromagnets and they do not use a PMH effect for their operating principle.
The Lorentz force is has to do with magnetic fields causing a force on a current-carrying wire.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c2)
QuoteIn physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), particularly electromagnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism), the Lorentz force is the force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force) on a point charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_charge) due to electromagnetic fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field). If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force F = qE + qv (cross product)B
So there is no special "secret sauce" associated with the Lorentz force.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
How do you explain Ed Leedskalnin's PMH effect without your "Lorentz Sauce"? Furthermore, maybe you're the one who should do some research? Tell us how permanent Alnico Magnets are manufactured Smart Aleck? Cap discharge through an SBC perhaps? How about your SBC PMH car door lock?
Synchro1:
I can explain the PMH effect. But before I do that if required, ask yourself what are the required conditions for the PMH effect to work? Then ask yourself are those conditions met in a scrapyard setting?
Magnets are made by putting ferromagnetic material with high remanence in a very strong unidirectional external magnetic field for a short amount of time. That will align the magnetic domains in the ferromagnetic material with the external magnetic field. As long as the magnet is not abused then it will retain its magnetism for a very long time.
I don't know if they use PMH effects in a car door lock and I seriously doubt it. It's probably just an ordinary solenoid driving some kind of latch mechanism that clicks into the locked or unlocked position. No SBC would be used for reasons already explained.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
You make outragous statements. "Magnetic door locks are probably mechanical". That's just complete nonsense! You're not worth the discussion. Take a look at youself for God's sake. You act like a stupid farce!
Causeing a sudden high voltage field collapse accross the SBC instantainiously transmuts the iron nail core into a permanent magnet. A nickel metal nail could be removed from the SBC and sold in a hardware store. This is what the coil was patented to do. Reversing the current anihilates the field. That's why Alnico's can drop dead if shocked. The scrap yard magnet works with just that kind of Hi-Voltage permanent field producing and unlatching current.
Skycollection measured a COP of 1.7 with bifilar pancakes and ferrite toroid core. The iron transmuts into a seperate isotope when it's pulsed by hi-voltage and the domains align as a crystal. Can we skim the permanent quanta transmutation to generate free power?
Synchro1:
That was a "far out" reply and it's hard to respond to it. Yes, I will repeat that electric car door locks are probably driven by an ordinary solenoid.
Skycollection has not demonstrated good measurement techniques and he freely admits that he is not strong when it comes to power analysis of his setups. He doesn't have over unity with his setups. If you can point me to the clip where he claims COP 1.7 I'll have a look.
MileHigh
Thanks Webby1! You learn something new every day!
I discovered that I can turn the SBC nail core's second level of twin strength permanent field on and off with current reversal. The coil jumps the SBC permanent core field strength up to 2x then back to normal, where the single wire permanent core strength rests at. So I turn the double permanent core strength on and off with current reversal, to half strength. This only effects the second strength level. The single wire coil does not share this characteristic.
Synchro1:
You criticise other members here and your criticisms have so far proved unfounded. And when it turns out they are unfounded or mistaken you either do not respond to it when you are faced with them or change topic or start to make another vague topic.
It is okay you make mistakes, it happens with anybody. But so far you have not shown any proof to support your bold statements.
How about the photo (or video you mentioned to upload) on your neatly wound SBC coil having twice the field strength versus a single wound coil?
If you do not wish to share that is fine with me but please tell it and we will all know we can neglect your posts because at least we will know you like telling stories.
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 21, 2013, 06:33:57 PM
Synchro1:
You criticise other members here and your criticisms have so far proved unfounded. And when it turns out they are unfounded or mistaken you either do not respond to it when you are faced with them or change topic or start to make another vague topic.
It is okay you make mistakes, it happens with anybody. But so far you have not shown any proof to support your bold statements.
How about the photo (or video you mentioned to upload) on your neatly wound SBC coil having twice the field strength versus a single wound coil?
If you do not wish to share that is fine with me but please tell it and we will all know we can neglect your posts because at least we will know you like telling stories.
Gyula
I encountered problems uploading the video. I was ridiculed from the outset because It's possible to precondition a nail core by storing it in a box of magnets. The video actually conveys a false impression.
I described how the "Scrap Yard" magnet works. Milehigh has repeatedly assailed my explaination as false. The Tesla Hi-Voltage bifilar, counter wound coils over a longitudinal ferrite core share a characteristic with Ed Leedskalnin's horseshoe PMH: Field collapse induced permenent magnet field.!
The video shows my SBC nail picking up twice the paper clips, but the secret is, it will attract the same number of clips with the power disconnected! Why? The SBC nail core was permently magnetized to twice the strength of the mere electromagnetic strength from coil current alone.
Now, I'm thinking through a format to video tape the "Secret of the "Scrap Yard Magnet". A capacitor takes the place of costly coil winding. The trick is to permently magnatize then demagnatize the core. Perhaps I can compose a new video. Why not simply shock yours and see what happens for yorself. Why should I have to spoon feed you skeptics every inch of the way?
I have personally looked into the inside of a scrapyard magnet. How rude for someone to boldly assert that I'm full of scrap. It's enough that I took the time to figure out how to demonstrate the seperate power of the SBC to magnatize core substrate instantly with a high voltage field collapse spike! You try it!
Quote from: gyulasun on May 12, 2013, 05:29:11 AM
Hi Farmhand,
I agree with the 'capacity' and 'capacitance' clarification, albeit Tesla often used word 'capacity' where we now would use 'capacitance' but it was okay for his era.
There is one issue which is not yet a 100% clear for me (English is a second language for me).
It is the following quote from the patent:
If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it, and the end of A be connected with the starting point of B, the aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns is the same, viz., one thousand, then...
So in case Tesla meant to use the same length of wire for conductor B, does not it mean he actually doubled the total (aggregate) length of the original winding made first from conductor A? i.e. he meant to make another 1000 turns in parallel with conductor A which already had 1000 turns? Alltogether he had 2000 turns in series, no?
Or the two conductors together had to have a total of 1000 turns, then this means that from conductor A 500 turns should be removed, right? but he did not write it specificaly, it simply comes from the second part of the above quote? (Because Tesla started with 1000 turns for conductor A in Figure 1 as a single wire coil.)
This is what I am unsure in. Is it a 100% sure for you that conductor A should be reduced to 500 turns and conductor B should have also 500 turns to get the total 1000 turns in the series (bifilar) connection?
In my Reply #63 above I included a link to a PDF file which tested the same situation you wrote in the above quote. The lower self resonant frequency is obvious for a bifilarly wound coil using the same amount of wire like the single wire coil:
http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eonichelson/VOLTGN.pdf)
Thanks, Gyula
Hi Gyula, Sorry I took so long to re-read the patent about this. I can see how English not being your first language would indeed make the patent text difficult to be sure of. If you already came to the conclusion it means what I'm about to say then just ignore this post.
I think the key word is "assumed",
Quotebeing such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns
in that context it means "Taken on" as in [ aggregate ] or [ Total number turns all together ] ect. So it means he is talking of the same amount of wire in both coils "total", each of the strands of wire in the bifilar coil is half the length of the single strand in the regular coil.
I think he was pointing out in the drawing that the coil should not be just wound so that when finished the ends are cut wherever, but the two strands need be the same length and where the end of the outside wire ends will not be where the end of the inside wire is. Unless if desired the proportion of length between the two wires can be manipulated to finely adjust the "resonance" frequency.
QuoteIf now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it, and the end of A be connected with the starting point of B, the aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns is the same, viz., one thousand, then...
I'm fairly sure you are of the same opinion as many "myself included" that the currents he speaks of need not be the result of the application of a sine wave potential. The currents can be the result of excitation pulses at the correct frequency and they need only be DC pulses if desired, however alternating positive and negative DC pulses can also be used along with sine triangle or square waves ect. the only point on mentioning that is being that if excited at the frequency of resonance for the coil/or circuit including the coil then any arbitrary input wave shape will result in a sinusoidal voltage and current as long as the wave shape is not deformed by loading. This is true with any coil. and Tesla as well quite rightly points out that any coil will act in the same way if the L and C are correct for the frequency of excitement as far as the cancellation of the "effects of self induction" are concerned. And that that is the main point to the patent, to secure the correct L and C for the impressed frequency of vibration. The fact that the coil will actually store more energy for the number of turns because of the greater potential difference is a side bonus or not depending on how you look at it or what you want.
Remembering of course that the insulation thickness of the wire determins the distributed capacitors "voltage rating" and also the effective "capacitance secured" from the voltage potential applied to the winding. Wires can be spaced to reduce the secured capacity for a given voltage as well.
Basically he outlines it all. Even though he just wants to avoid causing "false currents" in the circuit.
Lines 10 to 18
QuoteIn electric apparatus or systems in which alternating currents are employed the self induction of the coils
or conductors may and in fact in many cases does operate disadvantageously by giving rise to false currents
which often reduce what is known as the commercial efficiency of the apparatus composing the system or
operate detrimentally in other respects.
Cheers
And to continue with some random thoughts on the subject, just to share. The cancellation of the "effects of self inductance" thing carries over to lots of things. I've shown that an incandescent light globe with a coiled filament can be pulsed to produce an inductive energy release without lighting the globe much, the globe's filament is a very poor coil, plain and simple. Anything with self inductance and "capacitance"/capacity has an EM resonance frequency and pretty much everything has those things. If we put the correct size capacitor across a light globe with a coiled filament we can neutralize the effects of self inductance in the filament at a given frequency and the globe will be more receptive to high frequency currents. This I believe is the effect we see when people light incandescent globes held in the hand from very high frequency currents that would not seem to be able to have the same effect at the same magnitude but at lower frequencies. The human body is the capacitance and conductor ect. the dynamics can be complicated.
At just after 2:00 minutes I get a HF arc burn say owch and show the bulb lighting effect. ;D Bear in mind the small Tesla coil is running from a 12 volt battery and consuming only about 6 Watts maximum while running at over 600 kHz.
Light bulb effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eRiVu-gd1Y
And this is no biggie but it shows the 180 volt spike obtained by pulsing a bulb at 900 kHz with 12 volts. You can see the miller Plataue effect on my gate drive wave form but just ignore that, it's not good I know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89YgQIIqUY
So if we cancel the self induction of the light bulb it will pass current more readily at the given frequency as per the laws of nature, not mans laws.
Cheers
P.S. I must also say that whilst experimenting I have experienced certain times when the effects of either the electrical oscillations or the related pressure waves have made me feel instantly nauseated or get an almost instant head ache, I think it is a good idea to avoid these frequencies or the processes that cause the sickening feeling, my advice is don't try to ignore it as there is possibility of health issues. Personally I have metal screws in my neck and I think that some frequencies/power levels can have detrimental effects with such things. I find I am very susceptible to resonating pressure waves of certain frequencies in an enclosed space.
This loud spark discharge ringing off the walls in the shed is an example that can be detected but it's not always able to be heard or felt as such, sometimes it just a woosey feeling. It sometimes happens with motors as well.
I made this video mainly for comedy relief as I do at times and to show how the "leaders" reach out from the grounded point towards the terminal then the spark proper uses the ionized route to make a hard conduction. The sound gave me a serious headache a bit later. The video doesn't do proper justice to the suddeness of the crack and ring that follows.
Tesla coil emulating a static machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ojAlZrUZxE
..
A hi-voltage spike does work through Tesla's SBC magnetizing ferrite. The spike fails to have any such effect on the ferrite core of a single wire coil. Perhaps if I demonstrate this difference it will lay to rest the false assertion that the coil types share no difference?
"Ferrite magnets can be magnetized with shorter pulses, with a width duration of a few microseconds".
This pulse needs to pass through a hi voltage SBC.
"Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. The large amount of magnetic field required to magnetize permanent magnets requires the current to be in the range of 10 to 30 kiloamperes. To provide a safe and reliable method to avoid overheating and fusing the current carrying conductors during magnetization, an extremely fast current pulse is required. A fast pulse is the preferred method for magnetization. Magnetic materials reacts quickly to the applied field; however, care must be taken to limit eddy currents effects created in conductive materials by the fast rise time of the current pulse, toavoid any shielding effects. Pulses width duration in the order of 1 milliseconds are considered 'long' enough for the magnetization process to be successful. Ferrite magnets can be magnetized with shorter pulses, with a width duration of a few microseconds".
10.2.2 Capacitor Discharge Magnetizers Capacitor discharge magnetizers employ capacitor banks that are charged, and then discharged through a coil.
Tesla's bifilar pancake for electromagnets more aptly may have been named:
"Capacitor Discharge Magnetizer Coil".
Syncro1:
We had a discussion about scrap yard magnets. I also have given you all of the background and links on how a magnetic field is generated by a coil of wire. So you saw a scrap yard magnet up close and saw the configuration was a series bifilar coil. So apparently you went, "Eureka!," it's Tesla's design and there must be something special about that design!
Like I explained to you with logic and references, there will be no significant differences in the magnetic field generated when you compare the two coils. That's not "ridiculing." Tests were done by some of the people around here and they confirmed the expected results.
To me it looks like you are excited by all of this stuff and you are making leaps of logic and faith in your excitement. Let's assume that they want an even-strength magnetic field across the disk. So a spiral coil will do that. If it is in series bifilar configuration, we don't really know why they did that. It could be for manufacturability or for better heat dissipation, as some examples. However, certainly it was not done because of any special properties of an SBC like the way you are suggesting.
Same thing with the Leedskalnin PMH. The PMH requires that the two pieces you are going to stick together have flat shiny surfaces that will mate perfectly together. If you are an "enthusiast" you should look it up. So this effect will never happen in a junk yard setting. So you can see that's an example where you made an incorrect leap of faith.
I have a pretty decent knowledge level about this stuff. Feel free to ask me a question if you want. This is not "World of Warcraft - Special Nerd Edition," this is a place to chat about circuits and exchange ideas and be real.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
You are really stupid. You're the one that needs to test the bifilar experiment for yourself to see how the SBC works as a "Hi-voltage jolt magnetizer". This experiment is too easy to replicate. Take a trip to a scrapyard for yourself where you'll find a large capacitor inside, not a rats nest of ampere turns like you pretend. Why don't you knock it off man?
Synchro1:
Who says that a "high-voltage jolt magnetizer" works with an SBC? Do you have a reference or link for that or are you just projecting your SBC wishes and fantasies onto these systems?
Assuming that there is a capacitor inside a junk yard electromagnet, why do you think it is there? Do you have a theory?
QuoteYou are really stupid.
I am sure that the readers of the thread also have formed their own opinions about who is what.
MileHigh
Bifilar vs single wrap nail magnet test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxtwS2OsaA&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxtwS2OsaA&feature=youtu.be)
It's a trick! The joke's on you. The bifliar can store the high voltage from the collapse spike, and create a permanent magnet, but it passes right through the single wire coil.
Synchro1:
You know that when you disconnect the current-carrying wire from an SBC you get the high voltage spike. That's actually the first spike in a series of spikes. It's the ring-down as the self-resonating coil dissipates the stored energy.
The ring-down in the coil like that is what they could use to demagnetize ferromagnetic materials. So I suggest that you do some surfing and think about your setup some more.
I am not necessarily saying that's what is happening in your setup, I am referring to the general architecture of a magnetizing system.
MileHigh
Synchro1
I have mentioned to you to use small pieces of test loads for the electromagnets, either using small nuts like I showed in my repeated test or just cut up some paper clips into 2 or max 3 mm long pieces. The reason I ask you to use small pieces of test loads is that your electromagnets seems to be also weak like my electromagnets were and the touching areas between the bolt and the clip surfaces are very small. I felt uncertainty during my tests with the clips but I was fully certain with the small nuts. The clips were too heavy for the strength of my electromagnets, and I can see the same behaviour from your electromagnets.
What is battery voltage by the way when you connect any one of the electromagnets? Would you measure it?
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 24, 2013, 05:26:25 PM
Synchro1
I have mentioned to you to use small pieces of test loads for the electromagnets, either using small nuts like I showed in my repeated test or just cut up some paper clips into 2 or max 3 mm long pieces. The reason I ask you to use small pieces of test loads is that your electromagnets seems to be also weak like my electromagnets were and the touching areas between the bolt and the clip surfaces are very small. I felt uncertainty during my tests with the clips but I was fully certain with the small nuts. The clips were too heavy for the strength of my electromagnets, and I can see the same behaviour from your electromagnets.
What is battery voltage by the way when you connect any one of the electromagnets? Would you measure it?
Gyula
Apparently, you still don't get it. The SBC nail core continues to pick up the two clips up even with the power disconnected. The core is completely magnetized. The best way to magnetize is by sudden shock. The bifilar throws a bigger spark. The single wire coil won't work as well as a magnetizer. You retry the experiment.
Quote from: synchro1 on May 24, 2013, 05:31:12 PM
Apparently, you still don't get it. The SBC nail core continues to pick up the two clips up even with the power disconnected. The core is completely magnetized. The best way to magnetize is by sudden shock. The bifilar throws a bigger spark. The single wire coil won't work as well as a magnetizer. You retry the experiment.
Indeed I did not see from your video that the current to the SBC electromagnet was disconnected. Then this is comparing apple to oranges, this is not a proof for the SBC at all. The test is not about to make permanent magnets from nails but compare two kind of coils with nail cores. Magluvin or myself did not make permanent magnetization to the nails or bolts, it is pointless to saturate an electromagnet's core.
And please answer my question when any of your electromagnets are connected to the battery what is the loaded voltage across the battery?
"The test is not about to make permanent magnets from nails".
Where does it say this? Who made this rule?
Quote from: synchro1 on May 24, 2013, 07:07:45 PM
"The test is not about to make permanent magnets from nails".
Where does it say this? Who made this rule?
It is not rule of course. I am 'amazed' by your question I feel when I read Winnie-the-Pooh. Who told you to make a permanent magnet from the nail?
IT was YOU who referred to this link http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm (http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm) and please show where David Thomson wrote you have to make a permanent magnet from the nail to lift up the paper clips?
What is the point in making a permanent magnet from an electromagnet in this test? To lift up objects an electromagnet needs a DC current and the aim is to check any difference between a single wire and the bifilar wire coil provided the two cores have similar (ideally identical) ferromagnetic properties.
The same amount of DC current should be used for both coils while lifting up the objects. Of course you can make a permanent magnet from a suitable ferromagnetic core and you do this by inserting this core into a coil and switch a big enough current into the coil. But David Thomson did not write to do the test like making a permanent magnet first and then lift the paper clips with the nails.
Please repeat your test with new nails that are not magnetized yet, please cut up the paper clips into small pieces and do some several runs like I did here: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952)
Gyula
@Gyulasum,
Tesla's Serial Bifilar Pancake coil for electromagnets, is a "Capacative Discharge Magnetizer Coil". That's the end of the story. Just accept it! It won't help for me to cut paper clips up, or measure d.c. current. Jonathan Livingston Seagull thought he was somthing else too.
I knew how Tesla's bifilar coil worked the entire time. It's the "Scrap Yard Magnet"! You guys imagine your group of superstitous Hotentots are valuable dehoaxing "Myth Busters" right? You guys look really, really stupid to me. Wake up, and stop causing trouble. All you labyrinthine Cretans have done is insult and degrade Nicola Tesla, an unparalleled genius!. There's gotta be a hampster hidden someplace!
The nail test is just a "PARLOR TRICK" to demonstrate the SBC's real power! Try and get over it. He made a monkey out of you.
I'm not the person who tricked anyone. I scolded Milehigh for his outraegous assertions on the "Lenz Delay" thread about the no difference between the coil windings. I've been trying hard to explain and distinguish this coil application throughout the entire course of this thread.
Synchro1:
QuoteJust accept it! It won't help for me to cut paper clips up, or measure d.c. current.
You have really dug yourself into a hole. Why should anybody take you seriously?
You are very close to becoming the new "Innovation_Station," with a very low signal to noise ratio in your postings. The performance is getting stale and the greasepaint is running.
Myself and Gyula genuinely tried to help you but it's pretty obvious that it's futile.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
You're petrified wood! Tesla's bifilar pancake coil for electromagnets is an:
"IMPULSE MAGNETIZER COIL"!
D.C. current has no special effect on this coil unless it's powerfully pulsed. You guys don't really believe "Tesla Coil Builder" designed his electromagnet nail core test to fail, do you? His experiment is just a puzzle type teaching tool. The single wire coil won't play the same trick, and therein is the critical difference between the coil types.
Here's a Leedskalnin coil shorting video, similar effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lspAxYGxWA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lspAxYGxWA)
The Leedskalnin horseshoe output coil shares "Impulse Magnetization" power with the SBC. Lorentz force and quanta level power may help explain the extra propulsion..
Quote from: synchro1 on May 25, 2013, 09:49:25 AM
...
You guys look really, really stupid to me.
...
You also look really stupid to me. If you read through your posts, you grasped for anything you thought could be blamed like Magluvin or my coils are not neat, I connected my coils in series so the test was invalid, I hold the two coils too close, etc etc. Do you recall what TinselKoala wrote on your last but one claim? here it is: "If you think that "the serial input invalidates any results" (sic) I put it to you: Prove it. Get some bolts and some wire and some power supplies, and demonstrate some difference between the "serial input" and the same current through the electromagnets individually." from this link: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357860/#msg357860
You have shown no any proof that you are correct. Magluvin and my tests showed the two different coil windings perform the same job. The series bifilar surely has a higher self capacitance but this is not an advantage for a lifting electromagnet. And your making a permanent magnetization for the core of an electromagnet in the nail core test is just ridiculous, just write to and ask David Thomson about it.
When you show a useful thing in practice which are now only in your dreams I will pay attention again. You may have a pulse motor you think performs unusually but you have done a great job to doubt its real performance, for you do not wish to show any proof it is exceptional.
Gyula
Temporay permenant core magnetization delays the change in output coil pole shift, and retards the timing by creating magnetic field interference. My placement of permanent diametric magnets in SBC output coils has produced the same AUL.
@gyulasum,
"your making a permanent magnetization for the core of an electromagnet in the nail core test is just ridiculous".
I uploaded a video demonstrating 2x the magnetic attraction with the SBC. How do you explain that?
Synchro, With a DC supply the SBC will act exactly the same as any other regular winding with the same inductance and resistance, the only diffenece will come with the application of currents at a frequency compatible with the resonance frequency of the coil determined by the L/C/ relationship the coil posses. With DC it's just ampere turns and DC resistance.
Gyula is correct, and it is wise to take notice of the educated guys, then after some time you will need to listen to them less.
The patent claims are clear and correct, I see no need for further claims not made in the patent or even by Tesla regarding Tesla's patent, and they are most definitely not Tesla's claims. The claims you make for the "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" patent coil Synchro have nothing to do with the patent. Why continue ?
If you have claims then they ought to be demonstrated and documented. Any coil or patented device could conceivably be used for purposes other than is intended.
ie, a bus can be a house. And a hammer can be a plumb bob ect., but so what. Heck I can use a car engine as a boat anchor, good boat anchors used to be P76 Leyland engines. ;D
Cheers
What's a "Scrap Yard Magnet" Mr. Sherlock Holmes? No one has explained where the power cord is hidden. So Tesla has a patent for an electromagnet you meat heads can't get to work. What a stupid ass Tesla was! Write Mr. Thompson, he'll tell you your way's no good! Sniveling sops!
Anyone who reads the patent closely and understands it will realize how silly your comments are Synchro.
In the first few posts that I did in fact show that the "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" wind has the intention of securing the correct L and C for the impressed frequency and that with "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" the extra capacity secured causes the bifilar wound coil to have a lower resonant frequency for the same amount of wire and yet retains the ampere turns and the same inductance as the regular wound coil of the same amount of wire.
The resonant frequency is lower because the serial connected bifilar coil has more inherent self capacitance, and later that because of the "capacitor plate distance" due to the insulation thickness the voltage is a factor relative to the capacitance secured as is stated in the patent.
You are entitled to your opinion Synchro but personal abuse and name calling is uncalled for. Please stop. That is a request for decency.
My own disagreements are not so much with the technical content of the educated folks posts but the seemingly constant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I say that some in particular seem to engage in.
Even if you disagree with them or their actions the emphasis should be on the technical matter or the "actions as such" not just a broadside at the persons as insults.
If discussing the patent content, state your case. The focus here should be on the patent and what it says. Not what others would desire to make of it.
If you want to discuss with others about the patent text and meaning, just quote the section of the patent and state your case as "your" case.
Cheers
....
To all, I will say this, any who try to dismiss or deny the patent claims made by Tesla which are correct will end up looking silly as they should, and by the same token those who make claims for Tesla's devices or patents that Tesla did not make and attribute them to Tesla will also end up looking silly as they should.
The patents are clear if read and understood as he intended, he wanted people to be able to build and use his devices as he intended, unless the text was tampered with or edited (which I see no evidence of) there is not much to argue about, read the patents and decipher them so that they make sense and logic, Tesla did not intentionally lie or deceive, on some things he may have been a bit off, but in the claims of the patents he is pretty much spot on. People should pay no regard what so ever to the claims people other than Tesla make, there is no reason to do that when the patents tell the claims at the end.
Those who say to disregard the patents are not to be trusted. And that is because they are deniers of truth.
Cheers
Take the patent linked below as an example of the way his patents are misunderstood and misrepresented. In reality the claims begin on page 2 from line 101. They are all true and correct, and so the patent is valid. As far as the claims go if the setup transmitted some energy to anywhere and that was utilized in any amount then the patent is valid and correct. It makes no claims of efficiency in figures that I can see. Just the principal of the design of the transmitter apparatus. It is obvious they can transmitt some energy without man made wires and that was demonstrated by Tesla and since by many others. All the BS that some spew about it's near field or bla bla bla mean nothing, the efficiency means nothing in the context of the patent, the patent claims are correct and true and in line with the physical laws of nature. End of story on that patent. A different patent covers the details of how the transmission physically happens.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
I question the motives of both the folks making the wild claims as well as those who want to dismiss facts by confusing people ect..
Cheers
You can take this discussion full circle.
Tesla made a patent for a self-resonating coil with interleaved windings. In his patent he views it as a band-pass filter where at the resonant frequency it acts like an AC short circuit while it resonates. That corresponds to a damped series LC circuit. It can also be viewed as a notch filter that acts like an open circuit if you view it as a damped parallel parallel LC circuit. It looks like some of the clips doing the testing on a small setup show a parallel LC circuit but I am not aware of a definitive one. I am not aware of a clip that shows the current and the voltage at the same time.
It's even possible that a big series "bifilar" coil that Tesla played with acted as both a series LC circuit and as a parallel LC circuit depending on the excitation frequency. Hence two resonant points at two different frequencies. It's also possible that his patent for a self-resonating coil, presumably being used either for energy storage or as a notch or band-pass filter has absolutely nothing to do with an "electro-magnet." Again, in the historical context, almost nobody understood electronics and nobody understood what inductance was. However, people would probably have understood "electro-magnet" and the term is used in the patent just to make it "friendlier" for the patent office. It's possible that he used the term because it meant something to people and they could latch onto it and he never intended for the design to be used as an electro-magnet at all. "Coil for capacity-inductance electricity self-inducer" has no ring to it. If that was true then it would deflate Synchro1's dreams for sure.
Does Tesla talk about the application of his patent in other writings? If not, then you are left with a damped resonator. A very big one might resonate for perhaps a few tens of seconds before it dies down, just a guess. Can anybody suggest an application for this?
Tesla is not "the greatest genius in the Universe" like some of you seem to be implying. He did basic basic experiments that have been learned and since then technology has evolved and progressed and improved in the last 120 years. Where the application of this type of technology is going on today is what's important.
QuoteAll the BS that some spew about it's near field or bla bla bla mean nothing
That's BS, near field vs. far field is an important concept that's used in antenna theory all the time. In your own way Farmhand you are not that much different than Sychro1. Some of what you don't understand or disagree with you will dismiss out of hand or you might get upset with others that don't share your views. Sometimes you will try to steamroll your views over other people's opinions.
Personally, I would not be too surprised if the Tesla self-resonating coil was just an experiment that he did and decided to take out a patent on in case he could use the design. Ultimately it had no real practical use and ended up being nothing more than a curiosity. 120 years later and it generates about 20 megabytes worth of text per day on the Internet, day in and day out.
MileHigh
MileHigh, In the context of this patent below, near field v's far field has no bearing.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
That subject is dealt with in another patent. The claims show that. You show what I meant by my post.
If I am mistaken you ought to show the claim from the patent that makes near field vs far field relevant.
Cheers
I guess I should repeat myself here. If I have made a specific claim that anyone disputes as untruthful, then just quote me (in context) with the reason why my claim is seen as incorrect and if I cannot explain it with logic or provide evidence to my own satisfaction and I can see I was wrong I will retract the claim. But I pay little regard to innuendo and do not take kindly to it. Please do not confuse an opinion given as such with a "claim". I have no reason or desire to defend my opinions on things when I give them as opinions of thinking. If I make a claim I will defend it if I think it correct or retract it if I see I am mistaken. Like anybody I make mistakes and I can admit it when I see it. If I explain myself concerning a claim and I don't think I was understood or am being mistaken about it I might just give up trying to explain it and ignore the complaint. So people should stick to the point. Like many others on these sites I lack the proper terminology in a lot of cases so I just try to explain what I mean if what I say does not immediately make sense. A misuse of terms is not always a mistaken claim, but rather the misuse of words to describe a valid claim. No one is perfect, and few of us have the training to use all the correct words, but it ought to be obvious who understands what by what they can do. Many of us are trades people or otherwise trained in the engineering fields to differing degrees.
Some of us see some minor details as unimportant depending on our goals and motives, we need not feel as though we need to learn to be an electrical engineer in our spare time so we can argue with electrical engineers. I respect very much the knowledge of the people trained in the field. But in a similar way I didn't need to train to be a mechanic to be able to show some mechanics a thing or two about cars and motorcycles, but do I think I know more than them ? No I don't. I just know things that make a difference for me that they might see as insignificant in their frame of reference. Perspective.
Cheers
As Far as the "COIL FOR ELECRO-MAGNETS" patent goes, the claims are at the end of the patent, they are correct and truthful. Tesla explains himself well in the patent. I don't see any need for any further argument, if people can use the coil winding advantageously in any way they should feel free to say so if they have evidence of it or it is obvious to others.
All coils that produce a magnetic field from an electric current input are technically electro-magnets, I think it is explained by Tesla he means any coil and the effect of the cancellation of the "effects" of the self induction can be secured in any coil if the right conditions are met. To me it seems plain and simple.
Milehigh, if I may ask, what part of the patent is it that you have a problem with ? If you have a problem with part of the patent then please say so. But I have to say I'm not interested if it has not to do with if the patent is correct or not. If you are not disputing the patent claims then I have no argument with you. I see no need for argument on the patent itself.
Cheers
Deepcut promised to try the diametric neo magnet as SBC core to test for AUL, and shortly after, he vanished suddenly and completely from the Free Energy Forum for superficial reasons.. The MIB may have stopped by and shown him snapshots of his children in their school yard. This subject makes alot of people very uncomfortable. Judging from that and the general level of hysteria over my second "tectonic" paper clip claim, it makes me wonder about the seriousness of the MIB threat in U.K., and possible infiltration into this thread by imposters planted to help spread misinformation and falsehood! .
Here's more definative proof in support of my claim:
Have a look at this video of an "Impulse Charged Multifilar Pancake Magnetizer Coil": from 3zdayz:
This is what Tesla's bifilar pancake coil was patented to do! A ferrite slug would PM in the core jolt. Take note of the size of the spark. No single wire coil could match that gap width.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTc35MbOG8s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTc35MbOG8s)
Multifilar pancake inductances, from 3zdayz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQi-5xSeP_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQi-5xSeP_U)
Published on Mar 30, 2013A bi-filar is definatly more inductance than a single. As a motivator (generating a magnetic field) it is a more noticable field.
A quad filar has 50% more inductance than a bifilar; a bi filar has 100% more inductance than a single, or than the sum of the parts.
The flatter the coil, the more notable the effect, chaos, or overlapped windings reduces the inductance.
56+58 = 114; actual 224
13+14 = 26; actual 41
quadfilar 0.026 + 0.026 + 0.26 + 0.026 = 0.104 ; actual 286
0.26 + 0.26 - actual 0.083
0.26 + 0.26 + 0.26 - actual 0.171
and the 4th in series - actual 0.295
so the result is more than 10x a single winding for 4 windings.
the result is 4x a single winding for 2 windings.
So by that I guess it would be 25x a single winding for a hex-filar coil...
but there must be diminishing returns...
The flatest pancake coil is 33 turns each (total 66). So the quad filar would be like 16 turns.
So if I made like a 32-filar coil with 2 turns, and put them all together?... but then isn't it at some point really getting back to mono-filar coil with an offset of 1?
----
The wider, quad-filar coil (usually to upper left) is fairly flat. When I took it out of its form it lost integrety a bit.
The narrow-er quad-filar coil is actually somewhat overlapped, so it's 2x2 winding basically.
Since i started this thread I'm going to take the liberty to go a bit further off topic to illustrate a point.
I hear all to often the claim that the Tesla transmitters
for the transmission of signals and such without wires, must use spark gaps or capacitor discharges ect, but that is untrue, and I have words from Tesla to show he never insisted that was the only way.
In this patent linked below. Tesla clearly says that an alternator can be used to energize the primary. The words are crystal clear. As far as I know alternators produce continuous sine waves.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 2 line 62 to 69
QuoteThis source is usually a condenser charged to a high potential and discharged in rapid succession through the primary as in a type of transformer invented by me and not well known but when it is desired to produce stationary waves of great lengths an alternating dynamo of suitable construction may be used to energize the primary.
So there is another misconception, Tesla did say an appropriate alternating dynamo can be used, as he did use many times.
As I see it it is our responsibility to point out when people say otherwise and contradict Tesla while purporting to support his work and legacy.
The patent linked in this post describes "The Art Of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through The Natural Mediums". And If any patents are to be questioned I think this is the one to look at. If the claims in this patent are shown be incorrect or false, then that would mean something.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Cheers
So anyone want to quote from the patent and say it isn't so ?
...
Farmhand:
I have no issues with the patent. My real question is what can you do with it? If there are no real applications then it's just a curiosity.
Synchro1:
Use the Cone of Silence, post your messages in ROT13. 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA
MileHigh
Beam me up Yoda!
Quote from: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 02:08:46 AM
snip....
In this patent linked below. Tesla clearly says that an alternator can be used to energize the primary. The words are crystal clear. As far as I know alternators produce continuous sine waves.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Page 2 line 62 to 69
So there is another misconception, Tesla did say an appropriate alternating dynamo can be used, as he did use many times.
snip....
A transformer output inverter connected to a DC supply, particularly a transformer output inverter with variable fequency capability, would also probably suffice as the primary coil supply source.
Cheers
Yeah I hear ya MileHigh, To tell the truth I haven't found or envisioned any fantastic uses for it myself either, but for me that isn't important. I don't mind others arguing the point about it's uses. And I might even hint at possible uses just because of conceptual thinking, but that's just me, I suppose things and I try to make it clear when I do so that they are suppositions. But to answer your question, I don't know what it would be useful for except as an example of the effect. The fact he chose to use a spiral coil form in the patent drawing is irrelevant except that a spiral shows the winding in two dimensions very well. The patent is not restricted to spiral coils as Tesla points out early in the patent as well as noting that in every coil exists these properties to differing values. We know that in the Colorado Springs Notes Tesla explains the drawbacks of distributed capacitance in the HF oscillator. For that reason I can't see the coil being designed for HF, because the movement of electricity is restricted or retarded because of the capacitance "holding" energy within the coil, when he wants it to move from the top to the bottom at great rates.
Could such a coil be used as a capacitive top load for a Tesla coil in place of a toroid or in combination with a reasonable sized toroid or sphere to substantially increase it's capacity if tuned so that at the oscillating frequency of the resonator matched the oscillating frequency of the serial connected spiral coil ? A cap coil as some have called it.
Could it be used in an induction cooker so that the ferrite strips we sometimes see was not needed to increase the inductance to lower the effective frequency, if you can gather what I mean to save me some rambling ? Somehow I don't think it would be suitable for that.
It could be used as a filter as you say, I guess. I have one that works as a frisbee but I can't tell if it generates while flying. ;D Kidding sorry.
One thing I think it would work well for is low frequency boost converter type operations with higher voltage inputs, as long as the coil discharges all of the energy if the coil can store more energy and take in current quicker as a result of the frequency of the currents into it then I see no reason why it might not be useful in that way.
However I did do a very rudimentary test with serial connecting my coils on the pulse motor ( I never intended to ) but I tried it and the inductance was too much for the setup and what I wanted so it didn't help me in that situation nor did I really expect it to. I like to use multiple windings in parallel of thinner wire because 1 mm wire is not so easy to work with and comes on short length rolls for me and I like low DC resistance if possible and applicable. To keep both strands the same length I usually wind the m side by side if I can keep it up.
Your question is a valid question no doubt about it. I have no solid answer.
Cheers
Quote from: hoptoad on May 26, 2013, 02:59:42 AM
A transformer output inverter connected to a DC supply, particularly a transformer output inverter with variable fequency capability, would also probably suffice as the primary coil supply source.
Cheers
Yes I agree, in low power testing a function generator works well to give the Tesla coil a continuous wave "wave form". The problem comes trying to use an alternator or inverter transformer on a low resistance low inductance primary of only a few turns, I had some success with using an inverter to provide an AC excitement via series capacitors and static spark gaps, it worked but was hell on the inverter circuit when tuning was off or the coil was too close to the IC and circuit. And it wasn't an alternator working at the frequency of the resonating coil either (only remote harmonics) which makes it beside the point, but without the series capacitor primary circuit the primary shorts out the transformer, which is not very good. There are ways around it but I like the DC resonant charging circuit type primary circuit for the way the supply can't be shorted proper. For medium power and voltage inputs solid state rules the roost. And I like the idea of Valves for a continuous wave Tesla transformer to conduct HF experiments. Spark gap coils and Damped wave transformers are for spark gap transmitters and spark making coils in my opinion. For many experiments a continuous wave transformer would be best I think. Every cycle input. I think some solid state setups use primary coupling transformers don't they ?
Cheers
Cook's patent:
http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm (http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm)
Here's a quote from Danial McFarland Cook's battery patent. The last line reads:
"The alternate changes of the iron cores or magnets may be used for producing electro-magnetic motion, or motion to a wheel of any suitable device".
Cook was "Impulse Magnetizing" his ferrite cores with two SBC's in series. "If, now, the circuit is broken the current instantly ceases"....
"The mode of producing or starting the action in the helices consists in the use of a steel or electromagnet, or a helix, around one of the helices, and causing a secondary current in the enclosed helix by means of a battery current in the outer one; the action then in either the simple or compound helices increases in quantity to the maximum capacity of the wires to conduct with the existing tension of the current. If, now, the circuit is broken the current instantly ceases, and can only be restored by the same means that it was first produced; hence to allow the use of the main circuit for common purposes I introduce a rheostat or resistance of any kind into the circuit, so that a small portion of the current only will flow along the resistance, by which means the action in the helices is feebly maintained when the main circuit is broken, and instantly restored when it is closed to its full force. By this means the action becomes in effect the same as the common battery currents, and may be used for similar purposes. For the purpose of preventing the heating of the helices caused by the intensity of the action, and to prevent circulation of the initial secondary currents in the main circuit, a rheostat of any convenient form may be made to constitute a part of the main circuit D. The alternate changes of the iron cores or magnets may be used for producing electro-magnetic motion, or motion to a wheel of any suitable device".
How enormously important this is! Cook maintains that permanently magnetizing the SBC cores alternatingly, can produce motion in a wheel. This is my "Lenz Delay Theory"! Lorentz propulsion.
All the electrons spin in the same direction but for how long? Can ferrite cores draw on the extra strength of permanent magnetization for brief periods? What really happens to the core when we short these types of "Magnetizer" output coils in our pulse motors?
Quote from: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 02:08:46 AM
Since i started this thread I'm going to take the liberty to go a bit further off topic to illustrate a point.
I hear all to often the claim that the Tesla transmitters for the transmission of signals and such without wires, must use spark gaps or capacitor discharges ect, but that is untrue, and I have words from Tesla to show he never insisted that was the only way.
In this patent linked below. Tesla clearly says that an alternator can be used to energize the primary. The words are crystal clear. As far as I know alternators produce continuous sine waves.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Page 2 line 62 to 69
So there is another misconception, Tesla did say an appropriate alternating dynamo can be used, as he did use many times.
As I see it it is our responsibility to point out when people say otherwise and contradict Tesla while purporting to support his work and legacy.
The patent linked in this post describes "The Art Of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through The Natural Mediums". And If any patents are to be questioned I think this is the one to look at. If the claims in this patent are shown be incorrect or false, then that would mean something.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Cheers
So anyone want to quote from the patent and say it isn't so ?
...
Yes, that is right.... but also, the important factor for success is not the shape of the primary stimulating wave per se, but rather the rise and fall times of the peak currents. You can use sine waves just fine, as Tesla knew and stated. The key is to have high currents swinging at high frequencies, so that the rise and fall times of the sine wave are rapid and steep. However, as Tesla also knew, a spike or rectangular wave is even better for a given peak current and frequency, because it has even faster rise/fall time than a sine wave does. Tesla spent a whole lot of time on spark gaps, in order to attain the most rapid striking and quenching possible, while still using high currents.
Nowadays with modern components we can make clean sine waves with great peak currents at appropriately high frequencies to achieve the desired effects, without using big tank capacitors or spark gaps.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 26, 2013, 02:17:01 AM
Farmhand:
I have no issues with the patent. My real question is what can you do with it? If there are no real applications then it's just a curiosity.
(snip)
MileHigh
You are kidding, right?
Have you used a radio at all lately?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2013, 01:15:31 PM
You are kidding, right?
It doesnt seem so... He really is hell bent when it comes to people talking about or using this coil. :o ;) He claims its a waste of time and he is trying to save us from that. There are many other threads here that could use that kind of savior, but they dont use or talk about bifi coils, soo... ;)
Mags
TK:
This patent has nothing to do with a radio circuit. The basic building blocks of an AM radio are a variable-capacitor LC tank circuit to do the tuning an an LC-based IF amplifier to generate the IF multiplying frequency and a band-pass filter and a peak detector to extract the audio. I am talking of course about original radio. Many experimenters could do well to investigate those circuits, tubes and all. That has nothing to do with a big self-resonating coil.
Magluvin:
QuoteIt doesnt seem so... He really is hell bent when it comes to people talking about or using this coil. (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif) (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) He claims its a waste of time and he is trying to save us from that. There are many other threads here that could use that kind of savior, but they dont use or talk about bifi coils, soo...
That's a false Strawman argument. I am not hell-bent on anything and I am not trying to 'save' anybody.
QuoteA straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy
based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it,
without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical
debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.
The original position: I said I am not aware of any applications for a big self-resonating coil as described in the patent, it might just be a curiosity.
Can you suggest some applications for it yourself Magluvin?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 26, 2013, 02:26:28 PM
Magluvin:
That's a false Strawman argument. I am not hell-bent on anything and I am not trying to 'save' anybody.
The original position: I said I am not aware of any applications for a big self-resonating coil as described in the patent, it might just be a curiosity.
"That's a false Strawman argument." Oh really? ;D Here is some hay for ya.....
"The basic point is to not have the misconception that so-called "series bifilar" coils have some imagined advantages when it comes to making a pulse motor, whether it be as drive coils or as pick-up coils. You want to not have beginners spend months or more with this false notion." http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg360620/#msg360620
"The basic point is to not have the misconception" 'The basic point is' you should eat your hay now. ;)
"You want to not have beginners spend months or more with this false notion." No, it is you that does not want beginners to spend time..... You. ;) More hay? ;D
So you can take your strawman diagnosis and description and put it where it really fits. ;D
Mags
Magluvin:
One more time you are doing it again, making a Strawman argument.
The points I made are valid points.
You said:
QuoteHe really is hell bent when it comes to people talking about or using this coil. He claims its a waste of time and he is trying to save us from that.
There is no connection between me trying to clear up misconceptions so people can learn from that and your gratuitous negative spin on what I was saying.
In addition, you can quote me but you can't make a technical argument against me. Most notably, nor can you suggest an application for the self-resonating coils in this patent.
All that we are left with is that you can't refute that what I say is true, your frustration because you can't suggest a single application for these coils, and your pretentious preening.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
These coils act as "Impulse Magnetizer Coils". That's a single application. Tesla's Scrap Yard Magnet was made obsolete by the transistor. The one I looked into was an antique back in the 70's.
Take a look at the Cook Battery. Two reciprocating Impulse Magnetization events. Enough power to drive a freight train off Cook's nearly 3' long magnetic cores. This is a real effect. Look at Cook's circuit schematic for the two SBC's in series!
Quote from: MileHigh on May 26, 2013, 03:05:06 PM
Magluvin:
One more time you are doing it again, making a Strawman argument.
The points I made are valid points.
What I have noticed and 'taken note of' is your propensity to argue, attack and ridicule those that post things about this coil. You did it in the 'Confirming delayed lenz' you did it in the thread about Zeropoint132's self running bifi thread, and you are doing it here. You seem to be greatly magnetized to the subject, and will fill page after page with what you want others to think and believe about these coils, Tesla of which you claim he wasnt that great. As with Tesla, you are in a minority of those that know of him. If it were up to you, there would be a web site called Teslawasabum.com.
I suppose to you, Edison and Marcony did it all right? Tesla was a bum. Tesla was an average Joe wire man. You imply that in recent posts here. Basically you imply that he was nobody special.
Tesla could out smart you with what he had in his little finger compared to your complete postings on the internet.
You have something against people messing around with this coil, this is for certain. You use degrading wording as much as you can of it and the people that post about it.
I can only hope that people can see this clearly and it empowers them to persue more experimentation. Being that there is 'soo much' implied negativity towards the experimentation with these coils, there must be something to it. ;) You attack the idea of a bifi coil like an atheist to a Christian. Something is up with that. :-*
Mags
@Mags,
He's an extrodinary Gadfly, pehaps afflicted with a Freudian fetish. We need to Arduino the Cook battery. The relationship is atomic COP!
Magluvin,
Right, I look at certain things and make some technical points that are valid and have merit. Then you attempt to spin that into a Strawman argument about combative arguing, attacking and ridiculing. You are frustrated when sometimes there is no logical reason or any valid data to back up your "free energy buzz."
And you even go so far as to use a Strawman argument that I have something against people experimenting when what I am really doing is giving them a sensible viewpoint that they may have not heard before. I do that for their benefit.
But the glass is always half empty and cloudy and dark from your perspective and that dulls your free energy buzz and you are not happy so you try to pull off this silly stunt.
I think that people might be seeing through you and your motivations and I encourage them to do as much experimentation as they want. Occasionally I get emails from people that thank me for my comments.
MileHigh
Quote from: synchro1 on May 25, 2013, 11:46:26 PM
Multifilar pancake inductances, from 3zdayz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQi-5xSeP_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQi-5xSeP_U)
Published on Mar 30, 2013A bi-filar is definatly more inductance than a single. As a motivator (generating a magnetic field) it is a more noticable field.
.... snip....
Synchro1,
(This post is a bit long, please take your time to digest it fully before name calling.)
I cannot help but notice that while it is true when you connect two individual coils in series their inductances add (like in case of two series resistors the resistances add) BUT if the coils have magnetic coupling between each other, then you have to consider the mutual inductance between them too. This means that the flux coupling can increase or decrease the resultant series inductance with respect to any one of coil values.
So when 3zdayz makes a bifilar pancake coil and measures its total inductance (in his video above at 1:56) to be 0.145 - 0.146 mH and then measures the "half" winding of it to be 0.043 mH (and measures the other half winding of it also 0.043 mH)
and he says they together should be 0.086 mH (0.043 + 0.043=0.086),
THEN he is mistaken because due to the close magnetic coupling between the two "half" windings the resultant inductance must be higher than the algebraic sum of them when the two windings are in series aiding connection.
Before you call me a MIB agent or stupid or hottentota, please study this link on mutual inductance between two magnetically coupled coils: http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/mutual-inductance.html (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/mutual-inductance.html) and their resultant inductance in series when there is magnetic flux coupling between them: http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/series-inductors.html (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/series-inductors.html) Depending on how close you position the coils to each other and how the flux of any one coil can aid or repel that of the other, you can receive a widely varying result.
These are facts, I myself actually measured (years ago) bifilar, trifilar and quadrifilar coils' resultant inductances with an L meter when any of these were connected in series aiding.
So I agree with the measurements 3zdayz shows with his L meter, right?
In theory, when there is say a perfect magnetic coupling in a bifilar coil, the inductance can be maximum 4 times as high in series aiding connection, than any one of the "half" windings has individually. Mr 3zdayz correctly measured his bifilars etc as I mentioned above, my problem is he expected the sum of the individual windings, just like you expected or accepted.
His individual windings in the bifilar were 0.043 mH each and in series aiding they gave 0.145 mH, (this shows the magnetic coupling between them was not 100% perfect, had it been perfect, the resultant series inductance should have been 4 x 0.043=0.172 mH.)
For another pancake coil of his, he measured 0.056 and 0.058 mH for the individual windings in a bifilar coil and in series aiding connection he got 0.224 mH (he wrongly expected 0.114 mH).
For a trifilar coil the series aiding connection would give 9 times as high inductance than any one of the 3 windings and for a quadrifilar coil the series connection would give 16 times as high inductance than any one of the 4 windings.
To understand this, take the bifilar coil example: suppose any one of the "half" windings within a bifilar has say 200 turns. When you connect them in series you will have 400 turns instead of the 200, and for any coil (not only for bifilar ones) when you double the number of turns (i.e. you continue winding to have 400 turns instead of the 200) the inductance increases to 4 times as many as it is with the 200 turns, ok? (The relationship between the coil inductance and the number of turns is quadratic, provided a close magnetic coupling exists between the total number of turns to approach the maximum 4 times, 9 times, 16 times etc theoritical upper inductance limit.)
NOTICE 1
I do not say a bifilar, trifilar etc coil cannot have any other, useful properties under certain circumstances versus a single wire coil, right? An example is just the Tesla patent Coil for Electromagnets when a bifilar is driven with a resonant frequency AC current.
NOTICE 2
When you compare a single wire coil to a bifilar coil and both the single and bifilar coils have identical wire lengths then you can measure nearly the same inductance for either the single or the bifilar coil (this latter is meant to be connected in series aiding). So from inductance point of view there is no difference between them, this means under a static electromagnet operation they perform identically (I repeat again: when their wire length is identical).
This means that the first sentence in 3zdayz's quote above:
"A bi-filar is definatly more inductance than a single." is correct only when the bifilar coil is made from a longer wire length than the single wire coil. In case you happen to be in correspondance with him, please forward this fact to him.
Gyula
Quote from: synchro1 on May 25, 2013, 07:24:06 PM
Temporay permenant core magnetization delays the change in output coil pole shift, and retards the timing by creating magnetic field interference. My placement of permanent diametric magnets in SBC output coils has produced the same AUL.
@gyulasum,
"your making a permanent magnetization for the core of an electromagnet in the nail core test is just ridiculous".
I uploaded a video demonstrating 2x the magnetic attraction with the SBC. How do you explain that?
Synchro1,
This is why I asked you to measure your battery voltage when your nail cored single or bifilar coil is connected to it but you refused. I wanted to know how much Amper may have been drawn from your battery by the coils.
If you are willing to answer, could you tell how long you connected your nail cored coils (shown in your video) to the battery, to make them magnetized? Did you measure the time for both coils case? This is also important to answer your above question.
Gyula
Quote from: Farmhand on May 22, 2013, 11:21:54 AM
...
I think the key word is "assumed", in that context it means "Taken on" as in [ aggregate ] or [ Total number turns all together ] ect. So it means he is talking of the same amount of wire in both coils "total", each of the strands of wire in the bifilar coil is half the length of the single strand in the regular coil.
....
Hi Farmhand,
Thanks for taking your time to answer my question. Yes, in the meantime I consulted also with other people (with "born" English knowledge) and got similar interpretations.
Greetings, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 26, 2013, 06:10:03 PM
Synchro1,
This is why I asked you to measure your battery voltage when your nail cored single or bifilar coil is connected to it but you refused. I wanted to know how much Amper may have been drawn from your battery by the coils.
If you are willing to answer, could you tell how long you connected your nail cored coils (shown in your video) to the battery, to make them magnetized? Did you measure the time for both coils case? This is also important to answer your above question.
Gyula
I'm not setup to make those kinds of measurements. A pico second pulse is all it takes to bring all the electron spins into alignment and permenently magnatize the iron ferrite. A permanent magnet is free energy compared to electromagnetic field. The SBC nail permenently magnetizes from the high voltage field collapse spike, and needs no further current. The permanent field is twice what the single wire electromagnet produces under power. Have you seen my Cook battery post above?.
@Gyula: Excellent post, and completely correct of course.
@MH: Here's an article that may be of interest.
http://mwrf.com/systems/standardized-approach-feeds-wireless-power (http://mwrf.com/systems/standardized-approach-feeds-wireless-power)
Note the construction of the transmitter coil that is described down the page. It's a 2-layer flat pancake coil-- essentially achieving the same effect as a series bifilar but in a smaller footprint.
And some low-frequency transmitting coils-- big coils in resonance --
http://lualualei1959.com/lowfreq2.htm (http://lualualei1959.com/lowfreq2.htm)
At 14 seconds into this video, freeze frame, and You'll see a picture of an industrial "Tesla Scrap Yard Magnet" from 1914. What strikes you as peculiar about this photo? The wire's kinda small?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJG4M4wi1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJG4M4wi1o)
Quote from: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 06:56:19 PM
I'm not setup to make those kinds of measurements. A pico second pulse is all it takes to bring all the electron spins into alignment and permenently magnatize the iron ferrite. A permanent magnet is free energy compared to electromagnetic field. The SBC nail permenently magnetizes from the high voltage field collapse spike, and needs no further current. The permanent field is twice what the single wire electromagnet produces under power. Have you seen my Cook battery post above?.
Of course I did not mean picosecond accuracy but you hit the nail on its head: when you magnetized your nails, how did you keep magnetization time for them to be nearly identical? Even if we assume the nails had a nearly identical magnetic permeability (which is also a question) in case the ON time for your input power to the coils was not a repeatable process with good accuracy then your nails got magnetization at a different degree which can easily explain the difference in strength between them.
You still did not answer your battery voltage used. Why?
Quote from: gyulasun on May 26, 2013, 07:17:25 PM
Of course I did not mean picosecond accuracy but you hit the nail on its head: when you magnetized your nails, how did you keep magnetization time for them to be nearly identical? Even if we assume the nails had a nearly identical magnetic permeability (which is also a question) in case the ON time for your input power to the coils was not a repeatable process with good accuracy then your nails got magnetization at a different degree which can easily explain the difference in strength between them.
You still did not answer your battery voltage used. Why?
I used a 12 volt battery to them both. The SBC generates a much larger spark. Did you catch the photgraph of the old fashioned Tesla type sctap yard magnet? What do you notice funny about it?
Quote from: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 07:28:03 PM
I used a 12 volt battery to them both. The SBC generates a much larger spark. Did you catch the photgraph of the old fashioned Tesla type sctap yard magnet? What do you notice funny about it?
Yes I watched it and you surely mean the wires feeding the electromagnet seems not to be thick right? Well we do not know how much lifting power the electromagnet was originally designed for?
You always mention the scrap yard electromagnet: have you seen the winding style inside? I bet you will say it was made from bifilarly wound windings... but please understand that only a comparison test to an identical input power single coil electromagnet should decide their performance, (wire lengths should be the same for both).
Quote from: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 07:10:50 PM
At 14 seconds into this video, freeze frame, and You'll see a picture of an industrial "Tesla Scrap Yard Magnet" from 1914. What strikes you as peculiar about this photo? The wire's kinda small?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJG4M4wi1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJG4M4wi1o)
Synchro1,
What makes you believe the picture labeled "industrial electromagnet" is a "Tesla Scrap Yard Magnet"?
Same picture and construction details for a similar lifter are given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet
Small wire? Lots of turns (i.e., ampere-turns) ...
They may have used lots of turns of potted wire in 1914 (as opposed to the copper or aluminum strips indicated in the Wiki). Higher voltage, less amps, smaller wire.
PW
These guy's only need #8 wire for their 48" lifter, and #6 wire for up to their 57" model. They use 230VDC for the supply.
Those wire sizes seem consistent with those in that 1914 photo.
http://www.walkermagnet.com/scrap-magnets-scrapmaster.htm
PW
That was called the "Westinghouse Magnet". The only thing those wires did was charge the 6 volt battery. A very thick wire bifilar pancake "Impulse charging Coil" lay flat up against the iron ferrite magnet disk. A large thermos size capacitor supplied the pulse.
Quote from: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 08:31:03 PM
That was called the "Westinghouse Magnet". The only thing those wires did was charge the 6 volt battery. A very thick wire bifilar pancake "Impulse charging Coil" lay flat up against the iron ferrite magnet disk. A large thermos size capacitor supplied the pulse.
Synchro1,
Do you have any evidence or references that verify that?
The 1914 image looks consistent with every other DC lifter. A DC lifter of that era would likely use a cap to suppress arcing across the power on/off switch. If rectified AC was used, it was likely smoothed with a cap to reduce eddie current heating. More likely a DC gen was used, as rectifying AC back then, at that level, usually meant using mercury arc rectifiers. Even a commutated DC gen output would benefit from some smoothing using a cap, again to reduce eddie current heating.
Just curious as to whether you have supporting material for your claim or if this is just speculation on your part.
PW
Here is a cutaway view of the old scrap magnet below. And the page link here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifting_electromagnet_cross_section.png
It says flat conductors and it looks like 4 pancakes together?
Then there is this from a link you guys provided. Its the repair page with some pics that show flat conductors.
http://www.walkermagnet.com/service-repair-scrap-magnet-repair.htm
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on May 26, 2013, 09:35:34 PM
Here is a cutaway view of the old scrap magnet below. And the page link here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifting_electromagnet_cross_section.png
It says flat conductors and it looks like 4 pancakes together?
Then there is this from a link you guys provided. Its the repair page with some pics that show flat conductors.
http://www.walkermagnet.com/service-repair-scrap-magnet-repair.htm
Mags
Hey Mags,
Is it not logical to expect that some lifter designs may use multiple coils as a way to increase ampere turns for more lifting power or to allow for a more physically compact unit? Any increase in DC resistance can be compensated for via application of a higher DC voltage to maintain a given DC current.
Heating of the windings is usually a limiting factor with these lifters, and you will note that the mfg page cited specifies a 75% or so duty cycle for most of their lifters.
I just don't see anything in that 1914 image that is not consistent with a standard DC lifter.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 26, 2013, 09:57:29 PM
Hey Mags,
Is it not logical to expect that some lifter designs may use multiple coils as a way to increase ampere turns for more lifting power or to allow for a more physically compact unit? Any increase in DC resistance can be compensated for via application of a higher DC voltage to maintain a given DC current.
Heating of the windings is usually a limiting factor with these lifters, and you will note that the mfg page cited specifies a 75% or so duty cycle for most of their lifters.
I just don't see anything in that 1914 image that is not consistent with a standard DC lifter.
PW
Hey Pico
Im just stating what I read and see. The page of the pic I posted says flat conductors. And so does the modern magnet link claim this in the repair section.
Of the 2, the pic posted seems to have 4 layers if Im interpreting the cut away view properly. And the pics of the repair coils look as to have 2 layers, like pancakes made of flat conductors and stacked ready for butter and syrup. Possibly they are in series with each other, dont know yet. Just laying out what I think of it so far. Not saying they are bifilar or not. There is no indication so far.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on May 26, 2013, 10:09:17 PM
Hey Pico
Im just stating what I read and see. The page of the pic I posted says flat conductors. And so does the modern magnet link claim this in the repair section.
Of the 2, the pic posted seems to have 4 layers if Im interpreting the cut away view properly. And the pics of the repair coils look as to have 2 layers, like pancakes made of flat conductors and stacked ready for butter and syrup. Possibly they are in series with each other, dont know yet. Just laying out what I think of it so far. Not saying they are bifilar or not. There is no indication so far.
Mags
Mags,
Check out the following:
http://www.jobmachineryinc.com/generator_sets.htm
http://magstargenerator.com/
If there was an easier way (i.e., more energy efficient), don't you think a tight profit margin industry like a scrap yard would be using it?
There are PM lifters available for lifting flat sheets, but for irregularly shaped scrap, big DC electromagnets rule.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 26, 2013, 10:24:42 PM
Mags,
Check out the following:
http://www.jobmachineryinc.com/generator_sets.htm (http://www.jobmachineryinc.com/generator_sets.htm)
http://magstargenerator.com/ (http://magstargenerator.com/)
If there was an easier way (i.e., more energy efficient), don't you think a tight profit margin industry like a scrap yard would be using it?
There are PM lifters available for lifting flat sheets, but for irregularly shaped scrap, big DC electromagnets rule.
PW
Hmm, not gettin your drift. Im not arguing that they are DC or AC. 75% duty cycle indicates pulsed DC. Are you saying that you dont think they are wound with flat conductors? Not sure of the point.
;D
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on May 26, 2013, 10:35:14 PM
Hmm, not gettin your drift. Im not arguing that they are DC or AC. 75% duty cycle indicates pulsed DC. Are you saying that you dont think they are wound with flat conductors? Not sure of the point.
;D
Mags
Mags,
Not at all. I fully agree that many, if not all, of these lifting magnets use flat windings. Particularly wrt the more modern versions.
I just don't see anything that supports Synchro1's claim that the lifter depicted in the 1914 image operates on a 6 volt pulse using a capacitor that somehow causes it to remain magnetic until, I assume, a second pulse is somehow applied.
That is basically how he described the operation of that "industrial electromagnet" depicted in the 1914 image that he stated was a "Tesla Scrap Yard Magnet".
I see nothing in that 1914 image that is not consistent with a standard DC electromagnetic lifter and wondered if Synchro1 had any evidence to support his assertions, or if that was just speculation on his part.
PW
Tesla also used flat conductors for ordinary transformers for obvious reasons.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=p5g_AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 2 lines 11 to 19.
QuoteIn practice for apparatus designed for ordinary usage the coil is preferably constructed on the plan illustrated in Fig 3 In this figure LL are spools of insulating material upon which the secondary is wound in the present case however in two sections so as to constitute really two secondaries. The primary C is a spirally wound flat strip surrounding both secondaries B.
Flat copper strips make good coil conductors in some applications. The most obvious reason to me would be the reduced resistance and increased surface area. A flat strip primary would give good coupling to a secondary winding even with not many turns itself simply because of how much of the secondary winding area the primary strip is in close proximity to. Similarly for a large spiral coil if the turns are flat strip the inductance would be more for the turns I think, because more copper is in closer proximity per turn.
Just an uneducated look at the flat strip conductors.
Happy to see the discussion heated up. I don't want to seem as though I am trying to stifle discussion, people should feel free to speak their mind, within reason.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on May 27, 2013, 03:01:27 AM
Flat copper strips make good coil conductors in some applications.
Using flat foil coils is pretty standard in switched mode powersupplies.
To increase the coupling and prevent stray flux, the primary might be split in multiple parts, surrounding the secondaries.
rgds.
Hi Fritz, I've noticed in some appliances like televisions and such that some small HF transformers have a wide copper band around the wire windings, the copper band is soldered as a band like a shield. Wouldn't that reduce the inductance kinda like a shorted winding on a multi-strand coil ? I think I've been told it's for shielding from memory.
Anyway when I wound my second motor coil, I had to use a slightly different former with a slightly bigger core so the coil has more inductance than the other one so to keep the same DC resistance I just wound some "extra other" wire around it and soldered that extra wire "shorted" which lowers the inductance of the coil a bit. It could do with a bit more yet. It's not important though because it's just a rough test setup.
Hmmm Just thinking.
I'm guessing that a coil wound from iron or steel wire would have lots of inductance compared to the same length of copper wire with no ferrous core.
What about aluminium wire ? Will it yield the same inductance (with a steel core) as a copper coil would for the wire length and diameter (with a steel core) or is mass a factor ?
To all: Anyone know of a source of about 0.5 mm to 1 mm or so insulated aluminium wire for magnets ? Or even stranded thinly insulated aluminium wire ?
CHeers
Pancake Magnetizers are a still in use:
"To test the device, we generated a magnetic field using a "PANCAKE-TYPE MAGNETIZER" and a cracked magnetized ferromagnetic specimen and imaged the vectors".
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6332808&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6332808 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6332808&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6332808)
I came across this, I found to be very interesting about the coil's properties:
"It is well known that the inductance of a pancake type coil put on the metallic specimen changes according to the electromagnetic properties of the metallic specimen"
This might help stifle the hysteria,
From: Electromagnetic pulse generator plans:
"Pancake coils are perfect for the job".
"If you want true emp pulses, you would need to do a little research. Combining a high frequency pulsing circuit that pushing a good amount of current into pancake coils. Look up Nikola Tesla and Pancake coils to see what I mean. It is my opinion that you would not want any ferrite in any of the coils if you expect the electromagnetic field to disipate in the surrounding air either. Pancake coils are perfect for the job. Maybe a nice stack of them, and you will kick a pulse directional much stronger than firing a nail through a coil of wire with dynamite. Not to mention, you might survive when you fire it off".
The issue is; What are this coil's special applications? I think I've built a sufficient case so far to prove that the pancake bifilar coil's used as an "Impulse Magnetizer"! Alright?
" we generated a magnetic field using a "PANCAKE-TYPE MAGNETIZER"!
The question remains, how do Skycollection's ferrite toroids react when pulsed from a stack of these kinds of magnetizer pancacke coils?
Quote from: Farmhand on May 27, 2013, 06:37:28 AM
Hi Fritz, I've noticed in some appliances like televisions and such that some small HF transformers have a wide copper band around the wire windings, the copper band is soldered as a band like a shield. Wouldn't that reduce the inductance kinda like a shorted winding on a multi-strand coil ? I think I've been told it's for shielding from memory.
There are shielding layers with ferrite transducers, typicalwise between primary and secondary, foil type, with just one end connected to protective ground.
The idea behind is that in case of extreme overvoltage - the discharge should happen toward protective ground. In this case the foil is just a cap - not a single turn.
I´ve seen what you mean - I think this is used for non-flyback situations with ferrite and metal cores, reduces stray flux and works as kind of base loading to keep (iron) losses down / if no secondary load.
Quote from: Farmhand on May 27, 2013, 06:37:28 AM
I'm guessing that a coil wound from iron or steel wire would have lots of inductance compared to the same length of copper wire with no ferrous core.
What about aluminium wire ? Will it yield the same inductance (with a steel core) as a copper coil would for the wire length and diameter (with a steel core) or is mass a factor ?
To all: Anyone know of a source of about 0.5 mm to 1 mm or so insulated aluminium wire for magnets ? Or even stranded thinly insulated aluminium wire ?
CHeers
I would expect only small difference between steel, copper, al wire in terms of inductivity.
The major difference would be the resistance. Stanley Meyer uses SS resistive wire for his pulse transformers...
If you have lots of turns and thin and long wire - the resistance will give you somewhat completly different.
rgds.
This video shows a permanet magnet locking device that works by impulse shifting an alnico field. This single wire coil pulse is changing the pole around not magnetizing the alloy: Very interesting effect that in part, drives the Flynn motor This is well worth a look!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZzosuvfvE4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZzosuvfvE4)
Flynn gets the power of 3 magnets from 2. A roman numeral II with an alnico and neo cylinders for cross bars, between ferrite legs completes the "Horse shoe". Imagine a monopole rotor pulsed by a micro second alnico pole switch impulse through a DPDT reed switch! This is not a "Leedskalnin" locking device. This magnet circuit field attracts from a distance. Look at the potential power savings advantage from controling a powerful permanent field with split second impulse, rather then wasting power on electrifing ampere turns.
Imagine an attraction motor, with a two permanent horseshoe magnet rotor mounted in opposition, and in repulsion to the 'Flynn" pulse power magnet pole polarity. The rotor horseshoes would be attracted to the ferrite legs, then a micro second pulse would release the 3x PM repulsion, and really send the rotor spinning with that little input power. We may new thread to explore this promising new build!!
"THE IMPROVED FLYNN GAP ROTOR MOTOR"
I broadened the field simply to " The improved Flynn Gap"!
Quote from: fritz on May 27, 2013, 09:50:35 AM
I would expect only small difference between steel, copper, al wire in terms of inductivity.
The major difference would be the resistance. Stanley Meyer uses SS resistive wire for his pulse transformers...
If you have lots of turns and thin and long wire - the resistance will give you somewhat completly different.
rgds.
But my point is, weather right or wrong ( I don't mind which) that the steel or iron wire should act as a core as well as a wire. I mean the comparison with steel/iron to other wires when no specific core is involved (air cored coils). I am probably wrong but wouldn't a coil wound from steel or iron wire act as though it had a core of sorts (inductively speaking) even without a core piece proper. Meaning that say 100 meters of steel wire wound as an air core coil in my imagination would have more inductance than 100 meters of copper wire wound as an air core coil. I don't see why the steel/iron windings would not act as a kind of core to increase the inductance, but not as a core to concentrate flux as a regular core would. The steel wire thing is just a matter of interest I have no use in mind for that, just wondering.
Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire. Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former. I would like to build as light a motor as possible but not a small motor and I don't want to try to use air coils I want to use cores of some kind to get good force on the rotor. I can get uninsulated aluminium wire as welding wire, but how to insulate the turns, the layers can be insulated easily enough but the individual turns per layer has me a bit stumped except for using some spacing material between turns, then a short is but a bump away kind of, shorting between two individual turns is not a great loss I guess if it was to happen it's not the end of the coil.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on May 27, 2013, 06:52:08 PM
But my point is, weather right or wrong ( I don't mind which) that the steel or iron wire should act as a core as well as a wire. I mean the comparison with steel/iron to other wires when no specific core is involved (air cored coils). I am probably wrong but wouldn't a coil wound from steel or iron wire act as though it had a core of sorts (inductively speaking) even without a core piece proper. Meaning that say 100 meters of steel wire wound as an air core coil in my imagination would have more inductance than 100 meters of copper wire wound as an air core coil. I don't see why the steel/iron windings would not act as a kind of core to increase the inductance, but not as a core to concentrate flux as a regular core would. The steel wire thing is just a matter of interest I have no use in mind for that, just wondering.
Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire. Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former. I would like to build as light a motor as possible but not a small motor and I don't want to try to use air coils I want to use cores of some kind to get good force on the rotor. I can get uninsulated aluminium wire as welding wire, but how to insulate the turns, the layers can be insulated easily enough but the individual turns per layer has me a bit stumped except for using some spacing material between turns, then a short is but a bump away kind of, shorting between two individual turns is not a great loss I guess if it was to happen it's not the end of the coil.
Cheers
http://www.hmwire.com/Aluminum_Wire.html (http://www.hmwire.com/Aluminum_Wire.html)
Quote from: Farmhand on May 27, 2013, 06:52:08 PM
But my point is, weather right or wrong ( I don't mind which) that the steel or iron wire should act as a core as well as a wire. I mean the comparison with steel/iron to other wires when no specific core is involved (air cored coils). I am probably wrong but wouldn't a coil wound from steel or iron wire act as though it had a core of sorts (inductively speaking) even without a core piece proper. Meaning that say 100 meters of steel wire wound as an air core coil in my imagination would have more inductance than 100 meters of copper wire wound as an air core coil. I don't see why the steel/iron windings would not act as a kind of core to increase the inductance, but not as a core to concentrate flux as a regular core would. The steel wire thing is just a matter of interest I have no use in mind for that, just wondering.
Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire. Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former. I would like to build as light a motor as possible but not a small motor and I don't want to try to use air coils I want to use cores of some kind to get good force on the rotor. I can get uninsulated aluminium wire as welding wire, but how to insulate the turns, the layers can be insulated easily enough but the individual turns per layer has me a bit stumped except for using some spacing material between turns, then a short is but a bump away kind of, shorting between two individual turns is not a great loss I guess if it was to happen it's not the end of the coil.
Cheers
"Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire. Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former."
Some speaker companies use aluminum wire for their voice coils. Ive seen flat(well rectangular) and square wire on voice coils but not round as of yet in Al. So yes it should be available. Im pretty sure Al has a higher melting point than copper and is definitely lighter so high power and less moving mass could be a motive there. If we were to pick apart the resistance value differences, for a speaker 4 ohms is 4 ohms and 16ohms is 16 ohms. I dont believe there are any operational differences between copper and aluminum coils with equal/similar electrical properties.
Iron wire? I dont know what would happen there. If it acts as a core, then maybe most of the field produced remains in the wire/core till over saturation. I dunno. Maybe it wont saturate so easy because of a core with many gaps and voids between windings. Square wire would help but still a bit gappy. ;)
Mags
Thanks guy's, TEKTRON I think either of the two basic lower temp coatings would suit for my intentions, preference to the 180 degree rated stuff. Much appreciated.
I'll search for other suppliers now I can see it seems common. Just hope the price is do able.
I'm not sure that many compromises can be made on the cores as far as weight goes. As far as wire is concerned then aluminium would have to be the best for lightweight performance.
Thanks again, please forgive my ignorance I should have been able to find that myself.
Cheers
Now that annoys me, I just spent almost a half hour filling in a quotation request form and then when I went to press the submit button nothing happened, the request can't be sent.. So now I will have to send a personal Email which probably won't be replied to because I only want 1000 feet of wire. They even want to know a business name and why I want it.
Anyone know where the prices are listed I can just order some and it will come in the post ? I can't find any places that list the price and allow direct orders of listed stock/products.
Cheers
Quote from: Magluvin on May 27, 2013, 09:24:15 PM
"Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire. Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former."
Mags
the only aluminum magnet wire I have got is the degauss coil out of a crt.. it looks like copper but everyone I have torn down isn't but that may be to big for you..
Quote from: kooler on May 27, 2013, 11:16:35 PM
the only aluminum magnet wire I have got is the degauss coil out of a crt.. it looks like copper but everyone I have torn down isn't but that may be to big for you..
Thanks kooler
Im not lookin, but that sounds like an in the pinch source. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Farmhand on May 27, 2013, 06:52:08 PM
But my point is, weather right or wrong ( I don't mind which) that the steel or iron wire should act as a core as well as a wire. I mean the comparison with steel/iron to other wires when no specific core is involved (air cored coils). I am probably wrong but wouldn't a coil wound from steel or iron wire act as though it had a core of sorts (inductively speaking) even without a core piece proper. Meaning that say 100 meters of steel wire wound as an air core coil in my imagination would have more inductance than 100 meters of copper wire wound as an air core coil. I don't see why the steel/iron windings would not act as a kind of core to increase the inductance, but not as a core to concentrate flux as a regular core would. The steel wire thing is just a matter of interest I have no use in mind for that, just wondering.
I got your point - but if the windings are almost 90 degrees to your sum flux direction - there wont be an induction phenomenen in the wire - and there should be pretty no contribution to the overall inductivity.
The contribution to overall inductivity would increase if you change the inclination of your windings from 90 degrees towards 45 degrees in relation to your sum flux / rotational axis.
As long as you don´t exceed flux saturation in your ferro magnetic wire - you will observe increased inductivity - if you saturate the wire, inductivity will fall back to normal - and there will be iron losses in the wire.
rgds.
Quote from: Magluvin on May 26, 2013, 09:35:34 PM
Here is a cutaway view of the old scrap magnet below. And the page link here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifting_electromagnet_cross_section.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifting_electromagnet_cross_section.png)
It says flat conductors and it looks like 4 pancakes together?
Then there is this from a link you guys provided. Its the repair page with some pics that show flat conductors.
http://www.walkermagnet.com/service-repair-scrap-magnet-repair.htm (http://www.walkermagnet.com/service-repair-scrap-magnet-repair.htm)
Mags
Hi Mags,
I found a patent on this type of electromagnet i.e. on the old scrap yard magnet. Yes, it has 4 pancake coils layered one above the other i.e. there are 4 layers (in the patent: sections) from the pancakes as the cross section drawing shows. BUT the pancake coils has no parallel conductors as per FIG 2 of the Tesla Coil for Electromagnet patent defines, they are all wound from single flat conductors and not parallel guided ones and insulating layer is interposed between the turns. And if say the first layer at the top is clockwise wound, then the next layer under it is in counterclockwise and again the 3rd layer is cw the 4th at the bottom is ccw, so that connection could be simplified for the layers while getting like poles for all layers. This is a link to the patent US1325914, filed in 1907 and granted only in 1919): http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914)
(In fact there is another patent on quasi the same construction from the same Cutler-Hammer MFG by another guy, filed in 1910 and granted in 1920: http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504) ).
This means that no series bifilar coil construction (SBC as synchro1 labels it) was used in the Cutler-Hammer scrap yard electromagnet construction. The fact that this flat pancake coil construction utilizes its both magnetic poles for lifting the scrap iron pieces makes it to be a strong electromagnet indeed (the magnetic poles can close via the lifted iron pieces, multiplying the holding force).
Gyula
PS I have attached a rough drawing as an addition to the cross section drawing to show the created magnetic poles. Notice that the pole in the center has a higher surface area than the one at the outer edge, this is intentional as described in the patent.
Quote from: gyulasun on May 28, 2013, 06:44:42 PM
Hi Mags,
I found a patent on this type of electromagnet i.e. on the old scrap yard magnet. Yes, it has 4 pancake coils layered one above the other i.e. there are 4 layers (in the patent: sections) from the pancakes as the cross section drawing shows. BUT the pancake coils has no parallel conductors as per FIG 2 of the Tesla Coil for Electromagnet patent defines, they are all wound from single flat conductors and not parallel guided ones and insulating layer is interposed between the turns. And if say the first layer at the top is clockwise wound, then the next layer under it is in counterclockwise and again the 3rd layer is cw the 4th at the bottom is ccw, so that connection could be simplified for the layers while getting like poles for all layers. This is a link to the patent US1325914, filed in 1907 and granted only in 1919): http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914)
(In fact there is another patent on quasi the same construction from the same Cutler-Hammer MFG by another guy, filed in 1910 and granted in 1920: http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504) ).
This means that no series bifilar coil construction (SBC as synchro1 labels it) was used in the Cutler-Hammer scrap yard electromagnet construction. The fact that this flat pancake coil construction utilizes its both magnetic poles for lifting the scrap iron pieces makes it to be a strong electromagnet indeed (the magnetic poles can close via the lifted iron pieces, multiplying the holding force).
Gyula
PS I have attached a rough drawing as an addition to the cross section drawing to show the created magnetic poles. Notice that the pole in the center has a higher surface area than the one at the outer edge, this is intentional as described in the patent.
Layering counterwound pancakes together cause them to share the same kind of characteristics found in the serial bifilar pancake.
Quote from: gyulasun on May 28, 2013, 06:44:42 PM
Hi Mags,
I found a patent on this type of electromagnet i.e. on the old scrap yard magnet. Yes, it has 4 pancake coils layered one above the other i.e. there are 4 layers (in the patent: sections) from the pancakes as the cross section drawing shows. BUT the pancake coils has no parallel conductors as per FIG 2 of the Tesla Coil for Electromagnet patent defines, they are all wound from single flat conductors and not parallel guided ones and insulating layer is interposed between the turns. And if say the first layer at the top is clockwise wound, then the next layer under it is in counterclockwise and again the 3rd layer is cw the 4th at the bottom is ccw, so that connection could be simplified for the layers while getting like poles for all layers. This is a link to the patent US1325914, filed in 1907 and granted only in 1919): http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914)
(In fact there is another patent on quasi the same construction from the same Cutler-Hammer MFG by another guy, filed in 1910 and granted in 1920: http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504) ).
This means that no series bifilar coil construction (SBC as synchro1 labels it) was used in the Cutler-Hammer scrap yard electromagnet construction. The fact that this flat pancake coil construction utilizes its both magnetic poles for lifting the scrap iron pieces makes it to be a strong electromagnet indeed (the magnetic poles can close via the lifted iron pieces, multiplying the holding force).
Gyula
PS I have attached a rough drawing as an addition to the cross section drawing to show the created magnetic poles. Notice that the pole in the center has a higher surface area than the one at the outer edge, this is intentional as described in the patent.
hey Gyula
I was just showing what I found on those magnets. I hadnt stated that they were bifi or not. Didnt know. ;D
I dont know if old lock motors in cars were bifi either, but the old impala I worked on recently used large solenoids. They did all kind of weird stuff back then. Like wind 2 stator coils in window and windshield wiper motors. Naturally they were wound together, bifi, but only one was used for one direction and one for the other direction.
The stators were in series with the armature, but one stator was wired in opposite polarity. Apply power to the stator that makes the motor go in one direction or the other. What a waste of wire. I guess they just didint know. Everything is so much easier with PM's. ;)
I had an idea of weirdness the other day...
Ever really look at how a voice coil functions in the speakers magnetic gap?
If you have ever put dc to a speaker terminals, the speaker cone is forced forward or backward depending on the input polarity. Well if you hold the dc on the terminals, the cone is kept in that forced position being held back by the cone suspension.
Now, if the voice coil were 10ft long or even 100 ft. and the whole thing was built for the coil to be able to move full stroke, if we applied dc, the coil would move all the way till it left the magnet gap. ;) It would keep going till the mag field was no longer affecting the coil.
Ok, here is what I propose. Some things will have to be worked out, but follow me...
We wind an air core toroid, air core for now, in a complete loop(toroid) say 2in thick and 12in outside and 10in inside diameter. Now we make a rotor with say just 2 magnets on opposite sides of the rotor, same polarity outward, that are set to rotate within the inner diameter of the toroid coil so that the rotor magnets are in close proximity to the inner side of the toroid winding... This I believe would emulate the 10foot long voice coil but it instead would be infinitely long, not just 10 in.
This is just and idea that popped into my head. It is only a possible proof of concept design as described. Might work with a toroid core, or maybe more core toward the outer diameter of the toroid but inner side of the windings stepped away(inward) so the field of those parts of the winding are not just trapped in the core and can affect the rotor magnets.
It is just a possible way to make a dc motor without switching what so ever. If one really understands the workings of a speaker, then it isnt hard to imagine this motor idea to work similarly, with dc input. ;)
Just throwing it out there. ;D So simple to implement.
Mags
Quote from: synchro1 on May 28, 2013, 10:06:46 PM
Layering counterwound pancakes together cause them to share the same kind of characteristics found in the serial bifilar pancake.
I was thinking the same thing, but Gyula has shown another pat that seems to clearly show that the connections from coil to coil alternate one wound out, then connected to the outside of the next coil down and so on. This would mean that each cake is wound in the opposite direction of the next for the magnetic polarity to stack up. If it were that they are in series and each series connection started at the inner or outer end of each coil then yes, this would divide the voltages between adjacent upper and lower windings to be defined as a bifi. It might have a very small effect though being that only the upper and lower 'edges' of each winding are in proximity to the next level winding, being they are ribbon conductors.
Now, if you were to 'show' me that each layer were bifi with 2 conductors each, then I would agree. But I have not seen that so far. Maybe there were some out there. But so far it doesnt seem so. Yet. ;)
Mags
Look at this discussion:
"Alternatively, a three-wire coil design has two windings in opposite directions".
Latch Valve Designs
Reversing electrical polarity is accomplished in one of two ways. A two-wire coil design has one winding and the device's electrical source changes the polarity applied to the valve. Alternatively, a three-wire coil design has two windings in opposite directions. Power is then selectively applied by the device's power source to one of the windings creating a certain polarity or applied to the other winding for the reverse polarity. Again, electrical power is applied in brief 20 to 50 millisecond pulses after which no power is applied. Three-wire valves are more expensive than two-wire valves. Latching valves operate on DC current. AC current can be used, but a special valve coil must also be used to convert the AC to DC current.
You can see when you look at the drawing that there are four layers of band-iron formed into coils that are stacked one on top of the other. There are some nice supplementary drawings if you follow the patent links.
All four layers form a giant ampere-turn magnetic field generator that work together. You can see how the metal casing of the electromagnet takes the "top" flux and channels it to the center and "points" it downwards. The same "top" flux is also channeled to the outer ring of the casing and is also "pointed" downwards. So Gyula's "magnetic footprint" drawing is wrong. If the center circle of his drawing is red, then the outer ring that he has marked in blue is also actually red. Following Gyula's convention where blue represents the opposite polarity, then what Gyula shows as white should be blue. In summary, at the inside you have the red circle, then you have a blue ring around that, and on the outside you have a thin red ring. That's how the electromagnet is designed.
In looking at the other drawings, the blue area (my definition) seems to be recessed. That makes the recessed blue area a kind of "suction zone" for scrap metal when the electromagnet is energized.
I will repeat again, to make a connection between Tesla's patent and the two electromagnet patents shown here is nonsensical. Talk about minuscule inter-layer capacitance in this brute force application makes no sense at all.
MileHigh
The old magnets in junkyards have to let go of the stuff. They used at least two windings. Like an automotive starter solenoid. One high current to polarize the load steel. One low current to maintain the stuff on the magnet while it was transported. Then when you want to drop the stuff the holding current winding is opened. The kick voltage of the high resistance winding goes sky high so the switching devices used mercury plungers I believe and dumped the kick energy into resistor banks. This is from memory of a brief read 30 years ago so take it for what it's worth.
IMHO a tesla pancake coil is nothing but a piece of coiled coax. If you take a piece of coax and hit it with RF to INCREASE the standing wave ratio (reflected signal) soon you develop high voltage relavent to nodes and antinodes within the coax. If your node and antinode develop at terminals then you get what Tesla was after. We know that electromagnetic waves carry energy so when they stand and are constructive the pancake coil acts as an energy storage unit.
Hi sparks,
I agree with you, in the Tesla pancake coil as defined in his Coil for Electromagnet patent, Figure 2, the two conductors (in very close proximity but still isolated from each other) constitute a transmission line just like the coax cable that also includes two isolated conductors. Ham radio operators do use so called coax trap coils to get frequency selective switches in their antennas to have multiband operation in the short wave bands. The coax traps have many series and parallel resonances as per their impedance curve shows in the function of frequency: http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png (http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png) from this link: http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/ (http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/)
It is sure that Tesla was aware of how the impedance of his two conductor coil changed when connected the two isolated conductors in series because he wrote that at resonance the input AC current finds no impedance other than the conductors resistance, this way the usual and inherent coil propety to resist initial current flow is solved.
However, in the junkyard electromagnets (as per the two patents described in my previous post above) the pancake coils used single conductor and no any mention of using two conductors as per Tesla's Fig.2 defined. So what you wrote energy-wise for the coiled coax (which I agree with) is not valid for a single conductor pancake coil.
Gyula
Quote from: sparks on May 29, 2013, 07:07:55 AM
The old magnets in junkyards have to let go of the stuff. They used at least two windings. Like an automotive starter solenoid. One high current to polarize the load steel. One low current to maintain the stuff on the magnet while it was transported. Then when you want to drop the stuff the holding current winding is opened. The kick voltage of the high resistance winding goes sky high so the switching devices used mercury plungers I believe and dumped the kick energy into resistor banks. This is from memory of a brief read 30 years ago so take it for what it's worth.
IMHO a tesla pancake coil is nothing but a piece of coiled coax. If you take a piece of coax and hit it with RF to INCREASE the standing wave ratio (reflected signal) soon you develop high voltage relavent to nodes and antinodes within the coax. If your node and antinode develop at terminals then you get what Tesla was after. We know that electromagnetic waves carry energy so when they stand and are constructive the pancake coil acts as an energy storage unit.
Thanks Sparks. The high voltage polarization you speak of is also refered to as: "Impulse Magnetization". Those old fashioned magnets are long gone. Consider what the time frame did for the field of Aviation, from Kitty Hawk to the Mars Rover. It's hard at first for us to understand the Wright brother's method of wing warping to gain directional control, even though wing flaps are commonplce today on aircraft.
The argument arose about the differences between SBC and single wire coils. Both coils are used to "Impulse Magnetize" but they work differently. The SB Pancake directs the pulse to align electron spin in a substrate while the single wire wrap coil polarizes.
Quote from: synchro1 on May 28, 2013, 10:06:46 PM
Layering counterwound pancakes together cause them to share the same kind of characteristics found in the serial bifilar pancake.
Sorry, it is not correct. The facing pancake surfaces are not comparable for the two cases, that is why I disagree. See also Magluvin answer here http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg361720/#msg361720
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 29, 2013, 10:16:10 AM
Sorry, it is not correct. The facing pancake surfaces are not comparable for the two cases, that is why I disagree. See also Magluvin answer here http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg361720/#msg361720 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg361720/#msg361720)
Gyula
The coils don't have to be connected to cancel the inductance. It's enough that the current is running in the other direction between the conductors in close adjacency to one another.
Quote from: synchro1 on May 29, 2013, 10:24:40 AM
The coils don't have to be connected to cancel the inductance. It's enough that the current is running in the other direction between the conductors in close adjacency to one another.
Well, nobody wrote that the coils have to be connected to cancel the inductance. Your answer above proves again your typical topic twisting when it is proved what you wrote was not correct. Please change this behaviour, it leads to nowhere. Thanks.
Milehigh just stated there was no comparison between the magnets! The serial bifilar pancake projects a directional electromagnetic pulse that's focused. This allows it to broadcast and recieve it's own power, as well as align electron spin. The current electromagnet is merely an modern improvement. All the fundamental forces are at work in those counter facing pancakes. They jolt a field into the scrap first, then produce a low level cling current. You can spark the sigle wire nail wrap all you want, you will never get the kind of impulse magnetization effect the SBC delivers.
I want to correct a mistake that I made:
QuoteAll four layers form a giant ampere-turn magnetic field generator that work together. You can see how the metal casing of the electromagnet takes the "top" flux and channels it to the center and "points" it downwards. The same "top" flux is also channeled to the outer ring of the casing and is also "pointed" downwards. So Gyula's "magnetic footprint" drawing is wrong. If the center circle of his drawing is red, then the outer ring that he has marked in blue is also actually red. Following Gyula's convention where blue represents the opposite polarity, then what Gyula shows as white should be blue. In summary, at the inside you have the red circle, then you have a blue ring around that, and on the outside you have a thin red ring. That's how the electromagnet is designed.
This is poor visualization on my part and I got confused. Gyula's original comments on the configuration of the "magnetic footprint" of the electromagnet are correct.
MileHigh
Synchro1:
QuoteMilehigh just stated there was no comparison between the magnets! The serial bifilar pancake projects a directional electromagnetic pulse that's focused. This allows it to broadcast and recieve it's own power, as well as align electron spin. The current electromagnet is merely an modern improvement. All the fundamental forces are at work in those counter facing pancakes. They jolt a field into the scrap first, then produce a low level cling current. You can spark the sigle wire nail wrap all you want, you will never get the kind of impulse magnetization effect the SBC delivers.
This "fantasy world" of electronics that you seem to live in is not healthy. Where do you get these statements from?
I challenge you to post a diagram that illustrates your comment about "projecting a directional electromagnetic pulse that's focused." Please post a diagram that is annotated with some supplementary information. Also when you make the posting give us a few paragraphs of text that explain exactly what you mean and explain your annotations in the diagram. Please tell us all about the electron spin. Tell us all about the pulse and where it comes from. Please explain to us all about the "impulse magnetization effect" that you claim is a special property of the SBC. Please illustrate that with an annotated diagram also and explain the diagram with a few paragraphs of text.
If can you do that then we will comment on your posting. If you can't do that then you have been caught talking fantasy nonsense.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
Another miserable homework assignment huh? Here's one for you: Whats a spark?
Synchro1:
Busted! lol
It's like Bioshock Infinity a la Tesla!
Get your protein pills and keep your helmet on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBOtpwOZSFk
MileHigh
Quote from: fritz on May 28, 2013, 04:06:27 AM
I got your point - but if the windings are almost 90 degrees to your sum flux direction - there wont be an induction phenomenen in the wire - and there should be pretty no contribution to the overall inductivity.
The contribution to overall inductivity would increase if you change the inclination of your windings from 90 degrees towards 45 degrees in relation to your sum flux / rotational axis.
As long as you don´t exceed flux saturation in your ferro magnetic wire - you will observe increased inductivity - if you saturate the wire, inductivity will fall back to normal - and there will be iron losses in the wire.
rgds.
Hi Fritz, I think i get it now, and it seems basic logic so it makes sense to me. Thank you very much for explaining that in that way. Much appreciated.
So to carry the thinking further to a different situation. If I was to wind an air core steel wire coil, then if I insert a smaller steel coil inside it with the coil terminals open, the inserted coil would not act as core because the turns are in the same plane as the main coil. It would simply act as an open secondary ?
Alternatively if I was to wind a steel coil that was long loops of turns and placed that inside the main coil so the windings were at 90 degrees it would not act as a secondary but as a core, the inserted coil would develop no emf but would support or engage the magnetic flux.
So the in between case would be a steel wire coil with the windings done in a 45 degree cross hatched pattern, ie. one layer at 45 degrees to vertical from 0 degrees to 180 degrees circumference wise, then progressive layers of 45 degree windings around the coil circumference in 90 degree progressions. Just as a thought experiment such a winding with steel wire should do both, or if two coils wound as such so that one could fit inside the other then the inserted one would act as a coil and a core, it must and the individual coils would also act as coils and cores as long as there was some angle between enough windings within the coil.
Cheers
Quote from: synchro1 on May 29, 2013, 12:01:19 PM
Milehigh just stated there was no comparison between the magnets! The serial bifilar pancake projects a directional electromagnetic pulse that's focused. This allows it to broadcast and recieve it's own power, as well as align electron spin. The current electromagnet is merely an modern improvement. All the fundamental forces are at work in those counter facing pancakes. They jolt a field into the scrap first, then produce a low level cling current. You can spark the sigle wire nail wrap all you want, you will never get the kind of impulse magnetization effect the SBC delivers.
Synchro1:
I have asked you to to change your behaviour but you try to defend your 'brainchilds' with fire and iron, however you do not show any proof. Words you desperatly keep repeating or you search on the net for pancake etc and quote others' words on them are not proof.
You showed pictures of some components but you did not show measurements to prove what you claim with those components.
I already also asked you to show the current drop to zero you claim to happen above a certain rpm in your setup. What 'secret' would you lose if you showed it?? Just an Ammeter hooked up to your setup, is that too problematic? Can you rebuild your setup again to have a second identically behaving setup?
When your attitude change to the better, I will pay attention again.
Gyula
Quote from: MileHigh on May 29, 2013, 01:02:52 PM
I want to correct a mistake that I made:
MH: okay, no problem.
Gyula
@Gyulasum,
You guys are real good when it comes to dishing jobs out, why not do the jolt test on your nail coils?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE)
TK shows his SB pancake throwing a larger spark in this video. Go ahead and spark your nail coils and see for yourself wether or not you notice any difference.
synchro1
I simply asked you about 'apples' and you answer with 'oranges' as usual.
I did not ask for your setup "blueprints", I did not ask for any details. I simply asked for showing the input current draw drops to zero with an Ammeter as you claimed happening above a certain RPM. If this asking is "a dishing jobs out" for you, then I think your claims are fishy, that is all. Be happy with your setup.
Synchro1:
QuoteTK shows his SB pancake throwing a larger spark in this video. Go ahead and spark your nail coils and see for yourself wether or not you notice any difference.
TK is a great guy but he is human and like anyone else he can make mistakes or oversights. It that clip he does a "swap" as opposed to doing an "A-B" comparison with some kind of reference. So you have no idea in the second part of his experiment if the SB coil is a better "broadcaster" or if the regular coil is a better "receiver." So the test is inconclusive.
Electronics is a REAL discipline Synchro1, and it has to be studied for years to understand and apply it properly. Your actions simply spread disinformation and confuse people like it's all some kind of silly game. Think about that.
MileHigh
The only point TK makes in the video is that the serial pancake generates a larger spark. TK'S spark is not an entertaining rock music video.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 30, 2013, 11:24:51 AM
Synchro1:
TK is a great guy
No argument there...
Quotebut he is human
not according to some you might ask...
Quoteand like anyone else he can make mistakes or oversights.
Who... me? Oh ye of little faith....
QuoteIt that clip he does a "swap" as opposed to doing an "A-B" comparison with some kind of reference. So you have no idea in the second part of his experiment if the SB coil is a better "broadcaster" or if the regular coil is a better "receiver." So the test is inconclusive.
That's right, as shown. But this and other tests I've done support the basic conclusion.... that there is a difference in performance between the two coils in the same conditions. This difference is due to the increased inter-turn capacitance and the effect of this capacitance on the coil's total impedance at the stimulating frequencies. Any way you look at it, the bifilar wound coil can store, and release, more energy than the flat pancake coil of the same wire length and geometry.
It is possible to take this simple fact and twist it and warp it around, but the fact remains: you get out what you put in, minus losses.
Quote
Electronics is a REAL discipline Synchro1, and it has to be studied for years to understand and apply it properly. Your actions simply spread disinformation and confuse people like it's all some kind of silly game. Think about that.
MileHigh
I'm sure Nikola Tesla would be rolling in his grave, if he wasn't secretly working in some underground government laboratory, being kept alive by periodic jolts from a huge Tesla coil......
;)
The real shocker is that Walt Disney and Nikola Tesla have a thing going on!!!!! 8)
Hi TinselKoala,
Quotethe fact remains: you get out what you put in, minus losses.
I would refer to a paper from Nichelson (you may have read it: http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf) ) where he also tested two coils, albeit they were not pancake but solenoid types (it does not matter though as Tesla wrote). Nichelson measured the voltage gain for the single wire and the bifilar solenoid coils and found the voltage gain of the bifilar coil was 5.39 times higher than that of the single wire coil while the calculated voltage gain gave 0.57 times as high only.
You can see the measured voltage gains, plotted on a scale of 0 - 1 for both coils in the figure below from the above paper: the bifilarly wound coil has Vin/Vout ratio of 0.98 at 11 MHz self resonant frequency while the single wound coil has Vin/Vout ratio of 0.18 only, at 19 MHz self resonant frequency.
So his findings (Vin/Vout=0.98 for the bifilar) can confirm your above quote, unfortunately 8) . Among some questions I consider one question maybe the most interesting: how the single wire solenoid (or your single pancake) would perform if it were tuned to the same frequency the bifilar coil has its own self resonant frequency (11 MHz in the above example), by using a suitable tuning capacitor in parallel with the single coil? Somehow I "feel" the bifilar coil would still win (by not much though) due to its distributed type 'tuning' capacitance, albeit wire insulation (dielectric qualities) may also have a role in that.
Any chance you may dig out those 'ingredients' from 2008 for some more tests on the two pancakes?
Thanks, Gyula
Unfortunately those coils are in Canada and I'm not. So I'll have to make a new bifilar to match the pancake I already have. I did do some tuning tests with air variables on those older coils but nothing really quantitative, and I can't really recall anything coherent about that testing now. But I'll be working on the issue over the next several days, and I'll let you all know what I observe.
Gyula,
I have never played with a network analyzer like the HP3577B. The closest I ever came to that was playing with a frequency spectrum analyzer. It appears to be a device that puts out an excitation signal which typically will sweep a sine wave over a given frequency range on an output port. Then on an input port it will record the response to the excitation and produce things like gain and phase plots. In the spec sheet they mention how a typical application might be to measure a filter response and make sure the attenuation at a given excitation frequency is within some kind of programmable tolerance.
I am under the impression that the output port is 50 ohms and the input port is either 50 ohms or it is high impedance. However, from the spec sheet I read it was not clear for me.
All that being said, I have "issues" with the paper and suspect that yet again, it's the people that are writing the paper that are the issue and not the equipment itself.
For example, when they talk about the "gain" they seem to be implying an impedance divider network where the coil is one element and a one ohm resistor is the other element. Of course there is no one-ohm resistor anywhere to be found and no impedance divider network.
Then, what they refer to as the "calculated voltage gain" for each coli is in fact nothing more than the impedance of each coil in "reactive ohms."
Then, they use the measured resonant frequencies of each coil for the "voltage gain" calculation. Since the "calculated voltage gain" for each coil is nothing more than the reactive impedance for each coil where each coil is modeled as a pure inductor only. But when you start talking about resonant frequencies you are _not_ talking about a pure inductor only, you are talking about a series or parallel LC circuit.
Then when they discuss the ratio bifilar/single they are comparing the impedance ratios of two pure inductors at two frequencies. Back to the same conundrum of mixing pure inductance with two different frequencies that are based on LC resonance.
I am not feeling it for that paper at all. I am seeing some amateurs playing with a sophisticated network analyzer and crunching numbers together that don't really make any sense. That's a phenomenon that I have seen several times before.
I have no doubt that the HP network analyzer will show distinct differences between the two types of coils. However, the "voltage gain" number crunching that they did in that paper does not smell right to me at all.
Going back to TK's experiment, there at least he is in the ballpark for finding differences between the two types of coils. He is using a spark gap so that's exciting the coils with a lot of high frequency content and there indeed, the capacitance can and will come into play. That's distinctly different from imagining that a series bifilar coil is going to make a big difference in the operation of a pulse motor.
MileHigh
I can't argue with that either.
:-\
But as it says in the patent and as is logical, it depends on the inductance and the capacitance of the particular series connected bifilar wound coil as to the frequency of excitement that will cause the resonance (which is true for all coils), no matter what the application, if the frequency of excitement is compatible with the inductance and capacitance of the SB coil so that resonance is produced in the coil, or the coil is excited at the frequency of resonance, then the difference will be there.
Seems to be an insinuation that some people think a HF coil will show the benefit when excited by low frequency. A higher frequency coil requires high frequency excitement and a lower frequency coil only requires lower frequency excitement as is well known by most, to get resonance we need to excite the coil with the correct frequency. Of course.
Cheers
I can understand how by use of resonance we can store energy. Not unlike a battery or a catapault of a flywheel-etc. The part I don't get about Tesla and his magnifying transmitter is his claim that the natural medium offered no resistance to really high potentials at high frequency. What he may have been doing is creating plasma emanating out from his terminal in the air. This would greatly increase the mass in play. The plasma would electrically extend the terminal. I don't see him creating a plasma construct from radiator to receiver without encountering huge amounts of difficulty. But he could make one big ass sky conductor. By excluding any sharp edges or defects his sky terminal would not create the lightning bolts he is famous for. In fact the guys who have those sharp little pipes hanging out of a Tesla transformer are using Tesla's safety circuit. I have created a weird plasma thing before. It isn't bright white crackling zig zag lightning looking stuff. It is more like a flame. I used an iron coil (by chance) mid-tapped with the anode of an old tv set attached to the middle. It created ion wind at least a foot away. The flames were coming out of both ends of the iron wire and bowing towards each other along a smooth circumference. I imagine if I put information riding the hv flyback somehow the flames would have danced. I gotta repeat this experiment again. I've had this old microwave oven sitting around just too busy to get past the one way screws built for guys like me. If tesla did make a huge antennae made out of plasma instead of conventional metals, any wave activity in the plasma would act just like wave activity in an antennae mast. I haven't seen any broadcast antennae's 2 or 3 miles high with a 20 mile radius at the top. I really don't know what the fuck he was up to in NJ but I believe a metal object like an airplane flying over that tower would have let go a couple of electrons and look like a ship lit up with St. Elmo's fire right before the crackler blows the mast to shit.
I think Tesla wanted to rather supress plasma ::) Wasn't that the famous spikes whcih killed DC generator operators ?
Quote from: forest on May 31, 2013, 02:49:54 AM
I think Tesla wanted to rather supress plasma ::) Wasn't that the famous spikes whcih killed DC generator operators ?
Definitely within the transmitter core. Arcing between turns would have resulted in eddy currents (lightning currents) and destruction of any dielectric used to insulate the secondaries. You can have a dark plasma. Most metals that we consider conductors are room temperature partially ionized plasma. My logic path is that he needed a big tall antennae and that it would be impossible to construct such an antennae so he ionized the air. The only other thing I can think of was that he was trying to use the intervening dielectric (atmospheric gasses) for the dielectric and excite the receivers like we excite secondaries when we couple an ac circuit to another circuit via a condensor sandwiched between the two circuits. His terminal= capacitor plate a- the air=dielectric, the receiver terminal=capacitor plate b.. This I can see happening but he constantly referred to rendering the ambient medium conductive. Maybe he considered current as the information conveyed between two points in space charged to different degrees or electrically polarized. There is some information being conducted between a charged cloud and Earth. A highly charged negative cloud can make the Earth below it positively charged relative to those parts of the Earth not directly below the cloud. It appears that the negative charge information of the cloud is conducted through space and moves electrons in the Earth without any electrons actually moving from cloud to ground. Then again we have electrolytic capacitors too which rely on ionized stuff which you would find in a plasma. This is why I am confused. Was he using electrostatics or electrodynamics?
hey @sparks,did you get my pm reply about infrared.what do u think?
Hi Milehigh,
I have done some calculations, based on coil data from the Nichelson paper I referred to above.
Given: air core coil OD=4" and number of turns=43
I looked for the possible wire diameter the coils were wound because I disagreed with the impedance divider network you supposed whereby the coil is one element and a one Ohm resistor is the other element in the divider network (see my EDIT comment below).
So I found from the calculations that the length of the wire (any coil was wound from) was 13.72 meter. Then I looked up wire gauge tabelle with electrical resistance values and figured that Nichelson must have used OD=0.56mm (copper) wire, the nearest awg is #23 (0.57mm).
The reason I disagree with your voltage divider idea (see EDIT) is that while it is true Nichelson et al used 1 Ohm in the denominator of the "voltage gain" formula but now it is clear (for me) that the 1 Ohm came from the coil DC resistance. Further, if you have a look at Figure 1 in the above paper, the network analyzer (generator and receiver) ports were directly "bridged" with any one coil during the measurements, there was no 1 Ohm resistor used (see EDIT). I looked up a manual for the HP3577B and its generator output impedance is 50 Ohm, its receiver input impedance can be chosen to be either 50 Ohm or 1 MOhm with 30pF parallel capacitance. (It is very reasonable to assume that they used the 50 Ohm input for the receiver side too.)
Now there is one more thing: have you noticed since then that the formula they used for calculating the voltage gain is nothing else but the Q of a coil i.e. XL/R (inductive reactance divided by the wire resistance)? You mentioned that the calculated voltage gain was the reactive impedance for each coil.
I think my above calculations and deductions are correct (if you notice any issue, or disagree, please comment).
Gyula
EDIT Where I inserted the EDIT above, I somehow avoided to consider that you eventually stated: "Of course there is no one-ohm resistor anywhere to be found and no impedance divider network." Sorry for this. All the other things I wrote I consider still valid.
Quote from: sparks on May 31, 2013, 02:28:45 AM
I can understand how by use of resonance we can store energy. Not unlike a battery or a catapault of a flywheel-etc. The part I don't get about Tesla and his magnifying transmitter is his claim that the natural medium offered no resistance to really high potentials at high frequency. What he may have been doing is creating plasma emanating out from his terminal in the air. This would greatly increase the mass in play. The plasma would electrically extend the terminal. I don't see him creating a plasma construct from radiator to receiver without encountering huge amounts of difficulty. But he could make one big ass sky conductor. By excluding any sharp edges or defects his sky terminal would not create the lightning bolts he is famous for. In fact the guys who have those sharp little pipes hanging out of a Tesla transformer are using Tesla's safety circuit. I have created a weird plasma thing before. It isn't bright white crackling zig zag lightning looking stuff. It is more like a flame. I used an iron coil (by chance) mid-tapped with the anode of an old tv set attached to the middle. It created ion wind at least a foot away. The flames were coming out of both ends of the iron wire and bowing towards each other along a smooth circumference. I imagine if I put information riding the hv flyback somehow the flames would have danced. I gotta repeat this experiment again. I've had this old microwave oven sitting around just too busy to get past the one way screws built for guys like me. If tesla did make a huge antennae made out of plasma instead of conventional metals, any wave activity in the plasma would act just like wave activity in an antennae mast. I haven't seen any broadcast antennae's 2 or 3 miles high with a 20 mile radius at the top. I really don't know what the fuck he was up to in NJ but I believe a metal object like an airplane flying over that tower would have let go a couple of electrons and look like a ship lit up with St. Elmo's fire right before the crackler blows the mast to shit.
I don't think he said that, do you have a reference "in context" for that claim ?
Tesla had two separate and distinct uses for the Magnifying transmitter, one was the transmission of signals which could be done at a higher frequency because of the need for less power and the other was the transmission of power which needed to be done at lower frequencies to avoid losses. Tesla often spoke of the losses.
A quote from Tesla "in context" showing the claim or it didn't happen. I think I know the text you refer to but I think it is most likely misunderstood, and to reply to a claim it needs to be considered in the context it was made.
discussing hearsay is pointless and causes more problems than it solves, IF you wish to discuss a claim made by Tesla or anyone else for that matter you should provide a quote "in context" containing the claim and a reference for where it was taken from. Otherwise it can't be verified as an actual claim made.
Cheers
@farmhand your right. It may not have been in reference to his wireless transmission of power. I took the liberty of assumption that he was rendering the natural medium conductive in the magnifying transmitter. If you look at the progression of patents filed on transmission of energy without wires he first has a wire strung between transmitter and receivers. Then the wire disappears. My best guess is that he had the high voltage minute duty cycle energy input to simulate the electric field flux changes of an ultraviolet wave. This would ionize the air molecules rendering it into a plasma. Then the low frequency information caused plasma wave activity. No idea as to what plasma with low frequency wave patterns does as far as radiation of energy but it would be interesting to find out.
cheers ???
I believe the information below may explain what Tesla was up to with the magnifying transmitter. If we add the Earth into the transmission line standing waves would begin to develop in the Earth and extensions of the Earth like his receivers. The voltage between nodes and antinodes developed within the reciever could be used to charge local capacitors. Or the magnetic field changes associated with the currents inside the transmission line could drive various transformer secondaries. This would effectively insert a dummy load to the transmission line superimposed oscillations. This would allow more waves to leave the transmission line than are reflected. Power then flows from scource to load. http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/6.html (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/6.html)
Quoting Farmhand about this thread from an EF thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14165-solenoid-electromagnet.html#post233920 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14165-solenoid-electromagnet.html#post233920)
QuotePlease just ignore the posts by Synchro and Milehigh, they are extremists.
Farmhand's comment about my postings in this thread is pure junk trash talk. My comments in this thread are sincere and real and they should not be ignored. They are not extremest at all. The guy has some issues.
QuoteHere is what I think the claims are saying. If the voltage is too low, then the distance between the capacitor "plates" is too great for the capacity to be effectively used.
ie. If the conductors have insulation 5 mm thick then using 1 volt won't utilize the capacity very well and the capacity will not then contribute to the lowering of the resonance frequency. Kinda like trying to use 1 volt with a HV parallel plate air capacitor with 10 mm spacing between the plates, it won't work very well.
It makes sense to me.
Farmhand's comments in fact make no sense at all. Trying to draw a relationship between the capacitor voltage and the separation between the wire conductors (a.k.a. "plates") makes no sense at all. There is no real relationship between the voltage and the separation, it's just a speculation that is completely off base. The notion that "low voltage won't 'use' the capacity and the the capacity won't contribute to the lowering of the resonance frequency" is dead wrong. The effect of the capacitance on the coil is completely independent of the voltage.
QuoteKinda like trying to use 1 volt with a HV parallel plate air capacitor with 10 mm spacing between the plates, it won't work very well.
The above statement by Farmhand is a completely nonsensical statement. Again, the idea that putting only one volt across a high-voltage capacitor "won't work very well" is ridiculous, it will work just fine.
What's also very clear in reading the EF thread called "The Solenoid/Electromagnet" is that there are indeed many misconceptions about the Tesla coil and people simply want to believe that the coil has some fantastical properties just because Tesla's name is attached to it. A thread like this one on OU is worth reading and thinking about. This reflex among Tesla enthusiasts that says, "whatever Tesla did must be fantastic and amazing and ahead of its time" is clearly the wrong way of going about things. You should not prejudge something to be great. Rather, do the investigation yourself with an open mind without preconceiving anything ahead of time.
MileHigh
I agree that alot if not all public information regarding Tesla's work are limited to his development of alternators-transformers and development of the dynamic capacitor. By this imagine that you are able to dump a thousand horsepower into something. That would be the work of a thousand horses for an hour. This device fits in a suitcase. You then transport the briefcase to your car. There the oscillations are damped and you get your thousand horsepower hours out as you drive around town. The Steven Marks device is very similar to the Tesla dynamic capacitor. It is a dynamic capacitor. It needs to be charged. It's energy density makes solid hydrogen density about as dense as a cup of water at room temperature.
More responses to Farmhand in the EF thread called "The Solenoid/Electromagnet."
QuoteThe self capacitance is related to the voltage applied in Tesla's coil for
Electro-Magnets due to the reasons I outlined about the capacitor plate
separation. Some people who claim to be quite smart tried to deny that.
But it is true and it fits conventional knowledge and is logical.
Again, this is wrong. The self-capacitance is related to the geometry of the coil and the permittivity of the dielectric insulation between the windings. It is
not related to the voltage applied. The voltage applied will determine how much energy can be stored in the capacitance. This is not to be confused with capacitance and inductance interacting at a given frequency to cancel each other out. This cancellation effect will take place independent of the applied voltage.
QuoteSo to properly tune a Coil for electro-magnets, the voltage to be used is also
a consideration. A coil wound for effect at 100 Khz using 10 000 volts will not
work the same if 10 volts is used due to the capacitor plate separation
(thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self
capacitance to be less.
One more time, Farmhand is wrong. If you excite the coil with a 100 KHz, 10,000 Vrms signal to get the self-cancellation effect, then you can excite the same coil with a 100 KHz, 10 Vrms signal and you will get exactly the same self-cancellation effect.
When he says, "due to the capacitor plate separation (thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self capacitance to be less," he is wrong again. We know that the capacitor plate separation is a constant. Therefore the self-capacitance will be a constant. The self-capacitance does
not change with voltage like Farmhand seems to be suggesting.
Anybody that doubts me can look up capacitance and see how a basic capacitor is constructed with two metal plates separated by a certain distance with the separation filled with a dielectric material with a certain permittivity. You will not find any voltage variable that comes into play to determine the capacitance. Don't get thrown off in your understanding of the basic building blocks of electronics because this has the potential to corrupt all of your subsequent learning.
QuoteThis is evidenced by the way Radio coils are spaced to reduce self capacitance.
The above is a comment that does not make any sense. The self-capacitance in radio coils will be ignored, assuming that we are looking at the example of an early 20th century AM radio. The coils in an AM radio are all paired with capacitors or variable capacitors to make LC resonators. The manufacturers of the coils for use in radios and the designers of radios were never concerned about the insignificant self-capacitance of their coils. They were designing LC resonators for radios using external capacitors and the self-capacitance of the coils was never even considered. This is another example of this phenomenon of reading too much into the patent like I have already stated.
For what it's worth, radio coils are normally spaced in a way to avoid mutual coupling between coils. So it's the form of the external magnetic field outside the coil and possible undesirable mutual coupling and not the self-capacitance that is the prime consideration for the spacing and placement of coils inside an AM radio.
QuotePeople can dispute whatever they like but time will tell all truths.
You sure as hell are right about that one.
QuoteDon't listen to the extremists. They avoid the valid points and dwell on, "it has
no uses so the patent is pointless", or, "this coil makes free energy".
I am not an extremist, I am a practical realist. Nor am I ignoring any valid points. Right now the patent is next to pointless. If you want an LC resonator you pick a coil and a capacitor to make your resonator, you don't need to investigate a self-resonating coil. A resonator designed with separate L and C components will be more stable and superior to relying on a coil's self-capacitance. Beyond that, nobody has offered up a practical application for this "series bifilar" coil and the question was posed by me on this forum more than a month ago.
You want even better advice? Don't listen to people that you have some doubts about. If you are not getting the right feeling or something doesn't seem quite right, then do the research for yourself if you are capable. Trust your instincts and be honest with yourself about your ability to make these kinds of technical judgement calls. Another possibility is to bootstrap yourself up the learning curve. Or perhaps consulting with people that you do have a good feeling about and believe that they are competent with respect to the subject matter at hand would be another way to go.
MileHigh
More comments on Farmhand's posting on EF:
Quote.S. The effect of the "cancelling of the effects of the self inductance" is a
reactance thing, but it is not limited to AC excitement, the coil can be excited
with DC pulses at the correct frequency or alternating positive and negative
DC pulses (less than 50% duty or less than a Square wave AC). What the
patent does not relate to is Uninterrupted DC, uninterrupted DC after some
initial time only faces the DC resistance of the coil anyway, so no need for a
special coil, unless Pulsed DC is used or AC or alternating DC pulses.
If a coil is pulsed with DC pulses at a random frequency the coil will exhibit
reactance and the reactance can be cancelled if the excitement of the coil is
done at the correct frequency for the effect to manifest.
It's Tesla, 101. Using resonance effects.
When Farmhand says, "but it is not limited to AC excitement, the coil can be excited with DC pulses at the correct frequency" he is dead wrong. For starters, "DC pulses" are actually AC from a circuit perspective. You cannot equate an AC sine wave at a given frequency to a DC pulse train at the same frequency. The coil will
not react the same way to the two waveforms, even though they ostensibly are at the same frequency. A square wave can be broken down into a series of separate frequencies, each one a sine wave. The coil will react differently to each separate frequency and you get the final response from the coil by adding up all of the individual responses. All of the sine waves with the exception of the fundamental frequency sine wave will result in some form of reactive response from the coil.
I just described the frequency-domain analysis. The entire analysis for how the coil will react to a square wave pulse train can also be done in the time domain.
It turns out that "Tesla 101" is a little bit more complicated than some people think. Note also that "Tesla 101" kind of has a feeling that somebody is trying to teach you something. Please refer to my comments at the end of my previous posting about that issue.
MileHigh
I would think that Tesla was having trouble with developing high voltage capacitors so he used the capacitance of the coil itself. The coil is just a tank but the components are not discrete. This would save on resistive and inductive losses in any shunts between discrete components. If you take two sheets of aluminum with a seperator between same. coil them up and drop them in some oil you have an oil filled capacitor. You also have a bifilar wound coil. You have mutual inductance as I would imagine electrons would be moving within the capacitor and give rise to magnetic field flux changes that would cause eddy currents in the foil. All sorts of changes in the resonant frequency of the tank as the rlc values drift all over the place. The necessity to monitor all the major components for values and adjust for changes in same. Meanwhile the tesla bifilar wound tank suffered from few of these problems if any.
Quote from: sparks on July 07, 2013, 03:55:24 AM
I would think that Tesla was having trouble with developing high voltage capacitors so he used the capacitance of the coil itself. The coil is just a tank but the components are not discrete. This would save on resistive and inductive losses in any shunts between discrete components. If you take two sheets of aluminum with a seperator between same. coil them up and drop them in some oil you have an oil filled capacitor. You also have a bifilar wound coil. You have mutual inductance as I would imagine electrons would be moving within the capacitor and give rise to magnetic field flux changes that would cause eddy currents in the foil. All sorts of changes in the resonant frequency of the tank as the rlc values drift all over the place. The necessity to monitor all the major components for values and adjust for changes in same. Meanwhile the tesla bifilar wound tank suffered from few of these problems if any.
You hit the nail on the head. He was having trouble with capacitors and Higher voltages. This is why he developed the coils initially. But if we look at the Pancake coils we will understand something quite remarkable about the coils. As with the JLN LAbs experiment there is something when the (cap coil) is used in an unconventional way. Even though the self induction is vastly reduced it still receives a signal at an amplified manner through induction. This is from the flat sides of the pancake coil. The amount of amplification is based on a few things. One is the capacitance of the coil and the other thing is the length of the wire of both parallel wires. Since we know capacitance is real and works like any real capacitor this is used to put power behind any signal the coil is tuned for, for output from the receiving bifilar pancake coil to load.
As for the increased magnetic component I am designing aa simple experiment to prove this to any nay-sayer. It's there but most only play with solenoids and this won't be a prevalent as with the pancake design. The lengths of the coils must also be Long and the signals used must be 1/4 wave of that length or there about for the coils to have a resonant response.
My first experiments with a cap coil were with regular caps and an outside signal being fed into a coil around the caps. Itsu did a small set of experiments with this and it led me to other experiments with a katcher coil and it's output being fed to the coil around the cap which energized the cap to a limited degree. But none the less it did energize the cap from outside of the cap. What JNL Labs did was to continue these initial tests with a different approach that others have tried in the past. Through induction from the flat side of the coils of a bifilar wound pancake coils they saw a greater response to induced power in the bifilar receiver coils which powered a load. As for the type of signal we need I have not gotten that far in my investigations of this bifilar design. Most investigations have been with inputting a signal directly into the coil and that is an incorrect way to view this coil. It is what is external to the coil that we must investigate and the coils response to that external environment. It is what is being put out and what is being received that we must investigate.
What is the correct geometry of the input and output.
Would a normal wire axial to the center of the cap coil net more in and out then we see with a traditional solenoid coil? How does a bifilar coil react to impulses applied to it in the normal fashion?
Does the bifilar coil charge up faster then a traditional solenoid since self induction is cancelled from the bifilar coil?
How does the bifilar react to impulses as apposed to an AC or DC waveform, both internally or externally?
These are real questions that have not been asked and most certainly not been answered in the correct manner by most.
I suspect that Kapanadze did ask these questions and found the correct geometry and method to use with a bifilar coil to amplify a signal and found a way to convert the response into real current for use from his devices. In all of his devices I see a common theme which is not a trick. That theme is TESLA. This is not hero worship it is a stated fact from MR. Kapanadze. All of his Tricks are just common Tesla methods. If it is true then looking at Tesla methods is what we need to do. There is nothing magical about Tesla's methods and nothing magical about Tesla. He was a doer and not an armchair scientist/physicist. Now we need to investigate, for real, what Kapanadze learned about Tesla's methods. How these methods can be applied to our lives to improve our lives should be the goal. Not disputing and fighting the claims in un-humanistic ways, we should be able to do this with dignity and basic respect for one another.
I have shown many times before how Kapanadze and others have taken Tesla's methods and used them to an advantage. I have tried to explain these findings with an honest approach. Most of the time I have been accused of heresy to the dogma that is science today. I have been debased and attacked on a most personal way and I relish the attempts because I know there is truth behind me. Tesla felt the same. We just need to put aside our prejudices to the current proposed methods and look at it with fresh eyes and open minds. We need this as a society if we are to survive. Our lives are changing every day and we should be able to live without sacrificing our lives for money to afford the basics of life. In this day and age we should be able to live without toil and the forced "fight to survive". Life doesn't come at a price, it is a gift from the Universe. Living that life should not cost us our souls and our precious moments in that life. We should live to experience life and not be forced into slavery to afford that life and experiencing the worst of that life.
So lets try to learn what Tesla and others were trying to say. Lets experience the wonder of life again and learn the true nature of nature.
Peace to you all
jbignes5
Quote from: jbignes5 on July 08, 2013, 08:48:35 AM
You hit the nail on the head. He was having trouble with capacitors and Higher voltages. This is why he developed the coils initially. But if we look at the Pancake coils we will understand something quite remarkable about the coils. As with the JLN LAbs experiment there is something when the (cap coil) is used in an unconventional way. Even though the self induction is vastly reduced it still receives a signal at an amplified manner through induction. This is from the flat sides of the pancake coil. The amount of amplification is based on a few things. One is the capacitance of the coil and the other thing is the length of the wire of both parallel wires. Since we know capacitance is real and works like any real capacitor this is used to put power behind any signal the coil is tuned for, for output from the receiving bifilar pancake coil to load.
As for the increased magnetic component I am designing aa simple experiment to prove this to any nay-sayer. It's there but most only play with solenoids and this won't be a prevalent as with the pancake design. The lengths of the coils must also be Long and the signals used must be 1/4 wave of that length or there about for the coils to have a resonant response.
My first experiments with a cap coil were with regular caps and an outside signal being fed into a coil around the caps. Itsu did a small set of experiments with this and it led me to other experiments with a katcher coil and it's output being fed to the coil around the cap which energized the cap to a limited degree. But none the less it did energize the cap from outside of the cap. What JNL Labs did was to continue these initial tests with a different approach that others have tried in the past. Through induction from the flat side of the coils of a bifilar wound pancake coils they saw a greater response to induced power in the bifilar receiver coils which powered a load. As for the type of signal we need I have not gotten that far in my investigations of this bifilar design. Most investigations have been with inputting a signal directly into the coil and that is an incorrect way to view this coil. It is what is external to the coil that we must investigate and the coils response to that external environment. It is what is being put out and what is being received that we must investigate.
What is the correct geometry of the input and output.
Would a normal wire axial to the center of the cap coil net more in and out then we see with a traditional solenoid coil? How does a bifilar coil react to impulses applied to it in the normal fashion?
Does the bifilar coil charge up faster then a traditional solenoid since self induction is cancelled from the bifilar coil?
How does the bifilar react to impulses as apposed to an AC or DC waveform, both internally or externally?
These are real questions that have not been asked and most certainly not been answered in the correct manner by most.
I suspect that Kapanadze did ask these questions and found the correct geometry and method to use with a bifilar coil to amplify a signal and found a way to convert the response into real current for use from his devices. In all of his devices I see a common theme which is not a trick. That theme is TESLA. This is not hero worship it is a stated fact from MR. Kapanadze. All of his Tricks are just common Tesla methods. If it is true then looking at Tesla methods is what we need to do. There is nothing magical about Tesla's methods and nothing magical about Tesla. He was a doer and not an armchair scientist/physicist. Now we need to investigate, for real, what Kapanadze learned about Tesla's methods. How these methods can be applied to our lives to improve our lives should be the goal. Not disputing and fighting the claims in un-humanistic ways, we should be able to do this with dignity and basic respect for one another.
I have shown many times before how Kapanadze and others have taken Tesla's methods and used them to an advantage. I have tried to explain these findings with an honest approach. Most of the time I have been accused of heresy to the dogma that is science today. I have been debased and attacked on a most personal way and I relish the attempts because I know there is truth behind me. Tesla felt the same. We just need to put aside our prejudices to the current proposed methods and look at it with fresh eyes and open minds. We need this as a society if we are to survive. Our lives are changing every day and we should be able to live without sacrificing our lives for money to afford the basics of life. In this day and age we should be able to live without toil and the forced "fight to survive". Life doesn't come at a price, it is a gift from the Universe. Living that life should not cost us our souls and our precious moments in that life. We should live to experience life and not be forced into slavery to afford that life and experiencing the worst of that life.
So lets try to learn what Tesla and others were trying to say. Lets experience the wonder of life again and learn the true nature of nature.
Peace to you all
jbignes5
I see value in just creating an electrical tank circuit that would be able to store electrical energy. This would allow a huge and diverse source of "conventional" alternative energy sources to be Universally distributed. If his magnifying transmitter was successfully deployed then we would be able to jump over the proposed hydrogen fuel distribution scheme and just put up magnifying transmitters everywhere. When your source supply is not needed at your site it pops up in an oscillator whose vibrations are being damped at a load center. The need to package and transport fuels completely unnecessary. The need to string wires with huge self-inductance losses all over the place done with. The need for unsightly microwave towers beaming highwattage emwaves into communities done. (Tesla devised methods to hetrodyne information carrying frequencies on the power carrying waves) This is literally decentralization of power generation. Not a good thing in the eyes of various emperor wannabees.
Quote from: sparks on July 08, 2013, 10:34:26 AM
I see value in just creating an electrical tank circuit that would be able to store electrical energy. This would allow a huge and diverse source of "conventional" alternative energy sources to be Universally distributed. If his magnifying transmitter was successfully deployed then we would be able to jump over the proposed hydrogen fuel distribution scheme and just put up magnifying transmitters everywhere. When your source supply is not needed at your site it pops up in an oscillator whose vibrations are being damped at a load center. The need to package and transport fuels completely unnecessary. The need to string wires with huge self-inductance losses all over the place done with. The need for unsightly microwave towers beaming highwattage emwaves into communities done. (Tesla devised methods to hetrodyne information carrying frequencies on the power carrying waves) This is literally decentralization of power generation. Not a good thing in the eyes of various emperor wannabees.
The problem with that solution is that without induction that is separate from the capacitance we have zero oscillations. The only point in including the capacitance is that it changes the kickback effect or in Tesla's words False currents. Self inductance or resistance to change is neutralized in the bifilar design so that any change is met with near zero resistance, besides the resistance of the wire. This lets impulses travel at faster speed then what they were put in.**explained below** If we follow Tesla on this route we realize that when something has an increase in speed it's energy value is also increased.
Now if we look at the geometry and winding direction of the bifilar pancake:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets (http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets) , we see that current flows from outside to inside of the coil, then goes from outside to inside yet again. All while reducing the self inductance by keeping theses conductors apart from themselves. This is what raises the capacitance and hence lowers the self inductance. This process also has a lot to do with how the energy pulls on itself in the capacitance. Since there are two conductors and each conductor must be either a negative or positive there is a definite direction to the current. Also the winding direction of the current or turns determines the polarity of the magnetic field. With two wires flowing in opposite directions of the same current we can see it can get very complicated. The magnetic field would compound and become stronger, on not two wires but a very complex 3 component system. Let me explain.
Besides the outside wires all wires in this coil are surrounded by two conductors. Check the patent and you can see this in the lower bifilar pancake coil. Since charges take time to flow this means charges would effect other charges flowing in the coil at any given point except for the outside winds. **** Not to mention that each conductor flowing in each direction would have an opposite polarity as given by your own physics (right hand rule)****. This is very complicated stuff and not any backyard technician would know much about that type of stuff unless he educated himself on a very great many things.
**** After further review I have to correct my mistake. Each coil flows in the same direction twords the middle. I am sorry about the mistake and fully take that statement back about opposite polarities. There is an attached picture #2 of the bifilar coil with color coding for the coils except I added something to think about. High voltage impulse emitter single turn coil around the bifilar with added ground nipple in the middle. The radial lines going into the center nipple(Blue & Black & Blue) are the e-field lines(blue) flowing twords ground.
Not only is this very complicated there is another aspect that I wish to touch on and that is the subject of an e-field on the velocity of such charges flowing in the coil. Say a biasing high voltage e-field is applied to the environment around the coil. What effect do you think this would have on charges flowing on the inside of the coil? Given your own physics lets say a certain wattage is flowing in the bifilar coil. If this e-field gets induced into the coil would this change the wattage flowing out of the coil? What happens when you raise one of the components of the supply? The wattage would increase right? More current would raise the wattage and more voltage would do the same right? The e-field could be given a direction by including a way to concentrate that by including a grounding wire in the center of the coil right? This would concentrate the e-field and give it a way to stream across the bifilar coil raising the inducing voltage as it streams to the ground wire. The e-field can be created by a single loop around the bifilar pancake and the ground wire is the exit through the center of the bifilar. Now this ground wire shouldn't be very large at all, just a nipple could be used in the center because the bifilar pancake is 2d based. Where there to be multiple coils all in parallel you could use a much longer wire as a single source of the ground wire and reduce the wire resistance to near zero values. What kind of impulses could be used in a system like that? What kind of current do you think would be flowing in a system like that?
Tesla even devised a better capacitor that was oil filled:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-567,818-electrical-condenser (http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-567,818-electrical-condenser)
These caps were designed for use extreme high voltages as with his impulse devices. In these devices it was merely to create an exciter like e-field around, lets say his bifilar coil for instance. if the e-field had a way to flow out of the coils center, what kind of effect would it have on the bifilar coil(s) as they were working? My guess and the guess of many High energy physicists say it would accelerate charges. ie The example of how a particle accelerator works. This is not fantasy as some say because if it was then particle accelerators would not work as seen today. This idea was started via Tesla through his death beam work. You might want to check out the open ended vacuum tube he designed just for particle accelerator weapon systems. This system was also used in generating huge currents when the particles slammed into copper plates that were grounded. The measuring device was in between the plate and ground. The ground in this case was the proverbial sink Tesla was talking about.
Below is the picture of the tube design:
I will leave you with that to chew on for a bit.
Jbignes5:
I find your comments depressing and disheartening. You have people that are beginners interested in learning and experimenting with electronics and they read stuff like you posted and it completely corrupts their understanding.
I can't tell you how many times I have looked at YouTube clips where people are fascinated with their experiments and they are convinced that they are doing something out of the ordinary but it's not true. They are observing their circuit doing exactly what it is supposed to do and convincing themselves that they are seeing something that "conventional science" does not understand. Part of that problem stems from reading stuff from people like you.
You just posted a big treatise on what you call a "cap coil" or what we decided to call a "series bifilar coil" on another thread. So you have a lot to say implying that you think you know what you are talking about.
I will repeat the challenge that I made to you before: If you think you understand how a coil works I will give you a ridiculously simple circuit that includes a coil. I will ask you to explain what the circuit does.
If you can't answer the simple question about the operation of the circuit that includes a coil then I would suggest to you that you do some soul-searching because your two posts above are outrageous.
MileHigh
Tesla said electrically that the Earth acted like a small highly polished copper ball. Also in explaining his magnifying transmitter system he used the analogy of the Earth as a waterballoon with the mt a piston pump and a far receiver a piston pump also. When the mt piston was forced down the internal pressure of the balloon would be increased. This pressure could only escape through the far piston being forced up. When the mt was relaxed the far piston would then return the mt piston to it's raised position. I would think that if you pump electrons into the ground they would physically displace electrons surrounding the cathodic element. So put the two together. If he was going to hit the ground with lots and lots of negative charge carriers this would increase the pressure inside the copper ball. He determined the capacitance of the entire Earth to be very small. Microfarads or something. This means it wouldn't take much current flow to fill her up. Any further electrons accelerated into the cathode would result in a linear increase in the amount of charge residing in the copper ball. This pressure would then be vented into receiver tanks whose oscillations when damped through a load resistance would furnish power. He also noted that this damping of the load tanks would result in a decreased amplitude of the reflected wave proportional to the amount of wave damping. Like a room full of tuning forks.
You stirke one and soon all the others are ringing. Including one you touch. The one you touch rings down because of the resitance to it's natural harmonic movement afforded by your hand. The mt ringsdown faster because it isn't getting any oscillations back and needs to make another strike. In Tesla's case lightning strike.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2013, 03:22:10 PM
Jbignes5:
I find your comments depressing and disheartening. You have people that are beginners interested in learning and experimenting with electronics and they read stuff like you posted and it completely corrupts their understanding.
I can't tell you how many times I have looked at YouTube clips where people are fascinated with their experiments and they are convinced that they are doing something out of the ordinary but it's not true. They are observing their circuit doing exactly what it is supposed to do and convincing themselves that they are seeing something that "conventional science" does not understand. Part of that problem stems from reading stuff from people like you.
You just posted a big treatise on what you call a "cap coil" or what we decided to call a "series bifilar coil" on another thread. So you have a lot to say implying that you think you know what you are talking about.
I will repeat the challenge that I made to you before: If you think you understand how a coil works I will give you a ridiculously simple circuit that includes a coil. I will ask you to explain what the circuit does.
If you can't answer the simple question about the operation of the circuit that includes a coil then I would suggest to you that you do some soul-searching because your two posts above are outrageous.
MileHigh
Frankly I don't care what you think. Lets look at what happened to someone on the cutting edge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ZgJBuq4XY
This is exactly what you are doing.You like the professionals of the day assumed it was impossible without and experimental proof. You pose questions about a certain circuit that you know will fail the quest we are on. Always you talk about another thread that you fully understand this coil. You don't have any clue at all. Nothing in your explanations refute what I said besides you relating to this other thread...
Like I said before I don't much care what you think, just like the man above who didn't listen to any of the professionals saying it was bunk, he really was the father of lasers. Now go bother someone who does care. I'm not here for you or anyone else but my own discoveries and experiments and to share such with others who do want to understand these things.
Jbignes5:
You are the one that doesn't have a clue at all.
You are citing a very legitimate example about a scientist on the cutting edge not being able to convince his peers, it happens all the time. It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms.
The major problem is that you are trying to draw an analogy with what you are doing and the introduction of the LASER in the early 1960s and nothing could be further from the truth. You are simply talking clueless pseudoscience junk. So much of it in fact that it's not worth rebutting it point by point.
Nor are you talking about anything on the cutting edge, you are talking about an inductor. This is a basic building block of electronics. It's something that has been understood for more than a century. So that means that someone from 1910 would look at your two postings about coils and think that you were living in a fantasy land.
The point behind my simple circuit and the question is to see if you can demonstrate to the readers the most basic fundamental understanding of how a coil works. I am not suggesting the question to "fail the quest you are on," rather, I am suggesting the question because it is so basic and I know that you won't be able to answer it. So you can talk on and on about all of the pseudoelectronics talk, but you can't answer the most basic question to show that you understand how an inductor works. That's to make you think and also frankly to give the readers an opportunity to consider your whole pitch. You are afraid of the question.
Finally, almost none of that mumbo jumbo you talked about in your two postings cold be verified on the bench, and by reading your prose it's obvious you don't have the bench skills to verify them even if you wanted to.
That's it Jbignes5, I am not going to force the issue. My posting is a posting on principle. You make a mockery of science and electronics and you aren't even self-aware or you are in denial. I set the record straight for the readers and they can make up their own minds.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2013, 07:17:23 PM
Jbignes5:
You are the one that doesn't have a clue at all.
You are citing a very legitimate example about a scientist on the cutting edge not being able to convince his peers, it happens all the time. It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms.
The major problem is that you are trying to draw an analogy with what you are doing and the introduction of the LASER in the early 1960s and nothing could be further from the truth. You are simply talking clueless pseudoscience junk. So much of it in fact that it's not worth rebutting it point by point.
Nor are you talking about anything on the cutting edge, you are talking about an inductor. This is a basic building block of electronics. It's something that has been understood for more than a century. So that means that someone from 1910 would look at your two postings about coils and think that you were living in a fantasy land.
The point behind my simple circuit and the question is to see if you can demonstrate to the readers the most basic fundamental understanding of how a coil works. I am not suggesting the question to "fail the quest you are on," rather, I am suggesting the question because it is so basic and I know that you won't be able to answer it. So you can talk on and on about all of the pseudoelectronics talk, but you can't answer the most basic question to show that you understand how an inductor works. That's to make you think and also frankly to give the readers an opportunity to consider your whole pitch. You are afraid of the question.
Finally, almost none of that mumbo jumbo you talked about in your two postings cold be verified on the bench, and by reading your prose it's obvious you don't have the bench skills to verify them even if you wanted to.
That's it Jbignes5, I am not going to force the issue. My posting is a posting on principle. You make a mockery of science and electronics and you aren't even self-aware or you are in denial. I set the record straight for the readers and they can make up their own minds.
MileHigh
"It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms."
Now see, this is where I have issue with some of your replies. You make it seem like everything has been found out about everything. In your statement I put in quotes above, you are claiming that everything about lasers and what they can be used for has already been done and there is nothing left to find. That is wrong. I see new things that lasers are used for all the time. Maybe there hasnt been for 2 months lets say. Does that mean there done and thats all? Well I guess so, till someone comes up with something new, when ever that happens. And it does. Your statement discourages innovation. It discourages possible discovery of new kinds of apple pie! lol
Is that statement something you want to stick with? Or does it need editing for correction? ;)
The same goes for bifilar coils. Not 'everything' has been tried yet. I mean like, is there only one kind of apple pie? Are there only a small number of types of apple pie? Is it impossible to bake an apple pie that might taste better than any apple pie ever made before? ;) Now, the books you might have read may say there are only so many kinds of apple pie, and thats all there is or can be. If we went to a baking forum, Im sure many would be up for the 'Can there be a new apple pie' challenge. ;) Would you reply to them calling them pseudobakers? Accuse them of bakery?? lol
Im putting in the time on this one and so far, lets just say Im not discouraged. ;)
Lets just say what I have learned so far, is what direction I need to go with it. ;D
Mags
Magluvin:
You are reading into my simple sentence that you quoted and extrapolating and drawing the wrong conclusions. I am fully aware that the photonics industry is amazing and new things are being developed on a daily basis. In the 1990s I worked in the photonics industry and used to flip through Photonics Spectra magazine. It was a "hard core" magazine and I mostly just read the headlines and flipped though it. I did the search and this is what came up:
http://photonics.com/ (http://photonics.com/)
Honestly, the whole photonics industry is absolutely mind blowing. It's amazing to think how it just materialized out of nowhere (more or less.)
For coils, on the other hand, that's a pretty established and understood thing. Many people that read this forum may not be aware that there is an entire magnetics industry and it has been around for a very long time.
http://www.intl-magnetics.org/aboutima.php (http://www.intl-magnetics.org/aboutima.php)
Seasoned professionals in the magnetics industry would read Jbignes5's postings and either laugh, or look for a straightjacket.
Here is the real point that I think sums it up nicely: Any coil, and I mean any coil, will have it inductance and frequency response characteristics, and the associated stray capacitance characteristics, the DC pulse response characteristics, magnetic field pattern, etc. Certainly there is room for a lot of variation when you look at those characteristics. But the key point is that they are still all fundamentally coils and will work as per the differential and integral equations that define that two-terminal device.
Why do I say, "two-terminal device?" Because when you strip it down to the bare bones, all that you have is two terminals and you can apply some sort of stimulus to those two terminals (pulse, AC, etc.) and then see how those two terminals respond. You can put any kind of inductor across those two terminals hidden inside a black box and by observing how those two terminals respond you can deduce that there is an inductor connected to those two terminals. (That's why I hate the fact that you guys call the Tesla cola a "bifilar" coil.)
So you can put any standard coil, or a Tesla series bifilar coil, or a Rodin coil across those two terminals and by making measurements you can determine that yes indeed it is a coil and then you can determine the other parameters.
In that sense, a "Rodin coil" or a "Rodin starship coil" are simply exercises in nonsensical folly. The star points don't do much, they might add a smidgen of extra capacitance. There is nothing that a "Rodin" coil can do that a regular coil can't do better and more efficiently.
MileHigh
P.S.: Part two coming up.
Part two - just to make it more manageable....
Let's assume that there are some niche applications for the Tesla series bifilar pancake coil. That's all fine and dandy, it just represents the application of coil technology to meet certain design requirements. For example they use regular pancake coils to induce eddy currents into pots and pans in an induction stove. That's great, but is it some kind of amazing thing that is "outside the norm of conventional electronics?" The answer is absolutely not.
So my challenge stands, if anybody can demonstrate something totally amazing and out of the ordinary about the Tesla series bifilar coil, or they can come up with a special unique application that is outside the realm of "conventional electronics" then bring it on and we can discuss it. If nobody can do that then my previous comments stand. There is no magic to the Tesla series bifilar patent from the late 19th century, none. Instead of studying the patent, you should be studying how an inductor works first to give yourself a foundation to work from. The same applies to capacitors and transistors and MOSFETs. I have seen people that have been building pulse motors for two or more years and they have an oscilloscope but they still don't know how to use their scope to check how well or poorly the transistor is functioning in their pulse motor.
But when you get into what Jbignes5 says about the Tesla series bifilar coil, most of it is ridiculous nonsense. I dropped into a recent EF thread about the same stuff and about half of the posters are posting similar fantastical claims and they clearly believe what they are posting.
I am not here to save the world and in the final analysis I don't care, it's just a forum. But there are some real principles involved and it's fun to state the truth and expose the people that try to sound authoritative for what they really are. Look at the case of the person that got his hand ripped to shreds by the ball bearing motor. Perhaps one day an amateur experimenter, egged on by someone like Jbignes5, will be be doing some crazy experiment with a big coil and emitting tons of RF noise. On the other side of his apartment wall there will be somebody in bed hooked up to some kind of neural stimulator and the RF noise will fry the neural stimulator and crash it. Then the person hooked up to the now dead neural stimulator will have a brain seizure and die. (Has anybody looked at Itsu's clips where he scrambles the brains of his modern DSO when he makes his spikes go too high in voltage?)
So seriously, to everybody, don't listen to Jbignes5's talk about inductors. The guy doesn't even understand how one works. I say this from reading many of his postings over the years and from my own technical background. By all means have fun experimenting but don't listen to Jbignes5's crap. Find other legit sources of information and have some fun. There are literally hundreds of legitimate YouTube clips that teach you the basics about electronics.
MileHigh
Ok so here was my point about the last link. In my real research that others here like milehigh shun or should I call him Verpies. Yes his speeches definitely sound just like Verpies. In fact Verpies is known to have multiple accounts. See Verpies has a thing for me and any time he can he uses his alt accounts to try and discredit me. This makes me think I'm really onto something here.
So back to the direction I was going.
Lets look at what current science knows about my last link. The Laser. This set of clips is about the laser. I know what does this have to do with the bifilar coil. Well.. To be honest not much but lets look at where it parallels magnetic interactions. And yes from what we know today light is just a electro magnetic phenomena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgivGZqFcfY Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR0LmJbcUxU Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXGBmExbumI Part 3a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVqoVl-CYKo Part 3b
Just hear me out with these. If we understand that light is a wave and that in these teachings they show us how to create an oscillator for light then we should be able to do the same thing with slower magnetic phenomena right? Isn't that what is being taught here.
What I am proposing is a new kind of oscillator that is much like a Laser. The gain medium would be matter like powder ferrite rods. Much like a laser uses a gain medium of ruby or gasses we would use what magnetic medium is good for it. The only gain medium we could use would be ferrite or iron. Since iron would be too much of a loss then there are some nice high permeable ferrites on the market. When you watch the videos keep in mind that you can always substitute electromagnetism for light. Even in the examples of oscillators they give they have a plain tank oscillator as an example. Yes it would be slower but it is the same concept. A magnetic field laser to run the oscillations into our coil.
Don't pay attention to Milehigh. He is not here to find anything outside of his little safe box. He is not here for overunity research, he is here to debunk Overunity and to discredit the ones who are here in honesty for this community to find a better solution to our current problems. This is what they do. In order to work in this field we must form a hardened armor against such people. Do not let them distract you with their mumbo jumbo and attacks on yours and my credibility. Forge ahead and do the experiments. See for yourself what is going on. If you fail then try again and again and again. Watch and observe the experiment and record your findings. Forge on without paying attention to the ones who make a living off of all of us. They are parasites to the human condition. They bleed us of our precious time and imagination and stifle the creative process because it would not gain them anything.
Milehigh is not here for anything but to keep the status Quo. He has admitted this. He is here to keep the sheeple just that, sheeple. They do not want another Tesla because he would free us from the chains that bind us. Those chains are cleverly devised over tens or hundreds of years. They chain us with their math and keep us from making sense of the now labeled "anomalous" transients. Now back to the discussion.
My original thought was to design something that was proof positive that this concept and observations are in fact based in reality. Not to listen to little men who make tons of cash off of you and me and shun anything that breaks that control over us. Just like the creator of the original light laser we must not listen to the detractors and do the experiments and learn what is real. Not what is chaining us as slaves to these guys. Do not let them stifle your wonder or chain your imagination. If others had listened to them where would we be today?
So what is this question Milehigh? In all of this you have never even asked the question. In fact you have done nothing but say how wrong I have been about even the most simple of inductors? WHATS IS THE QUESTION oh Wonderful OZ.
Here is something I bet you didn't know all knowing OZ. I have a degree in Electronic Technician. I have worked in the field as an electronics technician for over 10 years professionally. I have worked in the field of computers as a Computer Technician for over 20 years and I do not take this area of interest lightly. I was the best warranty Technician at the company I worked for. I was a sub-contractor for many Computer stores for 15 of those 20 years.
Here is a question for you. What makes up a magnetic field, heck what makes up an electric field? How can these fields have order (lines)? None of these questions have been or can be answered. Yet you believe them. If not then Coil theory goes out the door because they talk about lines cutting the matter of the copper. Your theories are bunk and full of made up concepts and just because you created math to prove them does not make them any more real then what I am proposing or what I have experienced in my whole life. Care to explain what causes a toroid transformer to work? Shall we explain that one? If there is a core and the core acts like a sponge to the magnetic field then how does the toroid work? The magnetic field is supposed to be inside of the circular iron or core material, then how does the magnetic field lines cut the wire on the secondary even on the lowest of power levels? From the current understanding it can not cut the secondary, yet it does by all explanations.
So to answer the absurd example posed by MileHigh. Who are you to tell me about the dangers of experimenting. I know full well what the dangers are and in many of my postings I have always talked about safety of the experimenter. If one is experimenting in this field they better know the dangers of that experimenting. You posed some ridiculous example of me scrambling someones brain? WTF is that about? A neural stimulator is used for muscle stimulation not brain stimulation? What kind of crap is that? If it is a medical device your talking about, why would someone be using a neural stimulator that was not designed with shielding to protect the device?
Now you are making up absurd claims of harming others to make your attack have any meaning? Really?
In the first place I never experiment around others. I have done most of my experiments in the basement completely surrounded by the ground and no one above me. To make such an absurd claim is getting desperate and very pointless. Anyone who knows me personally or on these forums knows that I am all about safety when experimenting with any experiment.
Lets talk about safety of our current AC system. Have you ever walked around your house with a good EMF meter? Do you know that AC from the wires is broadcasted into our bodies by this system? Did you know that people living under power lines have a 30% higher chance of getting Cancers? So to speak about safety at this point is absurd. The current system will kill you faster then a Tesla type device ever designed. In fact Tesla when experimenting with his impulses and the Longitudinal wave said at the proper cycles per second that it was most beneficial to the human condition. That most life including Plant life thrives in it's radiations with the proper cycles a second. This value is starting at around 2k a second.
If you are trying to state that I'm using RF you couldn't be further from the truth. Impulse technology is not Hertzian. Hertzian waves are Transverse waves not longitudinal waves. They propagate in two different methods. Of which you have no idea because you reject the concepts before you even know anything about them. When using the bifilar coil you must use Longitudinal waves, not herttzian waves. No wonder you didn't see anything from the bifilar coil thread that you dropped in on and never did the experiments to prove anything, either to yourself or others, this because of your limited belief system and you lack of understanding and experience with Tesla technology.
You are out of your field here and I respectfully ask you to not comment on my posts again until you educate yourself on these topics Verpies. The evidence that you are an alt of Verpies is damning. You have the same style of writing and the same misconceptions as Verpies. The same below the belt attacks as Verpies too. Just give it up ok. You are not gonna stop me or anyone else from researching this technology. End of story.
Jbignes5:
I am not Verpies. Certainly I have seen his name on the forums and must have read his postings.
QuoteSee Verpies has a thing for me and any time he can he uses his alt accounts to try and discredit me. This makes me think I'm really onto something here.
Rosemary Ainslie says similar things but certainly she isn't onto something.
QuoteDon't pay attention to Milehigh. He is not here to find anything outside of his little safe box. He is not here for overunity research, he is here to debunk Overunity and to discredit the ones who are here in honesty for this community to find a better solution to our current problems. This is what they do. In order to work in this field we must form a hardened armor against such people. Do not let them distract you with their mumbo jumbo and attacks on yours and my credibility. Forge ahead and do the experiments. See for yourself what is going on. If you fail then try again and again and again. Watch and observe the experiment and record your findings. Forge on without paying attention to the ones who make a living off of all of us. They are parasites to the human condition. They bleed us of our precious time and imagination and stifle the creative process because it would not gain them anything.
That's the old cliche of the paranoid manifesto. I am just here for fun and to comment on stuff from time to time. Like I discussed qualifying a coil as a two-terminal device. Did you read that? I make a living off of being here? In your fantasies only Jbignes5. I am a parasite on the human condition? That's a goodie. The truth is a substantial number of "free energy professionals" are parasites on the human condition. John Rohner of Inteligentry is one of many many examples.
QuoteMilehigh is not here for anything but to keep the status Quo. He has admitted this. He is here to keep the sheeple just that, sheeple. They do not want another Tesla because he would free us from the chains that bind us. Those chains are cleverly devised over tens or hundreds of years. They chain us with their math and keep us from making sense of the now labeled "anomalous" transients. Now back to the discussion.
Manifesto part 2 and it's the same old story. I am not here to "keep the status quo," you are just constructing a form of Straw Man argument. I would be thrilled if someone solved our energy problems with some new ideas. Sometimes when someone makes comments that are so off base and nonsensical that they can corrupt other people's understanding of electronics I will comment. That's exactly what you did so I commented.
QuoteSo what is this question Milehigh? In all of this you have never even asked the question. In fact you have done nothing but say how wrong I have been about even the most simple of inductors? WHATS IS THE QUESTION oh Wonderful OZ.
You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen?
QuoteHere is a question for you. What makes up a magnetic field, heck what makes up an electric field? How can these fields have order (lines)? None of these questions have been or can be answered.
I know those questions are right out of the free energy enthusiast playbook where it says ask them if someone is talking technical with you and you need a diversion.
QuoteYour theories are bunk and full of made up concepts and just because you created math to prove them does not make them any more real then what I am proposing or what I have experienced in my whole life.
So it appears that you are anti-math because math is hard. And then you dismiss the theories that bring you heat and light and power your computer and run the guts inside your computer? So does that mean you are in favour of the dumbing down of society? lol
I will respond more in part 2.
MileHigh
Respond to this then:
http://www.overunity.com/10043/litmus-test-fail-by-milehigh/
On second thought just don't respond ok. Your credibility is null.
"I know those questions are right out of the free energy enthusiast playbook where it says ask them if someone is talking technical with you and you need a diversion."
It is not a diversion it is a valid question that is much like yours, a diversion did you call it? So your question when getting beat up so bad is to divert the Focus of this topic.
Here is another good question. Lets look at when you use impulses into the very same coil? What happens. Now what happens when you apply those impulses to the bifilar coil. <- this you don't know at all since you have done zero work at all in this field. I mean for gods sake you don't even know that transistors can be made at home and relatively easy too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qph8BNrnLY
This is a person who is demystifying electronics. Completely explains everything in the process and is able to do it at home. Please just stop with the crap you are pushing.
For the last time I am not anti math but when you apply mathematics to explain something why the need to make things up to make it work like the electron? Then apply all that made up math to support your other crap claims.
The first link IS who you are and when called out you either ignore it and switch the subject or you spout crap and expect people to take it for granted that it is fact.
I on the other hand am not stating a fact I am stating my direction in experiments that I think will help us understand energy with a complete concept. These are experiments that are scheduled to be done and I posted them here because they are relevant to the discussion in this thread.
Your intent is to discredit, attack or even discourage people to ask why or how and then prove it to them selves.
Again the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.
Bifilar coils will in my opinion excel in impulse technology since there is nothing in the way of a very high voltage or current impulse. This will allow the coil to convert all of the impulse into the other two components. These impulses as seen by my laser example can have values into the extreme wattage values. Mostly due to the very high currents involved. And with a new oscillator like I proposed getting those high voltage impulses would be very easy and better then solid state products now that can not handle such huge currents or voltages.
So again for someone who doesn't know much about this process I would just stay quiet before you leave this forum like you did at the other forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_generator
And as for your last statement the only dumbing down of society is you and how you are debasing the free thinkers of our society for fun as you put it. So continue to act like a fool and attacking me and others I will be talking to the owner of this forum, Stephan. This will only be done if you continue to attack me or others.
Jbignes5:
Okay here we go with part 2.
QuoteCare to explain what causes a toroid transformer to work? Shall we explain that one? If there is a core and the core acts like a sponge to the magnetic field then how does the toroid work? The magnetic field is supposed to be inside of the circular iron or core material, then how does the magnetic field lines cut the wire on the secondary even on the lowest of power levels? From the current understanding it can not cut the secondary, yet it does by all explanations.
See, here Jbignes5, you are just exposing yourself as being clueless about electronics and also as being a bad influence on anybody learning about electronics. I am just speechless that you are even posing these questions. I suppose that the conclusion is that you don't understand how a toroidal transformer works. What is implied by that is that you don't understand the basic concepts about magnetics.
QuoteSo to answer the absurd example posed by MileHigh. Who are you to tell me about the dangers of experimenting.
I gave a purely hypothetical example not to be taken literally. Even the comment about a "neural stimulator" was purely hypothetical and not to be taken literally. But the message is valid: "Teaching" people nonsensical incorrect stuff about electronics so that they don't have a clue what they are doing but they believe that they know what they are doing could put an experimenter at risk.
QuoteThe current system will kill you faster then a Tesla type device ever designed. In fact Tesla when experimenting with his impulses and the Longitudinal wave said at the proper cycles per second that it was most beneficial to the human condition. That most life including Plant life thrives in it's radiations with the proper cycles a second. This value is starting at around 2k a second.
You are just talking more Tesla fantasy fan boi talk there Jbignes5.
QuoteIf you are trying to state that I'm using RF you couldn't be further from the truth. Impulse technology is not Hertzian. Hertzian waves are Transverse waves not longitudinal waves. They propagate in two different methods.
Has anybody done the "moon bounce test" yet to prove that longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves? No? This is just more fan boi talk. When you work on your bench and say to yourself "I am working with impulse technology using longitudinal waves" your are just fooling yourself. When you work on the bench what you observe is reality staring you in the face. You are then superimposing your Tesla fantasies on what you see and drawing incorrect conclusions. That's the crux of the problem. Do you know how many times I have been told by beginning experimenters that "this is 'cold' electricity and not understood by conventional science?" Of course it's not "cold" electricity at all, they simply don't understand what they are observing and they have been corrupted by people like you. That's a serious issue.
QuoteWhen using the bifilar coil you must use Longitudinal waves, not herttzian waves.
Big Tesla is watching you. Ignorance is Truth.
QuoteYou have the same style of writing and the same misconceptions as Verpies.
Well I am not Verpies and you are the one with misconceptions. I know I am not going to stop you from doing your thing. At times though people like you should be called out to account for what you say. It's a healthy process and we need it. Without it there is a danger that your power of "ignorance and dumbing down" will adversely affect too many people. A person with a limited and corrupted grasp of basic electronics needs to be held in check from time to time. You stated a lot of fantastical and nonsensical stuff about the Tesla "cap coil" and I decided to comment. It's unlikely that I will get into a full debate with you again.
My advice to you is to learn the basics about electronics and it will help you a lot and also give you a new and better understanding of Tesla.
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
QuoteRespond to this then:
http://www.overunity.com/10043/litmus-test-fail-by-milehigh/ (http://www.overunity.com/10043/litmus-test-fail-by-milehigh/)
On second thought just don't respond ok. Your credibility is null.
You are pointing to an old thread where I already responded.
So you are trying deflection again. I asked you the question and you are unable to answer it:
<<< You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen? >>>
Think about this: You made two long postings all about the Tesla "cap coil" a.k.a "series bifilar" coil extolling all the virtues for this device and making all sorts of outlandish and nonsensical claims about it and sounding very authoritative about it.
So I ask you to give us the solution for one of the simplest circuits possible that has only
one component connected to the power supply, a coil. And you can't answer the question.
It's your credibility that is null, dude.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 02:07:58 PM
Jbignes5:
You are pointing to an old thread where I already responded.
So you are trying deflection again. I asked you the question and you are unable to answer it:
<<< You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen? >>>
Think about this: You made two long postings all about the Tesla "cap coil" a.k.a "series bifilar" coil extolling all the virtues for this device and making all sorts of outlandish and nonsensical claims about it and sounding very authoritative about it.
So I ask you to give us the solution for one of the simplest circuits possible that has only one component connected to the power supply, a coil. And you can't answer the question.
It's your credibility that is null, dude.
MileHigh
I answered your question but like some people on this forum you are not so patient when looking at the forum. And as usual you have no clue as to my credentials. I told you the credentials and how long I have been in this field of electronics but you ignore such things. I have nothing to prove to you and to tell you the truth you can not stop me period or the concepts that Tesla and many others were or are working on.
In fact you are the one who hasn't answered one question that I posed. Hmmmm
Quote from: jbignes5 on July 09, 2013, 02:41:10 PM
I answered your question but like some people on this forum you are not so patient when looking at the forum. And as usual you have no clue as to my credentials. I told you the credentials and how long I have been in this field of electronics but you ignore such things. I have nothing to prove to you and to tell you the truth you can not stop me period or the concepts that Tesla and many others were or are working on.
This Milehigh guy sends everyone back to first grade including Tesla. The bifilar coil capacitance changes with the charge unlike the jackass contraprtion he says does the same work. He would need to scarf a variable capacitor, or radio tuner onto his single wire coil to get it to match the bifilar's performance!
Jbignes5:
I have some closing comments and that's most likely it because my points will have been made.
For the transistor issue. I learned about how they get silicon and purify it. I can't remember what the purification steps are. Then they melt it so that the silicon is just above the melting point. Then they take a seed crystal of pure silicon and touch it to the surface of the molten silicon and slowly draw it up and the molten silicon starts to form a large ingot of near-perfect crystallized silicon. That might take a few weeks if I recall. Then they slice that into thin wafers. Then the thin wavers are bombarded with a spray of aluminum or phosphorus atoms in a vacuum chamber (if I recall correctly) in combination with a photo-lithography process to "dope" the silicon into "N" and "P" regions to make the PN and NP junctions to make transistors. Then the wafers are cut up into dice and packaged into transistors. This process requires multi-million dollar machines in a wafer fabrication plant that typically costs billions of dollars.
Now, I was ignorant of the fact that in the 1950s people used to look for various minerals and cleave them and put them together to make home-made transistors. Since I was ignorant of this, mainly because I am not from that generation, and my only frame of reference was a multi-billion dollar wafer fabrication plant, I said what I said and I was wrong. So I made a mistake out of ignorance and I have no apologies for thinking like that because it seemed too far fetched to me that you could make a transistor yourself. None the less, in the thread I apologized for my mistake after learning that you can indeed make your own transistors.
QuoteIt is not a diversion it is a valid question
Here we are revisiting the "what is an electric field?/what does water taste like?" issue. Here is an analogy for you: You need new tires for your car and you go to the tire dealer. The salesman starts to show you the latest models of tires and the prices, etc. But you look at the salesman and stop him. You say to him, "What is rubber, really? What is a polymer chain, really?" The salesman will look at you like you are nuts. We are talking about the Tesla patent for the "series bifilar" coil here. We are not talking about what electric fields and magnetic fields _really_ are. That's just a diversion that I have seen many times before.
QuoteHere is another good question. Lets look at when you use impulses into the very same coil? What happens. Now what happens when you apply those impulses to the bifilar coil. <- this you don't know at all since you have done zero work at all in this field
I can't answer that question because you are not posing it correctly. I doubt that you are aware of that fact. What's the circuit? I have done lots of work on the bench believe me.
QuoteI on the other hand am not stating a fact I am stating my direction in experiments that I think will help us understand energy with a complete concept. Your intent is to discredit, attack or even discourage people to ask why or how and then prove it to them selves.
When I challenged you, I challenged you to make you think, to help you and the audience to understand energy, and most importantly to give the audience a balanced viewpoint so that they can make up their minds for themselves. I am not discrediting or attacking, I am giving you the truth. Will you understand what's going on on your bench or will you see it all through the lens of your dogma? Will you be open to all ideas? Those are important issues for you to contemplate.
Okay, I will break this up into two parts.
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
Here is the biggie:
QuoteAgain the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.
I will repeat that I am assuming that we are talking about the Tesla patent, "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS," as per the title of this thread.
The coil will have the same "push back" a.k.a. inductance as a similar regular coil if you give it a DC energizing pulse. This can be easily verified on the bench.
Special attention to this comment from you, "besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void."
They don't put the kind of coil we are talking about in wire-wound resistors. So you are in the clouds here. You can buy wire-wound resistors where the turns of the wire go clockwise and counter-clockwise to eliminate as much of the inductance in the wire as possible through magnetic flux self-cancellation. This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. So your dogma just got corrected. See you got lucky and you have me here to educate you a bit.
Quoting you again, "But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance."
Only at the main resonant frequency. In other words this only applies for AC excitation of the coil. I get the strong feeling that you thought that this cancellation of self-inductance applied to all aspects of the coil. You need to do some soul searching Jbignes5 and open up some books.
So please think about these things Jbignes5. No need for you to go running to "mommy" because you had a strong debate with someone on the forum. There is a very strong peer pressure in places like this that says "I don't dare correct the posting my friend made." I am 100% sure that you have made postings where you say stuff that I took issue with, like from your first two big postings in this thread, but nobody said anything even though your friends knew that you were wrong. I will coin a new term for that, "Orwellian stagnation."
Finally, you clearly did not answer my question about the coil connected to the voltage source. If you think that I am supposed to extract the answer to my question from the big paragraph in your last posting then you got the answer wrong. So if you are up to trying again, go for it and quote the question and supply your answer.
MileHigh
Easily verified. You are a liar and here is the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE
Since some work has been done on this already I think I shall continue without your tripe interfering.
Strong debate is one thing but you are a person that likes to debase anything you don't understand. You get off on it and it is easily seen from your previous post history that you enjoy debasing people because they don't follow your path. This debasing is a multiple technique that you use. If you can not win you insult people and if that doesn't work you try to make other people afraid to experiment along the lines of the intended thread.
Stop please. You are no more credible then the ones who oppose anything they don't understand or even didn't do any bench work ever. Stick to subjects you have experience with. Oh wait you are I guess... Because this is all that you do from your post history. Again why is it you have the same logical fallacies that Verpies has shown in the past with his various multiple accounts on here and your post style mimics his exactly? Never mind you statements have been proven wrong now go away and let us finish our investigations before I get mommy involved.
Jbignes5:
That experiment is flawed and even if it wasn't flawed what would it prove? Differently wound coils can couple differently? Wow that really confirms all of your "mind blowing" statements.
You couldn't answer my question about the circuit with a single inductor as the only component in the circuit. Why should anyone listen to you about coils with that fact now established? Don't you want to know the answer? Do you have enough character to ask me to explain the answer to you?
For what it's worth, you were the first one to tell me that I was clueless in our debate. I am not Verpies and you could use some character and debate like a man. Nor am I out to debase people, I challenged you on your quasi educational stance in your postings where almost all that you posted about the Tesla "series bifilar" coil was wrong. I challenged your ideas and statements, I didn't try to debase you. Don't play the spin game.
Electronics is not some Tesla-inspired fantasy land. It's real, real electronics make the world go round. It's the largest industry in the world. The debate is done and we have both made our points and the readers can decide for themselves.
MileHigh
It proves you were wrong about the difference of the two coils. Now go argue your tripe somewhere else. It proves you are wrong that there is nothing special about the coil.
And again I answered your question. But you never answered my questions as expected.
As for your statement about a Tesla inspired electronics fantasy land? Who exactly do you think designed the AC system you use now? Or concepts like radio transmission?
I am trying to be civil here. You are not. " I challenged you on your quasi educational stance" and this is not debasing me? I do not wish to detract from our original conversation any further. You are derailing the thread and you are disrupting the thread. The evidence is clear there are big differences between the coils. And that was my original assertion. Everything else is proposed experiments and of course is being left to experiment on to validate. For which you responded with a statement that I might get someone hurt. That is a low tactic. Go back to the Mary Ainsely thread and get your rocks off there.
This is the last time I respond to you "Friend".
Here is a good way to show your ignorance of Tesla technology. This guy knows as much as you probably (nil). He doesn't even know anything about Tesla and his statements show it. Was that you in the front row?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A63u3i_O4AQ
Jbignes5:
Please clearly show me where you answered my question. Please tell me what questions you want answered and I will answer them.
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
I looked at the gentleman's clip and it was very good. It would be good for you to look at all of of his clips and and absorb the information. It's a shame that his clips have so few views because he obviously put a lot of effort into producing them and he looks like a seasoned retired person with a wealth of experience in electronics to share.
As far as the Wardenclyffe tower goes, it was a viable early attempt at very long distance communications. But the notion of using it to power ships at sea or power individual houses in cities goes, that would never have worked. It's simply too inefficient, and most of the broadcast power would never make it to the end users, it would be lost. Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge, Tesla did not have the time or finances or technology to broadcast thousands of megawatts of power though the air. It would never have been a viable solution because perhaps for every kilowatt of power broadcast into the air, perhaps a few watts at best would make it to the end user. So that would mean a lot of coal or oil would be burned for nothing which would be unacceptable. The ridiculously low efficiency would make it too expensive. Finally, nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air. People simply would not accept that. So ultimately, it was an early experimental communications tower.
I have made a valuable contribution to this thread. Instead of a bunch of back-slapping were people post that the Tesla "series bifilar" coil is the greatest thing since sliced bread, people hopefully are using their critical thinking skills and thinking more seriously about this coil. Your argument that TK's clip shows something special because the coupling is different (which would likely be confirmed if the clip was redone and the errors corrected) is not correct. I can wind another coil with a different geometry and the coupling will be different again.
My argument is that right now it appears the patent may have been a stop-gap measure to make an LC resonator, and no more than that. It appears that the coil configuration is no more than a curiosity that never saw any serious application.
So I have a challenge posed to the readership of this thread and the experimenters to demonstrate something truly out of the ordinary or especially unique and advantageous associated with this "series bifilar" Tesla coil that's based on inter-woven windings of two half-coils put together. That rules out showing that it can act like an LC resonator. Even an ordinary coil can act as an LC resonator, and the real-world way to make an LC resonator is to mate an ordinary coil with a capacitor. The notion that like "magic" you can quickly pump current into the coil when you DC pulse it is false, and I have covered that several times now. There is no logical reason for that to happen. The notion that it can produce a stronger magnetic field as compared to a similar regular coil is also false. All of the fantastical attributes you assigned to this coil in your original two postings are also not true. If you disagree, please by all means make a clip demonstrating your proposition.
So the challenge is still open. Right now this coil is only marginally different from an equivalent regular coil. I can only guess that Tesla was experimenting with an LC resonator for temporary energy storage but the project went nowhere.
You have to understand that Tesla's technology is something like five human generations removed from where we are now and in technological generations it's more like 50 generations. Tesla didn't "invent" AC power, what he really did was apply existing knowledge and engineer a system based on the concept of AC induction. That in itself is a major accomplishment and it was responsible for bringing power to the masses and changing the world.
So unless there is something remarkable that someone can bring to the discussion about the series bifilar Tesla coil, it looks to me like we are looking at a curiosity at best.
The problem Jbignes5 is that people see a patent from the 19th century and say to themselves, "I will use this patent to make an amazing pulse motor!!!" In other words they read stuff into the patent that is simply not there. Amateur experimenters make an incorrect connection between the 19th century patent and their pulse motors, among other things.
So you are welcome to bring something new and valuable to the table, preferably with a serious YouTube clip that is properly set up and properly explained with all of your measurements and conclusions properly documented in the clip itself.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 08:42:07 PM
Jbignes5:
I looked at the gentleman's clip and it was very good. It would be good for you to look at all of of his clips and and absorb the information. It's a shame that his clips have so few views because he obviously put a lot of effort into producing them and he looks like a seasoned retired person with a wealth of experience in electronics to share.
As far as the Wardenclyffe tower goes, it was a viable early attempt at very long distance communications. But the notion of using it to power ships at sea or power individual houses in cities goes, that would never have worked. It's simply too inefficient, and most of the broadcast power would never make it to the end users, it would be lost. Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge, Tesla did not have the time or finances or technology to broadcast thousands of megawatts of power though the air. It would never have been a viable solution because perhaps for every kilowatt of power broadcast into the air, perhaps a few watts at best would make it to the end user. So that would mean a lot of coal or oil would be burned for nothing which would be unacceptable. The ridiculously low efficiency would make it too expensive. Finally, nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air. People simply would not accept that. So ultimately, it was an early experimental communications tower.
I have made a valuable contribution to this thread. Instead of a bunch of back-slapping were people post that the Tesla "series bifilar" coil is the greatest thing since sliced bread, people hopefully are using their critical thinking skills and thinking more seriously about this coil. Your argument that TK's clip shows something special because the coupling is different (which would likely be confirmed if the clip was redone and the errors corrected) is not correct. I can wind another coil with a different geometry and the coupling will be different again.
My argument is that right now it appears the patent may have been a stop-gap measure to make an LC resonator, and no more than that. It appears that the coil configuration is no more than a curiosity that never saw any serious application.
So I have a challenge posed to the readership of this thread and the experimenters to demonstrate something truly out of the ordinary or especially unique and advantageous associated with this "series bifilar" Tesla coil that's based on inter-woven windings of two half-coils put together. That rules out showing that it can act like an LC resonator. Even an ordinary coil can act as an LC resonator, and the real-world way to make an LC resonator is to mate an ordinary coil with a capacitor. The notion that like "magic" you can quickly pump current into the coil when you DC pulse it is false, and I have covered that several times now. There is no logical reason for that to happen. The notion that it can produce a stronger magnetic field as compared to a similar regular coil is also false. All of the fantastical attributes you assigned to this coil in your original two postings are also not true. If you disagree, please by all means make a clip demonstrating your proposition.
So the challenge is still open. Right now this coil is only marginally different from an equivalent regular coil. I can only guess that Tesla was experimenting with an LC resonator for temporary energy storage but the project went nowhere.
You have to understand that Tesla's technology is something like five human generations removed from where we are now and in technological generations it's more like 50 generations. Tesla didn't "invent" AC power, what he really did was apply existing knowledge and engineer a system based on the concept of AC induction. That in itself is a major accomplishment and it was responsible for bringing power to the masses and changing the world.
So unless there is something remarkable that someone can bring to the discussion about the series bifilar Tesla coil, it looks to me like we are looking at a curiosity at best.
The problem Jbignes5 is that people see a patent from the 19th century and say to themselves, "I will use this patent to make an amazing pulse motor!!!" In other words they read stuff into the patent that is simply not there. Amateur experimenters make an incorrect connection between the 19th century patent and their pulse motors, among other things.
So you are welcome to bring something new and valuable to the table, preferably with a serious YouTube clip that is properly set up and properly explained with all of your measurements and conclusions properly documented in the clip itself.
MileHigh
"I have made a valuable contribution to this thread."
I think some things you say in this post contradict that statement.
You are hammering Jbigs about him posting what you see are untruths. Well what about your statement here...."As far as the Wardenclyffe tower goes, it was a viable early attempt at very long distance communications. But the notion of using it to power ships at sea or power individual houses in cities goes, that would never have worked. It's simply too inefficient, and most of the broadcast power would never make it to the end users, it would be lost."
Where did 'you' get that information from other than in your head??? You now need to prove or show reference you what is in quotes above. Show me your sources for what you are saying there.
Do you know what eventually happened to Wardenclyffe tower and why??
"Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge, Tesla did not have the time or finances or technology to broadcast thousands of megawatts of power though the air. "
Didnt have the time????? Show me your sources 'to the best of your knowledge'. ;) Oh he had the finances, and do you know why those finances were taken away????
Or maybe your knowledge, well, isnt the best. ;) So far your way off. ;D
"Finally, nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air. People simply would not accept that. So ultimately, it was an early experimental communications tower."
Sources please. If you cant provide the sources then you are inventing it as you go. I dont think there is a soul in this forum that would agree with you on any of that. ;)
nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air. ????????????? Dude you act as if people knew about that stuff back then as well as how to milk the cows. You have got to be kidding!!!! First you say that the technology back then was so basic and crude, but nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air. ????????????? Do you not see the irony there dude????? lol its just silly talk. or your bipolar, a flip flopper. YOUR story has a lot of quakes in it. Not cracks, literal quakes.
"My argument is that right now it appears the patent may have been a stop-gap measure to make an LC resonator, and no more than that. "
First off, your argument before was that the freq of operation would be too high to be useful in any way for a pulse motor and now just an LC resonator and nothing more. The title of the patent exclaims elctro-magnet. many of Teslas patents would state in the title if it was of a high freq nature. I have sources. ;) Your arguments are imaginary. They are in your head and you are the first to say them. :P
"The problem Jbignes5 is that people see a patent from the 19th century and say to themselves, "I will use this patent to make an amazing pulse motor!!!" In other words they read stuff into the patent that is simply not there. Amateur experimenters make an incorrect connection between the 19th century patent and their pulse motors, among other things."
Soooo what dude. Ive said it before and Ill say it again. You hammer on this bifi stuff so relentlessly that I believe there must be something to it and you are here to discourage those that post about it when ever they do, again and again and again. Why is that?? You dont spank the Kapanadze crowd and look how much time and efforts people have wasted on that in a million directions. Why this coil and always this coil when it is brought up????? And thats a fact. It can be proven here without a doubt. This site is the source. And you even bring posts from Farmhand, as you must be following in the bifi coil thread at Energetic. ;) Yep, you have an itch about this coil and it aint pretty. ;) ;D You give me faith in this coil more and more with every utterance from your mouth about this coil. its encouraging. ;) But that doesnt mean I will let your false statements stand undebated. ;)
"Tesla didn't "invent" AC power, what he really did was apply existing knowledge and engineer a system based on the concept of AC induction. That in itself is a major accomplishment and it was responsible for bringing power to the masses and changing the world."
Tesla did invent 'AC power' as we know it today. It was him that fought to prove it was better than DC. You give him no credit at all. 8) You are a suppressor. 8) Ive said it before and Im saying it again just as others have in these last pages. You put out disinformation and distort what is written about tesla. 8)
I was trying to keep my cool but you just opened the biggest can of stink Ive heard in a while. You better get your facts straight or provide sources for your statements, because clearly you have a lot of it wrong. ;)
Mags
Magluvin:
QuoteWhere did 'you' get that information from other than in your head???
Are you able to apply your intelligence and what you have leaned in your life or do you just want to ask these questions for some crazy reason? You grew up in a world with broadcast TV and radio I assume? You are 250 km away from the tower. How big is your slice of the total available power if you have a 10-meter diameter antenna?
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d05596b465ce04f (http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d05596b465ce04f)
QuoteDo you know what eventually happened to Wardenclyffe tower and why??
I think the legend is that JP Morgan wanted to shut it down!
QuoteDidnt have the time?
How big was the power plant next to the tower? I can't remember, perhaps he just tapped into the local available mains power? I watched a few documentaries a few years ago and I don't remember much. I suppose if I was a big Tesla fan I would remember more details.
QuoteIf you cant provide the sources then you are inventing it as you go.
Granted 100 years ago people probably would not be concerned to be continuously bathed in high levels of low frequency EM power. I was thinking in a modern context.
QuoteFirst off, your argument before was that the freq of operation would be too high to be useful in any way for a pulse motor
You are still confusing the AC and DC pulse applications of the coil. I explained to you twice that the AC operation does not translate into fast current increase when you apply a DC pulse to the motor. You wouldn't acknowledge your mistake and just slinked away. I never commented on the resonant frequency and applied it to pulse motor applications.
QuoteI believe there must be something to it and you are here to discourage those that post about it when ever they do
Is somebody watching you Magluvin? Are the feds shining a laser on your apartment window and listening in on your conversations and detecting the RPM of your pulse motor?
QuoteTesla did invent 'AC power' as we know it today.
He engineered the production and transmission of AC power and certainly that required the invention of tons of stuff. I think it was Faraday that discovered AC induction and in that sense perhaps you could say that he "invented" it. There is another school of thought that says that AC induction was always there and we just needed the critical events of discovery and application. So in my opinion I give credit to Faraday and Tesla respectively to those milestones.
QuoteYou are a suppressor.
They are shining laser beams on all your windows Magluvin, I suggest that you cover them all up with cardboard.
QuoteI was trying to keep my cool but you just opened the biggest can of stink Ive heard in a while.
You said a while back that you were even more determined to do some testing. Bring something new and exciting to the table Magluvin and we can all have a look at it. Or perhaps the Tesla fanboys are just fawning over a patent that really doesn't do that much when you look at it rationally.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 11:25:38 PM
Magluvin:
Are you able to apply your intelligence and what you have leaned in your life or do you just want to ask these questions for some crazy reason? You grew up in a world with broadcast TV and radio I assume? You are 250 km away from the tower. How big is your slice of the total available power if you have a 10-meter diameter antenna?
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d05596b465ce04f (http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d05596b465ce04f)
I think the legend is that JP Morgan wanted to shut it down!
How big was the power plant next to the tower? I can't remember, perhaps he just tapped into the local available mains power? I watched a few documentaries a few years ago and I don't remember much. I suppose if I was a big Tesla fan I would remember more details.
Granted 100 years ago people probably would not be concerned to be continuously bathed in high levels of low frequency EM power. I was thinking in a modern context.
You are still confusing the AC and DC pulse applications of the coil. I explained to you twice that the AC operation does not translate into fast current increase when you apply a DC pulse to the motor. You wouldn't acknowledge your mistake and just slinked away. I never commented on the resonant frequency and applied it to pulse motor applications.
Is somebody watching you Magluvin? Are the feds shining a laser on your apartment window and listening in on your conversations and detecting the RPM of your pulse motor?
He engineered the production and transmission of AC power and certainly that required the invention of tons of stuff. I think it was Faraday that discovered AC induction and in that sense perhaps you could say that he "invented" it. There is another school of thought that says that AC induction was always there and we just needed the critical events of discovery and application. So in my opinion I give credit to Faraday and Tesla respectively to those milestones.
They are shining laser beams on all your windows Magluvin, I suggest that you cover them all up with cardboard.
You said a while back that you were even more determined to do some testing. Bring something new and exciting to the table Magluvin and we can all have a look at it. Or perhaps the Tesla fanboys are just fawning over a patent that really doesn't do that much when you look at it rationally.
MileHigh
"I think the legend is that JP Morgan wanted to shut it down!"
Lol the legend. You are a suppressor. You 'think' but you know nothing. Why did he 'want it shut down'???? And how was it shut down????
"Granted 100 years ago people probably would not be concerned to be continuously bathed in high levels of low frequency EM power. I was thinking in a modern context."
But you said it as if it were back then and like everyone was aware of these things. And you try to cover your butt with that crap??? 8) 8)
"I can't remember, perhaps he just tapped into the local available mains power? I watched a few documentaries a few years ago and I don't remember much."
See?? Right there. You are so full of speculation as if it were fact, and all from a documentary of which you admittedly dont remember much of!!! It is you that is spreading the crap around, not Jbigs. Or you do know Teslas history and you are posting disinformation in place of the truth. Which is it??? You do know, or you dont know much???? ;) Either way it doesnt look good for you. 8) 8)
"Is somebody watching you Magluvin? Are the feds shining a laser on your apartment window and listening in on your conversations and detecting the RPM of your pulse motor?"
lol, youre an idiot. Little suppressor boy. 8)
"So in my opinion I give credit to Faraday and Tesla respectively to those milestones."
Just as suppressors of Tesla do. Thats you. 8) 8)
"They are shining laser beams on all your windows Magluvin, I suggest that you cover them all up with cardboard."
Is that what you guys do these days, shine lasers into windows? Interesting. Why would you want to do that? :-*
"Or perhaps the Tesla fanboys are just fawning over a patent that really doesn't do that much when you look at it rationally."
You seem to put a lot of time into this allegedly useless patent. For what? There are no new readers or posters here, not enough to put up the continuous slobber of lies you dribble over and over again. 8) 8)
Its your credibility that is on the table here. You falsify info and declare it as fact. Then you claim you dont remember much about it all. Idiot. ;)
Mags
I have a suggestion for you Magluvin:
Go back though Jbignes5's postings and pick his top 20 fantastical claims about the Tesla series bifilar coil and ask him for references. Also ask him for the answer to the question about the big brain teaser circuit with the single component so he can establish some credibility.
I think that you can get duct tape real cheap on eBay. lol
MileHigh
What a silly ass!
What's your answer to the brain teaser Synchro1? lol
Mags and everyone else just stop responding to the moron. He has shown that he is not in the field of electronics. That his memory about things is not so good and that his logical fallacies are soo deep that nothing makes sense when he opens his mouth.
Just ignore him. Thats what I am going to do. He can not disrupt this process any longer because we have the ability to just ignore him. Exercise that ability and he will go away. If it becomes a real problem then I will be talking to Stephan about this. But for now he is harmless. Nothing he says makes sense and certainly his sketchy information has zero credibility. He has stated that this is for fun only which means it's a joke to him. To me it looks like he is a very small man with nothing better to do then disrupt conversations about legitimate subjects.
Do a google search for milehigh and you will see his track record of this bad behavior on other forums.
Lets just recap what real history remembers of Tesla and how important his work really was to our past and current world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC7BEStQ6kg
Lets now dig into what powers these devices and what the difference is between these two forms of energy. I say forms because it is the same energy but used in different methods.
Eric Dollard is the number one expert in this field. Here is an old video of Eric stating what transverse and longitudinal energy is and the proper method to analyze the two forms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnCUBKgnnc
My ideas on this process work with the bifilar coil and resemble what real scientists are researching today.
http://p124374.typo3server.info/index.php?id=1591
Are we understanding how the bifilar can be used in the above link?
Jbignes5:
It's incredible how polarized the world is these days and this thread here is just a microcosm illustrating that fact. You have to realize that when it comes to analyzing this coil and it's merits or lack of merits I am being serious.
Is the coil special in some extraordinary way or is that just wishful thinking? And the state of affairs right now is that there is no logical reason to assume that the coil will do anything extraordinary. The properties of the coil have been discussed and there is nothing special to report. That's why I have put forth the challenge for someone to demonstrate something to make a case for the coil being special. More than a month ago I challenged anybody to suggest a use for this coil that takes advantage of any "special properties" and not a single person has submitted a proposal.
I am going to quote myself from a few postings back from when I was debating with you and others so I know that you read this:
QuoteHere is the real point that I think sums it up nicely: Any coil, and I mean any coil, will have its inductance and frequency response characteristics, and the associated stray capacitance characteristics, the DC pulse response characteristics, magnetic field pattern, etc. Certainly there is room for a lot of variation when you look at those characteristics. But the key point is that they are still all fundamentally coils and will work as per the differential and integral equations that define that two-terminal device.
Why do I say, "two-terminal device?" Because when you strip it down to the bare bones, all that you have is two terminals and you can apply some sort of stimulus to those two terminals (pulse, AC, etc.) and then see how those two terminals respond. You can put any kind of inductor across those two terminals hidden inside a black box and by observing how those two terminals respond you can deduce that there is an inductor connected to those two terminals. (That's why I hate the fact that you guys call the Tesla cola a "bifilar" coil.)
So you can put any standard coil, or a Tesla series bifilar coil, or a Rodin coil across those two terminals and by making measurements you can determine that yes indeed it is a coil and then you can determine the other parameters.
And then in your posting you state, "Mags and everyone else just stop responding to the moron. He has shown that he is not in the field of electronics." You also said, "Nothing he says makes sense and certainly his sketchy information has zero credibility."
Well Jbignes5, I don't say it very often but I am an ex electrical engineer. Really. I have done all of the experiments on the bench with coils to understand them and characterize them. From reading your postings I can tell you with 100% confidence that I understand electronics way better than you will ever in your entire life. And I am not even a hard core electronics guy.
Whether you realize it or not or like it or not, this is your Twilight Zone moment Jbignes5. Clearly from your postings, when it comes to coils and electronics, you are the "moron" that is living in an artificial Twilight Zone belief system of your own making. You can't give the solution for a circuit that consists of just a single solitary coil connected to a voltage source, but at the same time you can "talk the talk" about your Tesla coil fantasies and believe it. I asked that you that question after all your bluster and chest thumping to make you think, and to try to get some juices flowing.
I am more than willing to see if someone can demonstrate something "fantastical" about the coil. However, as I quoted myself above, the Tesla series bifilar coil is just a coil with slightly different characteristics. You are welcome to try to prove otherwise. And that's were the educational aspect comes in for everybody. Let's look at this 19th century patent WITHOUT your "Twilight Zone" frame of reference and see it for what it really is, not for what you fantasize it is.
This whole thing is a quasi Rosemary Ainslie experience and just shows how the human condition is messed up in the 21st century. How messed up is it? You are completely convinced you know what you are talking about but at the same time you can't even answer a question about the simplest possible circuit that makes use of a coil. That's pretty damn messed up.
MileHigh
So to continue my thoughts on this subject I will again refer to my modification of the Tesla bifilar coil.
If we start to look at all of the links I posted we start to understand with a bias e-field we should be able to raise the output to overcome the base line resistance of the coil. Would this net more energy out.. No idea but it does allow us to impress the bias on top of the current pulses going into the bifilar directly. This should have the same effect as in the laser amplifier example I have given before.
Here is the design again, pictured below.
The blue circle is the e-field bias emitter and the center region is the ground or focus element for the e-field. This should bias the bifilar coil with a high voltage and raise the energy in the pulses of charges running through the bifilar coil arrangement. The very thin lines going to the center represent the Longitudinal e-field. The premise is that when the very thin lines propagate they cut the wires of the bifilar and raise the voltage level of that bifilar coil as the charges or current flow through the bifilar coil. As with a lens it should amplify the power by excitation. Longitudinal energy as we have learned flow in the inwards and outwards directions along those very thin lines. Hence the term longitudinal. Supporting circuitry will be a high voltage pulser circuit that should not cost much in current. Timing of the pulse entering the bifilar should be synchronized with the exciter circuitry. This way we should see the same effect as in current pulse laser technology.
The source for the exciter loop can be driven from a crystal battery that I have done work on myself with Ibpointless and J Bedini. The latter having very limited input to my involvement because of me leaving EF.
This means that we can be very green in this sense and despite the costs of the material of the device will extract energy from the environment via heat for little expense. This is just my aim in these experiments and this system was my answer to the limited current ability of the first crystal batteries. Unfortunately because of heath problems I had to postpone my work on this. I am now in better health and getting ready to do real work and not just spout gibberish about subjects I have no clue about.
Do you not hear the sound of one hand clapping in the wind? Don't worry he will leave eventually.
Another way to accomplish the same thing passively would be to add a high voltage flat bifilar coil as a reflector onto one side that is self terminated. This should convert the magnetic field of the bifilar low voltage coil into higher voltages that might be synchronized to the pulses going into the low voltage bifilar coil. Would this work well that is yet another experiment that is planned.
Quote from: jbignes5 on July 10, 2013, 11:50:20 AM
Here is the design again, pictured below.
Yes, thats the way I believe a pancake transformer should work, with the primary on the same plane. Thats the way it is illustrated in Tesla's patents. But it is a rare sighting to see others doing it this way.
Mags
This is an interesting read for those interested in ambient energy.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 10, 2013, 10:02:15 PM
Yes, thats the way I believe a pancake transformer should work, with the primary on the same plane. Thats the way it is illustrated in Tesla's patents. But it is a rare sighting to see others doing it this way.
Mags
Well it is not quite a transformer in a true sense of the word. The loop around the bifilar coil will be used as an exciter element for the purpose of biasing the current that goes through the bifilar coil. Of course I could also use a reflector type design to receive the heavy magnetic field from the flat side of the bifilar coil and convert it to very high voltages in a passive manner and rebroadcast that high voltage via the electric field back into the bifilar coil in theory. This could be accomplished by using a different gauge wire for the regular pancake solenoid reflector when compared to the gauge of the bifilar. But distance, phase and size of the coils will be an issue an might not work the way I am thinking in the passive mode. Maybe like Lasersaber has done we might try very close reflection distances to remove some of these expected problems. The phase problem will have to be worked studied more before I comment any further on the reflector.
Now as mentioned this has been done before to a degree. I believe lasersaber has done some work in this direction. So there is some roadwork done already. Thane Hines has done work in this direction as well with a buried high voltage coil inside of a heavy current coil and has found that it does Speed up a rotor. This speed increase is essentially free but it was never been researched beyond a certain point. We might even have to change the geometry of the bifilar coil to a tube like coil setup and use a toroid as the concentrating medium like Stivep has done before. But then we have to deal with saturation effects of the medium we choose to focus the magnetic force. One way to get around this might be to get rid of the medium of ferrite as in the example of the new device of Akula (Kapanadze style device) and make an air coil setup on a donut form that is non conductive. Well I think maybe I have gone too far and should wait for my material to come in the mail before speculating any further.
Lets hear your guys ideas and experiences on this subject.
@Jbigness5,
Just wire it up. I bet anything will work. All the phase problems you imagine will most likely solve themselves once it's built.
Do you have any references for Thane's twin coil? This sounds like the Mag Amp design Skycollection uses with his lenz delay effect Toroid Pancake. The series bifliar is universally acknowledged as a superior pick up coil as well as a transmitter as shown by Tinselkoala.
The PM output coil core or "coil core" coil both interfere with the overall operating efficiency of the coil retarding the pole shift, producing propulsion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1dc0DPFpOQ&feature=em-subs_digest&list=TLXp1XUU52kgE
Well I give up here for now. It's obvious that it's not sinking in in the public aspect of this thread. However, for the silent majority that are reading this thread it's another story all together. The truth always percolates to the top in the long run. Then the 'theatrical' aspects of this thread are just too much. Then there is the Babel fish issue, and I am sure that the silent majority are having a chuckle or two about that one.
Jbignes5:
I look forward to seeing your tests and reports or YouTube clips, wherever your research into your claim takes you. You have a rough sketch for a start which you posted. Hopefully before too long you can turn that into a schematic. It would really help to make a timing diagram that illustrates what you are talking about in your descriptions. Then you can go to the bench and make measurements of all of your signals and also do power input and power output measurements. I am assuming that the goal for what you are talking about is electrical over unity.
The better you document yourself and the more you relate your descriptions to your schematic and to your timing diagrams the stronger your case will be. Then making actual bench measurements with a scope to confirm that your timing diagrams are correct, and well documented power in and power out measurements will be the icing on the cake.
I am looking forward to seeing your project develop.
MileHigh
I got a PM from Milehigh and Im going to respond to it here....
"Why do you act like this Magluvin? Do you just 'hate' me for the sake of hating me? What is your motivation, I would really like to know?
MileHigh"
I dont hate you. But when you come in here and downplay peoples ideas and call them Tesla fan boys and all that crap, then you post half baked statements about Tesla to further your rant, and then say that you had seen it in a documentary about Tesla years ago and you dont remember much, yeah, theres some motivation. If you think that Jbigs ideas and postings are dazed and confused, well your knowledge of Tesla is far closer to being dazed and confused as compared to Jbigs trying to actually study and figure out some things.
You dont know much about Tesla. We see that now. So why dont you come back when you educate yourself a bit on the subject, so that we can all be on the same level. ;) If you make any more false statements on Tesla, I will call you on it. So either study up or dont say it if your not sure about it. It doesnt help your case any if its not factual. Or does it? 8) :)
Mags
I think the coil functions just like Tesla designed it to. Store up oscillations impressed on it by the 2 or 3 turn primary. It acts the same way a tank is used to remove the carrier frequency from the signal to be amplified. It offers infinite impedance to the passage of voltage when the voltage impressed on the blocking oscillator comes at the resonant frequency of the tank. If the carrier frequency isn't blocked it creates noise in the signal. The blocking oscillator incorporates resistance and the energy of the carrier frequency is changed into heat. The generator in a Tesla magnifying transmitter is used as a negative resistance unit. This insures no ringdown occurs. So like he said he could develop hundreds of thousands of horsepower in the tank from a generator with a 100 horsepower engine. If you watch guys with Tesla coils make big streamers. After every big streamer you can here the tank filling up. The voltage gets too high at the safety port and the high voltage is dumped to ground though the plasma formed at the sharp pointy thing used like a pressure unloader valve on a boiler. If the guy is using a pole pig transformer at say 10kva rating these Tesla wannabee machines are storing 10kva input for about 10 seconds. So they can get 1kva out for 100 seconds or billions of kva for a real brief energy dump.
Quote from: sparks on July 11, 2013, 10:40:28 PM
I think the coil functions just like Tesla designed it to. Store up oscillations impressed on it by the 2 or 3 turn primary.
Yeah, it is shown a 2 turns in the patents. A 2 turn coil is a bifilar coil. ;) 3 turns will have a bit less voltage difference between turns.
@Jbigs
The reason I call it a transformer, some of Teslas patents show source coils and receiver coils(pancakes with 2 separate turns on the outer perimeter) where the source or transmitter(some drawings are hardwired Tx to Rx some antenna) seems to use the 2 outer turns as a primary winding and the Rx the 2 turn is like a secondary. Its the way I see it anyways. ;) There may be more or less to it.
Mags
Magluvin:
Here is the full PM:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are hammering Jbigs about him posting what you see are untruths. Well what about your statement here...."As far as the Wardenclyffe tower goes, it was a viable early attempt at very long distance communications. But the notion of using it to power ships at sea or power individual houses in cities goes, that would never have worked. It's simply too inefficient, and most of the broadcast power would never make it to the end users, it would be lost."
Where did 'you' get that information from other than in your head??? You now need to prove or show reference you what is in quotes above. Show me your sources for what you are saying there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why do you act like this Magluvin? Do you just 'hate' me for the sake of hating me? What is your motivation, I would really like to know?
MileHigh
Your request for 'references' is just you hounding me like some kind of crazy person. It's nonsensical idiocy and you make yourself look like a fool. I made a few general comments about a clip that was linked to that discussed the tower just in passing. It's not even directly related to the thread. But it does come from a similar theme. People believe that the tower could 'power the world' without examining the where the power would come from and how widely dispersed the power would be the further you are away from the transmission source. It's similar to saying that the Tesla series bifilar coil can do all sorts of amazing things with no real serious data to back it up.
I will sometimes challenge people's ideas if they are too far out and there is nothing that you can do to stop me. And I know you enough to know that you don't actually disagree with me here but you are afraid to say it. Meanwhile when you make a mistake yourself, you don't have the courage to acknowledge it and thank the person that corrected you.
This is not 'about Tesla,' this is about a patent for a coil design from the 19th century that just happens to have been done by Tesla. It's time for you to stop the Straw Man nonsense and grow up and act like a civil person. I am not going to be hounded by you acting like a crazy person. You are the one that needs to study up if you want to make an improved contribution around here. You confusing the AC and DC operation of the TESLA COIL as per what is actually stated in the patent being a prime example.
It's time for you to stop acting like some kind of attention wh*re buffoon and be a real person. Stop your immature 'bad boy' nonsensical idiocy and grow up.
MileHigh
Quote from: Magluvin on July 11, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
Yeah, it is shown a 2 turns in the patents. A 2 turn coil is a bifilar coil. ;) 3 turns will have a bit less voltage difference between turns.
@Jbigs
The reason I call it a transformer, some of Teslas patents show source coils and receiver coils(pancakes with 2 separate turns on the outer perimeter) where the source or transmitter(some drawings are hardwired Tx to Rx some antenna) seems to use the 2 outer turns as a primary winding and the Rx the 2 turn is like a secondary. Its the way I see it anyways. ;) There may be more or less to it.
Mags
Well that could be one way to try and I encourage you to do so. But as I have stated I have gone outside of the patents scope. I have already done prelim testing on the bifilar coils. Many different designs and my conclusion is that this would make an excellent receiver of the electric field around the outside like you have stated. If I am correct about the coils other aspects then we should be able to use the coil much like the amplifier(gain medium) in a laser setup and intensify the current packets or impulses traveling into the bifilar coil. This should excite the current impulses and greatly amplify the current.
What Tesla was trying to do with the Tower was not broadcast anything in the air. It was via the Earth! The air was a sort of virtual ground. This is the concept he tried to make an analogy to with the elastic ball (earth). Pump the earth with huge amounts of voltage and the receivers convert this huge voltage into real current. He was litterally gonna use the earth as a high voltage anode. The tower was capped with a huge capacitive mushroom to push against. This is the reason he buried long pipes into the ground. Since the type of energy he was using was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be safe to the human in contact with it that the danger was minimal.
Some people say things before they even know anything about someone. Without reading anything like his notes and literature some people can not know how this technology works. They try to guess with their current knowledge which is not based off of Tesla's methods and mistakenly assume it can not possibly work. There is no danger to this stuff and Tesla repeatedly shown that by passing the energy through his body and even the bodies of others as in the worlds fair where he shown his AC system in full scale. Tesla wasn't ready to release the full details at that time but was completely sure it could do no harm to any life and had even the audience do the same, passing of the current through their bodies.
I will not defend myself any longer to some people. I have researched Tesla and his works for over a decade now and if Some people don't want to do the same then they should just leave it be and let us go about our business. I will not share with someone who isn't open minded about this process. They seem to know everything about the magnetic field and very little about the electric field.
See these guys see the electric field as something of a transient. They spend their entire career shunting the transients to ground and just ignore what it is. But Tesla knew way more about this field. He intensively studied the effects and how to make it completely safe. IF you don't know about the linemen that died while he was working for Edison I would look into it because that is exactly what turned him onto this stuff. Blue fire they called it.
I am very tired now. Pretty late here and I have a doctors apt. tomorrow.
Till next time.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 11, 2013, 11:17:48 PM
This is not 'about Tesla,' this is about a patent for a coil design from the 19th century that just happens to have been done by Tesla.
The title of this thread starts with Tesla. If some of the posts veer off of the coil subject matter but still with Teslas name on it, its good. Just because you dont want to here it, well whoopty doo. Too bad. Tesla is the subject as maybe we want to understand the man, and this coil is part of that. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 12, 2013, 12:39:49 AM
The title of this thread starts with Tesla. If some of the posts veer off of the coil subject matter but still with Teslas name on it, its good. Just because you dont want to here it, well whoopty doo. Too bad. Tesla is the subject as maybe we want to understand the man, and this coil is part of that. ;)
Mags
I agree 1000% with your comment.
If we are to understand This coil and the patent about this coil we have to understand where Tesla was in his thinking and the proper purpose of this coil. This is the way I do all my Technician work for computers. You must do your research and this allows you to handle the device more effectively.
I am in the process of researching the time line of the patent when looking at Tesla's other work. I believe if we look at a timeline of his investigations and subsequent patent releases we will find out how this patent came about and what is it's relevance to his research at the time.
Voltage is a measure of electromotive force. As you increase voltage you are increasing the accelerating field between charged bodies of mass. The good thing is that in a capacitor your accelerating field is free. This is the field between two bodies of mass where one is lacking electrons and the other is filled to the brim with electrons. So if you flash charge a capacitor and the dielectric undergoes ionization the free electrons are accelerated for free. These are dielectric electrons not cathode or anode electrons. Depending on how far they are from the anode will determine what degree of acceleration they will acquire. If the capacitor has discharged into the inductor before the electrons reach the anode they will induce a bunch of secondary electrons to flow in the inductor. This why the natural media becomes conductive when it's rarified because it allows for increased acceleration or free flight time of the electrons. The electric field always moves the electrons. Even if it is the electric field of an electron next to it being pushed towards it. As a contact moves towards a circuit to be energised it's electric field precedes it. As the gap becomes smaller the electric field is more intense. The electric field is so intense that it will ionize atoms by acclerating the electrons out of the orbitals way down to the inner most s orbital. You see your contacts spark blue/violet. Where is this light coming from? Is it coming from the mass of the medium or is it coming from a coal burner hundreds of miles away?
I like the thoughts there sparks.
To answer the questions here is my take. It all depends on whether you have 1 or two elements. If there is two elements or electrodes then the light is from one mass to the other mass but if there is one element then it comes from the density of the medium towards the one element or corona. Both stimulate the free charges in the medium into motion and radiance. Free charges are the matter of the medium. Air and other gases. The medium is what is in between the air or gases matter. The same can be applied to tubes as well I think. But since the tubes contain little matter we only see a glow emitted. This glow is the medium in excitation and rarefied. When the medium has matter in it it reacts strongly with the matter and excites the matter into radiance. This is as close to the operation of medium that I have gotten.
Sparks mentions accelerating electrons in the dielectric. To me that suggests that he means current flow but in fact here is none. What you have is deformed atoms under the external stress of the electric field. Each atom becomes a mechanical spring that stores energy, but there is no electron flow.
The glow occurs because the intense electric field starts to strip electrons off of the gas molecules as part of the onset of current flow. It's a very energetic process where a lot of power is being dissipated and electrons are jumping up and down in energy levels. Some energetic electrons fall back into place around a given atom and in the process have to liberate their excess energy as photons.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 12, 2013, 10:12:03 PM
Sparks mentions accelerating electrons in the dielectric. To me that suggests that he means current flow but in fact here is none. What you have is deformed atoms under the external stress of the electric field. Each atom becomes a mechanical spring that stores energy, but there is no electron flow.
The glow occurs because the intense electric field starts to strip electrons off of the gas molecules as part of the onset of current flow. It's a very energetic process where a lot of power is being dissipated and electrons are jumping up and down in energy levels. Some energetic electrons fall back into place around a given atom and in the process have to liberate their excess energy as photons.
The electrons that fall back increase in velocity due to either gravity or electrical forces intrinsic to the nucleus. Mass is increased at the expense of energy. Any particle that is experiencing an accelerating or braking force will have to radiate photons. Photons are inertial currency. It is obvious that a car crashing into a wall will have to convert some of it's inertia into radiance. Sound waves-friction heating-kinetic energy transfer to the wall etc. Less intuitive is that a mass undergoing acceleration will have to rid itself of the ,older inertia, by radiating photons. This is why a particle will never reach the speed of light. The particle can't rid itself of the old inertia because the photons just won't move away from the particle fast enough.
You are too far out for me Sparks and live in your own physics universe.
This is where i diverge from the mainstream.
Lets envision the medium as a fluid and the charged body as a boat. The boat has little resistance in the medium and accelerates through the medium. As the medium is displaced by the charged body it creates wakes in the medium. These wakes are what we call light. There is no shedding of anything from the particle. The light is the wakes of the medium as the displacement of the charged body moves through the medium. Light is just an after effect of the medium in motion and the cause is the excitation of the charged body within the medium. The medium is the ultimate conductor and imparts the excitation to the matter. This in turn propels the charged body trough the medium as it is gaining potential.
This is very evident if we understand that this process is still going on in a vacuum which is devoid of matter. The charged body in a vacuum is coming from one electrode and going towards the other and is creating the glow in a much different method. The matter creates sort of sound waves in the medium of the vacuum. The wave are even and distributed though the whole device. The glow is the movement of the medium from one plate to another as a wave moves much like the wakes around an island. No charge is actually moved as in no charge is moved in a capacitor. Capacitors are converters of current to voltage only devices. That is why they are explosive in their discharge. I suspect that an Led device is the same. That is why they use very little real current. The only difference is that the gap between a led's atoms are much larger and the wakes around each atom amplify through interference patterns between each atom as they are being excited. Electrons do not exist and is only the misinterpretation of the wakes that are very shell like around each atom. When you amplify the potential field of excitation around the atom it amplifies the emissions of light and when the wakes are just right the heat we think comes from the atoms. The heat is the feedback of the waves to the atoms and is why the standing potential of a body in space has a set value as in my experiments in the crystal cells. We use only this potential difference or base potential to create a difference and then subsequently a current in the devices attached to the crystal cells. Removing the galvanic response is a tough problem but it has been done and shows almost a limitless supply of energy as a result of this process.
This is where we went wrong in our logical fallacy of electrons. When all along it was the medium in between every atom that is the cause of energy or current because it passes the electric field as a superconductor.
We need to look at this in the right approach and then design our devices to include this natural phenomena or encourage it's process. Tesla did this after having the aha moment. Light is only the interaction of the medium with matter. This is never more evident then looking into space. Without matter light would not exist and doesn't in space till matter is there to re-radiate the mediums longitudinal (polarized) energy.
Well how do you explain a TV tube then?
On a different matter, you posted this, "There is no danger to this stuff and Tesla repeatedly shown that by passing the energy through his body and even the bodies of others as in the worlds fair where he shown his AC system in full scale. Tesla wasn't ready to release the full details at that time but was completely sure it could do no harm to any life and had even the audience do the same, passing of the current through their bodies."
That's an illustration of how you are obsessed by Tesla and can see nothing wrong or bad about him. The simple fact is that in Tesla's time the medical knowledge and the medical equipment simply did not exist to draw any conclusions about any possible harmful effects related to any hypothetical wireless energy transfer system. Yet you insist that it would not be harmful purely due to your irrational form of blind faith in all things Tesla. We have collectively learned as a society to not have blind faith in technology. For you to make that claim makes all of your claims suspect. i.e.; the Tesla series bifilar coil is a "perfect antenna" and a myriad of other claims you have made about what in fact is no more than an inductor in the final analysis.
In that sense Jbignes5, the "talking the Tesla talk" is just the little boy that cried wolf. The only way your claims would have any credibility with me would be for you to show tangible real world results on the bench with real measurements. That means timing diagrams and the whole nine yards, the real thing.
I will give you some context for that. You know there is that 1988 clip with Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard where they demonstrate "longitudinal electricity." It's big, it's loud, and it almost looks like they are in Frankenstein's laboratory. There is loud buzzing and noise and you see that they make a light bulb light up.
The problem is that they never show how much input power was required to light up the light bulb. I don't even think they make a measurement of the power being drawn by the light bulb. You have this big one hour long presentation and for all we know the efficiency of energy transfer in their demo might have been 5%. You have two grown men that claim that they know what they are doing yet they don't even show a basic measurement like that. The clip is a farce.
Yes, that's tough talk from somebody technical that wants to see real results. I had exactly the same expectations from Inteligentry and Yildiz and both of them failed spectacularly.
So the challenge for you is to bridge the gap between all of the speculative Tesla talk and actually show something tangible and real. I hope that you have somebody technical to work with you because I am not getting the vibe from you that you know how to work on a bench or that you have the basic real-world electronics knowledge. You might believe that you can "cast away" all of that conventional electronics and energy stuff and just focus on the Tesla angle and like magic everything will come together and you will get great results like Synchro1 says. In the real world that's not going to happen. You simply can't play with high frequencies and MOSFETs and coils and show your output voltage is higher than your input voltage (as an example.) Stuff like that will not cut it. I am willing to bet you that most people are exhausted from seeing inconclusive YouTube clips.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 11:32:29 AM
Well how do you explain a TV tube then?
On a different matter, you posted this, "There is no danger to this stuff and Tesla repeatedly shown that by passing the energy through his body and even the bodies of others as in the worlds fair where he shown his AC system in full scale. Tesla wasn't ready to release the full details at that time but was completely sure it could do no harm to any life and had even the audience do the same, passing of the current through their bodies."
That's an illustration of how you are obsessed by Tesla and can see nothing wrong or bad about him. The simple fact is that in Tesla's time the medical knowledge and the medical equipment simply did not exist to draw any conclusions about any possible harmful effects related to any hypothetical wireless energy transfer system. Yet you insist that it would not be harmful purely due to your irrational form of blind faith in all things Tesla. We have collectively learned as a society to not have blind faith in technology. For you to make that claim makes all of your claims suspect. i.e.; the Tesla series bifilar coil is a "perfect antenna" and a myriad of other claims you have made about what in fact is no more than an inductor in the final analysis.
In that sense Jbignes5, the "talking the Tesla talk" is just the little boy that cried wolf. The only way your claims would have any credibility with me would be for you to show tangible real world results on the bench with real measurements. That means timing diagrams and the whole nine yards, the real thing.
I will give you some context for that. You know there is that 1988 clip with Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard where they demonstrate "longitudinal electricity." It's big, it's loud, and it almost looks like they are in Frankenstein's laboratory. There is loud buzzing and noise and you see that they make a light bulb light up.
The problem is that they never show how much input power was required to light up the light bulb. I don't even think they make a measurement of the power being drawn by the light bulb. You have this big one hour long presentation and for all we know the efficiency of energy transfer in their demo might have been 5%. You have two grown men that claim that they know what they are doing yet they don't even show a basic measurement like that. The clip is a farce.
Yes, that's tough talk from somebody technical that wants to see real results. I had exactly the same expectations from Inteligentry and Yildiz and both of them failed spectacularly.
So the challenge for you is to bridge the gap between all of the speculative Tesla talk and actually show something tangible and real. I hope that you have somebody technical to work with you because I am not getting the vibe from you that you know how to work on a bench or that you have the basic real-world electronics knowledge. You might believe that you can "cast away" all of that conventional electronics and energy stuff and just focus on the Tesla angle and like magic everything will come together and you will get great results like Synchro1 says. In the real world that's not going to happen. You simply can't play with high frequencies and MOSFETs and coils and show your output voltage is higher than your input voltage (as an example.) Stuff like that will not cut it. I am willing to bet you that most people are exhausted from seeing inconclusive YouTube clips.
I know what I must do. On the other hand you have done and are doing the exact same thing as the "Tesla fanboy" you are complaining about. You idolize Einstien and the others and the only thing they did was pose theories. Nothing more.
As for your feeling about my technical ability I will tell you again. SHUT THE HELL UP! You don't know me and to tell you the truth I will not explain my credentials again to you.
You say you are an engineer. Well all engineers that I know are arm chair, pencil pushing, theorists. They do no actual work and design things that have little to do with practical everyday technical work. You know the real Technicians who actually do the work always complain about the engineers who lack practical implementations to the devices they design. Especially when the Technicians have to fix those devices.
I have looked over your postings and I see you actually like the guy in the video that I showed on purpose to show what little people know of Tesla or anything for that matter. He spews false information in just about 75% of that video. He didn't even get the banker correct that said that is I can not hook a meter to it, that statement was attributed to J.P. Morgan who was Tesla's finance man at the time. Not the guy he said it was. The only thing that could be considered correct was the tube operation and only from the standpoint of your most holy theorists.
Show me the proof of your theories like electrons. Show me the electron? Can't do that? Hmm then it is just a theory and will stay a theory until you show the proof. There is an old axiom I would like to share with you. You can not prove a theory wrong with another theory. It must be proven wrong by fact. Since your electron theory is not fact then don't bother arguing anything in this thread until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the electron is real and visible. Not with just mathematics which is no proof and can be designed to prove just about anything.
We are here trying to prove our theories and the theories of others who have a lot more credibility then you. Tesla had over 200+ patents in the US alone based off of his theories. When he talks then he should be afforded some respect because of those credentials.
If you want to hang around thats fine and if you disagree then prove it wrong. Otherwise shut up because your doing nothing then saying you are right with no proof at all. Not just theories and math but Real world evidence.
In order to bring light to Tesla's ideas and devices based on those ideas we must understand the man and his ideas. How exactly are we to do that if you are here interrupting our progress and plans to do those real world experiments with disinformation and lack of understanding of the principles involved? Your suppression techniques are highly honed and use nothing more then bully tactics and degrade anyone who doesn't think like you and your most holy theories.
It is not your job to police the masses and debase them because you "think" and you "Believe" they are wrong. Get off the high horse you are on and do the research into Tesla. Do the experiments that many have done on this forum and you will see there is something to this approach. If you would rather not then leave us be and let us waste our time. It is "our" time and not yours, we should be able to do what we wish with it and not be harassed in the process with out right lies.
As for your questions lets give it some thought.
The cathode ray tube (CRT) is a vacuum tube containing one or more electron guns (a source of electrons or electron emitter) and a fluorescent screen used to view images.[1] It has a means to accelerate and deflect the electron beam(s) onto the screen to create the images.
Now if we substitute Electron for charged particle we start to understand what it really is. It is a particle accelerator and has lead mixed in with the face of the tube to block x-rays that are emitted by the charged particles from the particle gun when they slam into the phosphor laced front. The inner mask is to bring clarity and resolution to the dots of the screen.
As for the medical nature of this current it was well known about the benefits this kind of stimulation to our bodies. MANY MANY medical devices were made of Tesla's designs and proved that at least or bare minimum it was safe. Although there were a great many that scoffed at this idea and did exactly as you are doing now. All disinformation and no facts. It was suppressed in the same method you are using now. Though intimidation and disinformation.
As for your assertion that the bifilar coil is a normal inductor is disinformation. This is not true and the simple video shows that proof that I provided. When compared to the reception and broad casting ability there is a clear difference between the bifilar pancake coil and a normal solenoid pancake coil when used as an antenna. In order to get a spark to jump a gap there is a threshold of voltage one has to breach of the receiving coil. This is usually in the 30Kv per CM. In the example in the video the solenoid as the broadcaster and the bifilar had 1mm of space the receiver could not fire very well and in the bifilar coil as the broadcaster and the solenoid as the receiver it was 2mm and fired very well. This is not a magnetic coupling. It is an electric coupling because it was using a High voltage supply with a rotary break machine to create the impulses from the High voltage, very low current being supplied to the broadcast antenna.
There is two reasons for this. One is the ability of the bifilar coil to charge up faster then a regular solenoid coil. This is due to the cancellation of the self inductance of the bifilar coil. Another reason is the capacitance of the coil. Since capacitors use the electric field in longitudinal mode they tend to charge up faster then the coil. The electric field allows this speed increase which has been shown to be faster then the speed of light.
Again you are out of your field here and I respectfully ask you to stop the bullying tactics.
The reason for the demonstration was to show the difference of each type of energy and the method to correctly analyze both. Obviously they did it to prove there is a difference and not to prove any overunity claims. That was not the scope of the video.
Again in order to investigate the two form of energy you have to devise methods to produce and analyze both types. There was even a method to do analogue computers to help with that analyzing which showed that capacitance converts current to longitudinal energy and coil convert current to the magnetic. But I don't expect the great OZ to understand anything of these analogies or methods because they did not teach you to think, only to follow what they were telling you.
As for the input power well how much power does a 10kv machine take to operate? 200-500 ma?<-this depends on the size of the transformer or the design of the transformer. This is because it converts current into higher voltages and usually chokes the current of the source. Duh even a first grader knows that...
Do not compare us to those scammers <-This is yet another tactic you guys apply to scare people away from investigating the claims of others. I have neither asked no one to do this work or tried to sell anything at all. I am doing this to investigate Tesla's work and that is the point of this thread. I also know the dangers of regular currents and know the non dangers of Tesla's longitudinal energy. Since there is little current in it it has no power to hurt anything if done properly. And this is the point I would like to bring up again. You have to use this in the proper methods for it to become harmless. Tesla informed us that 2k impulses a second is where it becomes harmless or even from his claims beneficial in the electric field around the device. Anything lower and it becomes dangerous, with a single impulse a second having very damaging results.
Jbignes5:
I notice that you have chosen to ignore my comments about the medical safety issues. Why is that?
I have read your comments from time to time for a long time now, and I don't get any sense that you have a mastery of the basics of working on a bench. I get the feeling that you are a theory guy and turning your esoteric theories into reality on the bench is going to be a rude awakening for you unless you do "fake pseudo" YouTube clips like we see all the time. i.e.; the Lindemann-Dollard clip from 1988 was a fake pseudo test. Perhaps you will pleasantly surprise me. I can tell you that it was absolutely shocking watching Aaron working on the bench a few years ago because he was almost completely lost. There is a huge difference between talking the talk and actually doing bench work and I am hoping that you do indeed have good bench skills.
QuoteYou say you are an engineer. Well all engineers that I know are arm chair, pencil pushing, theorists. They do no actual work and design things that have little to do with practical everyday technical work. You know the real Technicians who actually do the work always complain about the engineers who lack practical implementations to the devices they design. Especially when the Technicians have to fix those devices.
It's more like this: The front line hardware design engineers do the design work and then when they get their stuffed PCBs they debug them on the bench. They might have to do one or two revisions to get rid of the wires and then they release it into production. They are responsible for the design and the transfer into production and they get support from engineering technicians and production technicians. So the front line design engineers are totally hands-on. You are quoting an old cliche about the supposed tensions between engineers and technicians. In reality that is almost never the case.
QuoteShow me the proof of your theories like electrons. Show me the electron? Can't do that? Hmm then it is just a theory and will stay a theory until you show the proof. There is an old axiom I would like to share with you. You can not prove a theory wrong with another theory. It must be proven wrong by fact. Since your electron theory is not fact then don't bother arguing anything in this thread until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the electron is real and visible. Not with just mathematics which is no proof and can be designed to prove just about anything.
Well I asked you to explain the cathode ray tube in terms of your theories and you have ignored the question. Why is that? Unless you can explain the cathode ray tube then don't bother arguing anything in this thread until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your theory can explain how a cathode ray tube works without electrons.
How does that shoe fit Jbignes5? The message being stop your silly fake litmus tests for gaining your "approval" to post.
You can look up the early 20th century research into the nature of the atom and the electron. Rutherford would probably be a good place to start. I am sure that there are hundreds of megabytes of information about the discovery of the electron and the measurement of its mass, and the discovery of the electron orbitals, and how there is a direct relationship between an energy level change in the electron orbital and the wavelength of the photon emitted and so on and so on.
QuoteWe are here trying to prove our theories and the theories of others who have a lot more credibility then you.
I have a lot of credibility and I have been around for a while. There is a huge paper trail. So you are just spinning right now and that doesn't bode well for your credibility. Even though we might not share opinions on issues, that doesn't mean that I am not credible. If you want to get some credibility with me you could answer my question from a week ago. I honestly don't believe that you can but I am open to being pleasantly surprised. Since this thread is about the Tesla coil the question is a propos. Your claim that you "already answered it" is just more spin. Quote your answer to back up your statement or more appropriately try to answer it for real. If you can't answer it then why not take the plunge and admit that and we can go over it together? I am fully familiar with the psychology of refusing to reveal if you understand something or not. It takes a big man to open up and ask for some help.
The reality Jbignes5 is that many people play with coils on the bench without having a true grasp of how they actually work. They can't explain where the high voltage spikes come from. Are you in that class? Be honest with yourself. If you are in that class, before you do any work with some kind of coil-based project, you should task yourself with mastering the basics of how coils (and capacitors) actually work in the real world. Or you can ask for some help. The truth is the vast majority of experimenters don't understand how they work. So if you educate yourself you will be ten times more effective on the bench.
I look forward to seeing your testing and reports assuming that you will post them online here or perhaps elsewhere.
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
You extended your original posting so I will comment more...
QuoteIn order to bring light to Tesla's ideas and devices based on those ideas we must understand the man and his ideas. How exactly are we to do that if you are here interrupting our progress and plans to do those real world experiments with disinformation and lack of understanding of the principles involved? Your suppression techniques are highly honed and use nothing more then bully tactics and degrade anyone who doesn't think like you and your most holy theories.
It's "disinformation and lack of understanding" from your point of view. We are back to the issue of differing points of view. That's healthy and that's what the forum is here for. A while back this thread was just yet another thread to idolize Tesla and the patent for the series bifilar coil. Somebody sees "electromagnet" in the title and says, "Tesla's coil makes for a better electromagnet!!!" Somebody else says, "It will make for a superior pulse motor!!!" It was just near-mindless praise for the patent. I said, "Hold on, let's look at this patent seriously." I made tons of points and most of the time the response was either anger or listless mute silence, like when I posed the question asking for practical real-world applications for this coil. There have been no responses to that question.
Then you parachuted into this thread which is fine. The thread was moribund and going nowhere so if you have some ideas and want to bring something new to the table that's great. But from my perspective your first few big postings were filled with a bunch of far-fetched ideas that would never be realizable on the bench. And I have heard them 1000 times. So I told you that just like you are free to tell me what you think. We are equal and on a level playing field. I am not suppressing or bullying you at all, and by the same token I don't want you suppressing or bullying me.
QuoteIt is not your job to police the masses and debase them because you "think" and you "Believe" they are wrong. Get off the high horse you are on and do the research into Tesla. Do the experiments that many have done on this forum and you will see there is something to this approach. If you would rather not then leave us be and let us waste our time. It is "our" time and not yours, we should be able to do what we wish with it and not be harassed in the process with out right lies.
You can look in the mirror with respect to policing and debasing yourself. We should all try to get along even if we have differing opinions. I have done tons of experiments on the bench. For example, with a scope and a resistor and a few other parts I have measured the inductance of a coil. I didn't rely on an "idiot meter" to tell me the inductance. Have you ever done that? How many experimenters on the forums do think have done that? Nobody is going to be harassed, and
I do not lie. That's more spinning.
QuoteNow if we substitute Electron for charged particle we start to understand what it really is. It is a particle accelerator and has lead mixed in with the face of the tube to block x-rays that are emitted by the charged particles from the particle gun when they slam into the phosphor laced front. The inner mask is to bring clarity and resolution to the dots of the screen.
Okay, you want to substitute "electron" for "charged particle" when an electron is a charged particle. I don't see much there Jbignes5 but let's leave it alone because it is quite far off topic.
QuoteAs for the medical nature of this current it was well known about the benefits this kind of stimulation to our bodies. MANY MANY medical devices were made of Tesla's designs and proved that at least or bare minimum it was safe. Although there were a great many that scoffed at this idea and did exactly as you are doing now. All disinformation and no facts. It was suppressed in the same method you are using now. Though intimidation and disinformation.
I disagree with you completely and it's pure Tesla spin zone. There is no substance to what you are saying and all electrical medical devices are very seriously scrutinized and they have to use medical-grade components. I view this as pure disinformation on your side. You are basically saying, "Trust me and take it for granted that there will be no adverse effects from being continuously bathed in high-power EM waves because Tesla said so and you can trust early 20th century technology to have covered all the bases." Your statement does not fly in the real world of today. Now, the point has been made and I am prepared to move on. If you want to rebut then fine.
Okay I will continue in another posting.
MileHigh
I am going to say it one more time. You are out of your field here. I did not say EM waves. I said Longitudinal waves which is a whole different beast then your lossy EM wave. The longitudinal wave only goes one way. It does not travel back an forth like an EM wave. Hence the term longitudinal. Look it up and stop saying things about what you don't understand.
EM waves travel back and forth in the up and down method. Longitudinal waves travel out and not back you know radiance and not oscillatory.
Jbignes5:
QuoteAs for your assertion that the bifilar coil is a normal inductor is disinformation. This is not true and the simple video shows that proof that I provided. When compared to the reception and broad casting ability there is a clear difference between the bifilar pancake coil and a normal solenoid pancake coil. In order to get a spark to jump a gap there is a threshold of voltage one has to breach. This is usually in the 30Kv per CM. In the example in the video the solenoid had 1mm of spaceand could not fire very well and in the bifilar coil it was 2mm and fired very well. This is not a magnetic coupling. It is an electric coupling because it was using a High voltage supply with a rotary break machine to create the impulses from the High voltage very low current being supplied.
It's not disinformation. What I said is that the "bifilar" coil specific to this patent will be marginally different from a similar regularly wound coil. For example, when you use it as the drive coil in a pulse motor you will not see any difference. Whne you use it as an electromagnet you will not see any difference. If you check the self-resonant frequency it will be lower than a similar regularly wound coil, but that in itself is not significant.
QuoteWhen compared to the reception and broad casting ability there is a clear difference between the bifilar pancake coil and a normal solenoid pancake coil.
See here is where we have a gap. I know that you post these generalizations and believe them. If there is a difference that's fine, but you have to have some specifics. Do you really have data to back that up? I would not be surprised is there are differences. But for sure there are other coil geometries that will have their own unique differences. "Different" is not the same as fawning over the coil patent and claiming all of these amazing attributes. Also, I will point out to you that there is no mention of the application to radio transmission/reception in the patent at all. There are all sorts of coil-type configurations in antennas, there is no special claim to fame for the Tesla patent in this case.
QuoteAgain you are out of your field here and I respectfully ask you to stop the bullying tactics.
Honestly I feel that you are bullying me so think about that. Sometimes if you post something outrageous I am aghast and you might get a strong comment from me, but I am not trying to bully you. This is the real world and you can expect some push back if you state what I consider to be an outrageous statement.
QuoteThere was even a method to do analogue computers to help with that analyzing which showed that capacitance converts current to longitudinal energy and coil convert current to the magnetic. But I don't expect the great OZ to understand anything of these analogies or methods because they did not teach you to think, only to follow what they were telling you.
What I can tell you is this. If you brought a real RF engineer into the discussion about this demo then a lot of light would shed on this issue. I am not an RF engineer, but I believe that when an EM wave propagates, the electrical and magnetic components of the wave can be on any set of axes, including the "Z" axis in the direction of propagation. By the same token what does "longitudinal" really mean if the two components have to be at right angles to each other? i.e.; if the electric field is along the z axis, the "longitudinal" component, then the magnetic field has to be in the x-y plane, which is definitely not longitudinal. Same thing if you have the magnetic on z then the electric has to be in the x-y plane. Have you ever thought about that? You can't equate longitudinal sound waves with EM waves. I am no EM wave propagation expert but I seriously doubt that you or the vast majority of posters extolling the virtues of longitudinal waves have ever even considered this basic fact. The root cause of that is the idea that you can leap-frog past a science or engineering education or self-education and just read Tesla and the chat boards filled with Tesla enthusiasts were most of them are in the same situation. It just doesn't work like that in the real world.
QuoteAs for the input power well how much power does a 10kv machine take to operate? 200-500 ma?<-this depends on the size of the transformer or the design of the transformer. This is because it converts current into higher voltages and usually chokes the current of the source. Duh even a first grader knows that...
You are not making any sense here at all at all at all. Here is were you are showing your serious limitations by trying to be dismissive of making power measurements. It's simply ridiculous and yes you deserve the strong language here.
QuoteDo not compare us to those scammers <-This is yet another tactic you guys apply to scare people away from investigating the claims of others. I have neither asked no one to do this work or tried to sell anything at all. I am doing this to investigate Tesla's work and that is the point of this thread. I also know the dangers of regular currents and know the non dangers of Tesla's longitudinal energy. Since there is little current in it it has no power to hurt anything if done properly. And this is the point I would like to bring up again. You have to use this in the proper methods for it to become harmless. Tesla informed us that 2k impulses a second is where it becomes harmless or even from his claims beneficial in the electric field around the device. Anything lower and it becomes dangerous, with a single impulse a second having very damaging results.
I have no doubt that you are sincere and not a scammer. But you also have to be sincere with respect to your electronics knowledge and bench experience if you intend on testing stuff on the bench. Your comments about "regular currents and know the non dangers of Tesla's longitudinal energy" are problematic. I am not sure but 2 KHz may be the lowest frequency for a safe skin-effect for doing the standard AC Van der Graff generator demo. But beyond that demo, any discussion about "longitudinal energy" and practical real-world applications would have to be analyzed on a case by case basis.
Again, good luck with your testing, but please look at what your instruments are telling you and take it at face value. There may be some interesting applications that you can demonstrate that may have practical uses.
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
QuoteI am going to say it one more time. You are out of your field here. I did not say EM waves. I said Longitudinal waves which is a whole different beast then your lossy EM wave. The longitudinal wave only goes one way. It does not travel back an forth like an EM wave. Hence the term longitudinal. Look it up and stop saying things about what you don't understand.
EM waves travel back and forth in the up and down method. Longitudinal waves travel out and not back you know radiance and not oscillatory.
For starters I am assuming that we are talking about some kind of wave propagation in air or in space, not along a pair of wires. is this correct? If yes then by definition we are talking about some kind of electromagnetic wave. Do you disagree with that statement?
"Longitudinal" means "in the same direction of the movement." So if a wave is moving in the z direction then something is oscillating on the z axis. Do you have a different definition?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/longitudinal+wave
Quotelongitudinal wave
n
(Physics / General Physics) a wave that is propagated in the same direction as the displacement of the transmitting medium
Can you give me some links about longitudinal waves to look at?
QuoteEM waves travel back and forth in the up and down method. Longitudinal waves travel out and not back you know radiance and not oscillatory.
Seriously Jbignes5, the quote above is you stepping into the Tesla Twilight Zone for me. Waves travel in a medium and the components of the wave oscillate back and forth -> a wave.
So if you hit the end of a wooden 2"x4" longitudinal waves travel down the 2"x4". But it's not the same for any kind of electromagnetic wave traveling in air or empty space. The electric and magnetic components have to oscillate and they are at right angles to each other.
So if you want to educate me with a few of your favourite links that would be great. But I am not feeling what you are saying at all. It appears to me that this is an artificial construct in your mind to "make all the Tesla puzzle pieces fit together." That's a dangerous thing. Here is an example from real life: The Bedini enthusiasts say that the back-EMF spike is "radiant energy" when in fact it's not. It's a lie, it's an artificial construct to "make all of the Bedini puzzle pieces fit together." So you get self-propagating ignorance in that particular case.
QuoteLook it up and stop saying things about what you don't understand.
Here is the issue Jbignes5: It's possible that I don't understand and I am ignorant. It's also possible that what I posted about the electric or magnetic component being in the z direction is considered a longitudinal wave. But it's also possible that the whole notion of longitudinal waves like you are discussing them is just an artificial construct among Tesla enthusiasts where I am going to assume the vast majority of them are
not electromagnetic propagation experts. It's possible that it's all false with no substance. It's a reality that may be unpleasant for you, but it is a distinct possibility.
MileHigh
There are many versions of the longitudinal waves in the main stream. But when talking about impulses and longitudinal waves within the electric field it transforms to a radiant field. The external electric field energizes the object or target and it radiates the impulses back out from the object if it is not segmented. This is the exact method that nature uses to impart energy to an object. There is not energy inside of the object because it follows static laws and not electrodynamic laws as you retort verbatim.
In fact they are finding this out on the massive scale like in our solar system. The focus is our sun and it radiates the energy back out from that point. The solar system is considered as a body in space or as a unit. The entire value of potential is centralized at the point of our sun and the solar winds are the flow of charges radiating out from that point towards the edge of the body that is our solar system. Every body in fact takes a portion of the total value that the solar system has and radiates to a degree that value based on the amount of medium that that body displaces. This is how solar gravity works. Every body has a central point as well where great amounts of movement cause heating and even magnetic effects. The magnetic is not the genesis of anything if anything it is a great loss of the value of this potential field along with heat. But those are mere conversions of this potential. The conversion is based solely on matter and if there were no bodies in this space it would be dark and most void like.
Look up the Thunderbolts project.
Like I said impulses do not oscillate they go from a central point and radiate out with for a lack of a better word for it finger like extensions from the body. The field is instantly on and off and that is not an oscillation of the traditional sense. It is an exciter field. The excitement comes from having full potential to no or near no potential and travels faster then the speed of light. If it didn't then light would not know how to move or which way to go in a sense. So the field has to go before the light for it to propagate.
Lets do an experiment here. We all know that each form of matter has a standing potential when in the medium. This is because each atom displaces the medium with a different density and is energized by that same medium. This difference will actually cause a flow of current within a piece (wire) of matter like copper between the two pieces of matter. The copper could be considered the balance conductor at that point or focal point between the two pieces of matter. This is exactly what led us to the crystal batteries experiment. And the evidence is very strong that we are converting the radiance of our planet into a flow of real current to light an led. Yes it is not strong and no there is little galvanic process with the current tests being done.
So we have a limitless supply of energy if we only have the foresight to admit we were wrong about certain aspects of our current science.
But there is much opposition to even look into this stuff and I suspect that two things are at the root of the problem. One is pride and the other is greed. The pride in "thinking" or "believing" you have the right position on things is a very nasty egotistical belief. If we had viewed this from the correct aspect all along then we wouldn't be in the position we are in today. If we understood the true nature of our environment we would have seen things correctly and not have to make up concepts like the electron to explain the errors in our science and the subsequent math to support those logical fallacies. In fact I truly believe that the ancient societies knew way more then our own ego's will let us believe. They knew about the real composition of matter and it's relation to it's environment. That all energy is not within the matter but external and matter is only a filter or converter and reflector (reradiator) of external energy of the medium we live in.
The greed part is that they use it to harness our own energy and contain us in little boxes while always figuring out new ways to extract more and more as time goes on. We are taught from day one that there is no free lunch but yet our solar system has been going for a billion years without one bill. We are schooled in their ways and as we have found out this creates a pay as you go mentality. They hammer it into our heads on a daily basis and formerly teach us this slavery system.
But as we are finding out there is a free lunch. We just have to change our views on things and get with the program nature is trying to teach us. Through experimentation we will find the answer but that means doing the experiments in a way that works and not in the same old same old mentality. Magnetic fields and EM waves will never net us anything but losses. But charge an object that is designed to hold charge and it will stay charged forever. The electric field is the answer and we need to devise ways that allow us to convert at the load this electric field without losses in the transmission. Yes the transformation will have some losses or changes from electric to heat and magnetic fields but even then we are becoming better in our designing of devices to utilize the magnetic field more efficiently like in the example of the Joule thief.
Lasersaber has done much work in experimenting with this concept and the joule ringer is the outcome. We just need to get past this magnetic worship and move on to much better concepts. Tesla was one for increasing the voltage to a point that almost no loss was associated with his "Transmitter" The magnification came from energizing the mass of the world and increasing the resultant ability to run multiple(millions) of current converters through the capacity of the world. Each impulse would energize the space around the world through this electrode capacitance of the world itself without harm to us or anything living. Yes it will disrupt "normal" devices because they were not designed to work on the system he envisioned. If we try to do this now it will destroy a great many devices in the world but those devices are tied to a system that is based on a lossy theory (Magnetics and EM theory). It is designed as such so we have to continuously have to pay to keep it running. And this is the crux of the problem and the bane of our society.
Since I don't condone breaking others peoples stuff we must develop different methods to obtain the same outcome and it can be based on the method I have described above. A more natural way also that is much better for us and the environment. A more passive way as well that amplifies the current systems we already have and maybe get more out then in.
You talk about measurements and reporting correct data and that has been my aim the whole time. But we will have to change our devices to measure this kind of energy. It is not as simple as hooking up a current technology meter to our device and expecting a readout that makes sense. In most cases like has been seen that the device will fail and after a bit will break because it can not handle the capablities needed to analyze impulse and radiant effects. So both new devices have to be devised to handle this stuff. Even Tesla had to have modified static voltage measuring devices to correctly analyze the effects of longitudinal energy.
My first move is to experiment with this coil. I have done preliminary experiments that shows me that it works well with longitudinal energy or impulses. It is the best antenna for impulses because it has almost no feedback as shown in the short video showing the differences of using either a solenoid vs Bifilar coil as the broadcaster antenna. But I suspect that geometry plays a role in how you excite the bifilar coil. From around the coil on the same plane an impulse field will effect the current flowing in the bifilar coil augmenting it's output. and not the way the guys was showing for the bifilar coil as a receiver.
My experiments will tell the truth.
As for you insisting I didn't answer your question well to be honest I did and you are ignoring the post. Go back and reread my posts after your question and you will see. This is the problem with you, you don't read anything you paraphrase it and then spout some sill thing like you are wrong. Like I said I don't rightly care what you "Think". To me you just regurgitate what they have taught you if you ever learned anything in your life. You don't check the facts like in the video I showed that you thought was credible and 75% of the video was BS. So go back and check the video again and then check the facts not the information in your mind that was fuzzy or you couldn't remember right.
I mean thats why I keep telling you you are out of your field here. Your memory is bad and half of what you think you remember you make up in some kind of logical fallacy.
As for proof by experiment lets look at this video which is similar but different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPWVbTk5Z9Q
There is a lot of work out there already. You just have to do the research then of course replicate it to prove it to yourself.
Jbignes5:
I am not going to comment too much on your unusual view of the solar system and the displacement pressure stuff and longitudinal waves and related matters. I am just going to make select comments.
QuoteBut when talking about impulses and longitudinal waves within the electric field it transforms to a radiant field.
"Radiant field" is a meaningless term unless you state exactly what you mean by that.
QuoteAnd the evidence is very strong that we are converting the radiance of our planet into a flow of real current to light an led. Yes it is not strong and no there is little galvanic process with the current tests being done.
I read something the other day were they sad that the "crystal batteries" are nothing more than galvanic current and the moisture was being provided by the air.
QuoteWe are taught from day one that there is no free lunch but yet our solar system has been going for a billion years without one bill.
Yes I am familiar with that idea that the solar system must be powered. I still in a way find is shocking that people that are ostensibly interested in science in one form or another make statements like this. All of the planets are in a perpetual free fall around the sun. Do you get that?
QuoteLasersaber has done much work in experimenting with this concept and the joule ringer is the outcome. We just need to get past this magnetic worship and move on to much better concepts. Tesla was one for increasing the voltage to a point that almost no loss was associated with his "Transmitter" The magnification came from energizing the mass of the world and increasing the resultant ability to run multiple(millions) of current converters through the capacity of the world. Each impulse would energize the space around the world through this electrode capacitance of the world itself without harm to us or anything living. Yes it will disrupt "normal" devices because they were not designed to work on the system he envisioned. If we try to do this now it will destroy a great many devices in the world but those devices are tied to a system that is based on a lossy theory (Magnetics and EM theory). It is designed as such so we have to continuously have to pay to keep it running. And this is the crux of the problem and the bane of our society.
If only the fantasy you write about above was true.
QuoteIn most cases like has been seen that the device will fail and after a bit will break because it can not handle the capablities needed to analyze impulse and radiant effects. So both new devices have to be devised to handle this stuff.
Honestly I view the statement above as a complete and total cop-out. You guys have been talking about this stuff for years and years and saying that you can't measure it and need new measuring devices. Well, WHERE ARE THEY? I have a very cynical view about this. I view it as a curtain to hide behind. "We think we know it's thee but we can't measure it." It's like saying I have a $400K sports car but you just can't see it. It's too convenient and if the enthusiasts say it and believe it among themselves then you are basically giving the scammers Carte Blanche to use it too to pull off their cons.
To be continued in part 2.
MileHigh
Part 2.
QuoteMy first move is to experiment with this coil. I have done preliminary experiments that shows me that it works well with longitudinal energy or impulses.
Well, I look forward to the day when you can share your data. By the way, you don't have any kind of "monopoly" on "impulses" like you seem to imply. Your "impulses" are really and truly nothing special. What's a computer motherboard? Billions and billions of impulses per second with controlled slew rates. They are not strange and unique to what you guys play with like you seem to be suggesting.
QuoteAs for you insisting I didn't answer your question well to be honest I did and you are ignoring the post.
Here is the question again: You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen?Will yo do me the courtesy of copying and pasting your answer here? Because I sure as hell don't see an answer from you and I am suspecting that you are going to say something like it is in one of your linked clips or linked references and I should go look there.
That will not cut it. I have now asked you three times for
your answer.
QuoteYour memory is bad and half of what you think you remember you make up in some kind of logical fallacy.
That is not true in the least bit. Please don't cynically take advantage of my honesty. By the same token, you dug up the transistor story and tried to use it against me. I gave you a full explanation in my reply and you did not even acknowledge it. Plus in that thread I also acknowledged my mistake and apologized. Being a real person on the forums takes character and courage and it's unfortunate we see so much weak-kneed spinning at times. Let's not play silly pi**ing in the wind games. Is that a deal?
QuoteAs for proof by experiment lets look at this video which is similar but different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPWVbTk5Z9Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPWVbTk5Z9Q)
Honestly, there is nothing in that clip at all. It's just the same old pulsing coil deal a la Bedini. Tinman has another year under his belt now and I am willing to bet you he knows what major mistake he made in that clip at this point in time.
My gut feel Jbignes5, is that if you share your bench work and make YouTube clips and are prepared to discuss them here, then you are going to be in for a shock if you are willing to engage with people like me. I have watched a lot of pulse motor and other clips and I have never seen anything out of the ordinary. That's often the crux of the matter when you have a beginning experimenter. The circuit under test is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing but the experimenter mistakenly makes fragile tenuous connections with the esoteric stuff that you see on the forums.
Looking forward to seeing your answer.
Milehigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 03:11:28 AM
Jbignes5:
I am not going to comment too much on your unusual view of the solar system and the displacement pressure stuff and longitudinal waves and related matters. I am just going to make select comments.
"Radiant field" is a meaningless term unless you state exactly what you mean by that.
I read something the other day were they sad that the "crystal batteries" are nothing more than galvanic current and the moisture was being provided by the air.
Yes I am familiar with that idea that the solar system must be powered. I still in a way find is shocking that people that are ostensibly interested in science in one form or another make statements like this. All of the planets are in a perpetual free fall around the sun. Do you get that?
If only the fantasy you write about above was true.
Honestly I view the statement above as a complete and total cop-out. You guys have been talking about this stuff for years and years and saying that you can't measure it and need new measuring devices. Well, WHERE ARE THEY? I have a very cynical view about this. I view it as a curtain to hide behind. "We think we know it's thee but we can't measure it." It's like saying I have a $400K sports car but you just can't see it. It's too convenient and if the enthusiasts say it and believe it among themselves then you are basically giving the scammers Carte Blanche to use it too to pull off their cons.
To be continued in part 2.
MileHigh
My unusual view of the Universe is from this group of scientists who are actually looking at the Universe not with theories but with their eyes and then explaining what they see with real data and results of real experiments. They are rewriting the logical fallacies that we all have been subjected to our entire lives with facts.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
I suggest you read and listen and educate yourself to the truth.
It doesn't matter what I think about radiance. Go look it up, it is very clear what radiance is both in my usage of the term and it's meaning.
You read counter logical fallacies posed by people who have not done the experiments. In fact the galvanic response is exactly what they were and are trying to remove from the crystal batteries. Again you only remember what lets you support your logical fallacies. In the current experiments the galvanic response has been all but removed from the experiment. A very very small percentage of the power is done through galvanic response. But you read one little blurb and wow it all about galvanic response. Then again I encourage you to actually do the experiments and see for yourself. I have done the experiments, in fact I am still doing the experiments.
First we have to do the experiment then find out what the problems are in testing the devices. There is an order to doing experiments. First you must ask ta question. Then design the experiment that might answer that question. Then an accurate way of measurement must be designed to test it without damaging the test equipment. I have not gotten that far yet in this experiment because I have to sit here and defend my position to someone who just "for fun" Likes to poke holes in everything one says without doing one experiment themselves. Because you don't know the terminology or even the method that we are talking about then how can you state anything at all about these investigations?
This brings me to your reasons to do as such. There is a great force behind the current views that you hold so sacred. The theories make huge sums in cash and if Tesla was right and we find a way to live without slaving our lives away it will destroy the little bubble you guys live in. You know the ones who are making huge amounts of cash from US. You state you are a professional in the engineering field. You make your stream of cash on us and will protect that stream with every last breath. That includes making logical fallacies to support your income stream. We on the other hand are here to free humanity from scumbags like you. You lie with every breath and when shown those lies close your eyes and continue on with the attacks of credentials and logical fallacies ad numb. I for one will not be answering your tripe anymore after this last batch of posts. I have better things in my life to attend to. Like my experiments. You do this for "Fun", we are doing this to free ourselves from the likes of your kind that only feed off of our hard work like the parasites you are.
You ask all kind of questions and this is because you are outside of your field as I have said many many times. You continue to ask these questions and post after post counter with your logical fallacies without even going to this great bank of information they call the internet. Research the field before saying one more thing. If there are terminologies you don't understand then go out and find your answers. One tip don't just look at one results when looking into this field. Research is not just cherry picking the answer that falls to your "Thoughts". it should be a consensus of information or at least a majority of the information agreeing.
You also need to stop looking at the videos we post as just in and out measurements. There is a lot being said about the comparison video of bifilar vs. solenoid style coils. Of which you did not even pick up on and which I have been trying to point you towards. But the problem is that this is what you guys do time and time again. Instead of looking at the video and seeing the interesting thing he was trying to point out you make assumptions and instantly move to the input output argument. It is starring you in the face and despite all others efforts to point you in the right direction you harp on other aspects instead of what was the point of the video.
Again I will stop answering your posts and you can stop "challenging" my posts which the challenge is utter BS.
As for the ideal this and the ideal that well IDEAL=MADE UP. It is not real in any sense of the word. There is no such thing as an IDEAL anything. That is only a suppression tactic put out by people who do not like transients. They remove the transient from the equation and then don't have to deal with it. IDEAL=FAKE=MADE UP or NOT REAL. Hows this for an ideal situation. You not being here messing with our investigations and experiments. Now that would be an ideal situation. Go have "fun" somewhere else and let the big boys experiment in peace with out disruptions and delay tactics or logical fallacies. This is not a healthy debate because in order to debate you must know something about the opposing sides take on it. You are just posing counter attacks without even knowing the terminology or concepts for which we are trying to experiment on.
Again I call out your reasoning for doing as you are doing and that is two things GREED and PRIDE.
Quote from: jbignes5 on July 14, 2013, 09:00:12 AM
My unusual view of the Universe is from this group of scientists who are actually looking at the Universe not with theories but with their eyes and then explaining what they see with real data and results of real experiments. They are rewriting the logical fallacies that we all have been subjected to our entire lives with facts.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ (http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/)
I suggest you read and listen and educate yourself to the truth.
It doesn't matter what I think about radiance. Go look it up, it is very clear what radiance is both in my usage of the term and it's meaning.
You read counter logical fallacies posed by people who have not done the experiments. In fact the galvanic response is exactly what they were and are trying to remove from the crystal batteries. Again you only remember what lets you support your logical fallacies. In the current experiments the galvanic response has been all but removed from the experiment. A very very small percentage of the power is done through galvanic response. But you read one little blurb and wow it all about galvanic response. Then again I encourage you to actually do the experiments and see for yourself. I have done the experiments, in fact I am still doing the experiments.
First we have to do the experiment then find out what the problems are in testing the devices. There is an order to doing experiments. First you must ask ta question. Then design the experiment that might answer that question. Then an accurate way of measurement must be designed to test it without damaging the test equipment. I have not gotten that far yet in this experiment because I have to sit here and defend my position to someone who just "for fun" Likes to poke holes in everything one says without doing one experiment themselves. Because you don't know the terminology or even the method that we are talking about then how can you state anything at all about these investigations?
This brings me to your reasons to do as such. There is a great force behind the current views that you hold so sacred. The theories make huge sums in cash and if Tesla was right and we find a way to live without slaving our lives away it will destroy the little bubble you guys live in. You know the ones who are making huge amounts of cash from US. You state you are a professional in the engineering field. You make your stream of cash on us and will protect that stream with every last breath. That includes making logical fallacies to support your income stream. We on the other hand are here to free humanity from scumbags like you. You lie with every breath and when shown those lies close your eyes and continue on with the attacks of credentials and logical fallacies ad numb. I for one will not be answering your tripe anymore after this last batch of posts. I have better things in my life to attend to. Like my experiments. You do this for "Fun", we are doing this to free ourselves from the likes of your kind that only feed off of our hard work like the parasites you are.
You ask all kind of questions and this is because you are outside of your field as I have said many many times. You continue to ask these questions and post after post counter with your logical fallacies without even going to this great bank of information they call the internet. Research the field before saying one more thing. If there are terminologies you don't understand then go out and find your answers. One tip don't just look at one results when looking into this field. Research is not just cherry picking the answer that falls to your "Thoughts". it should be a consensus of information or at least a majority of the information agreeing.
You also need to stop looking at the videos we post as just in and out measurements. There is a lot being said about the comparison video of bifilar vs. solenoid style coils. Of which you did not even pick up on and which I have been trying to point you towards. But the problem is that this is what you guys do time and time again. Instead of looking at the video and seeing the interesting thing he was trying to point out you make assumptions and instantly move to the input output argument. It is starring you in the face and despite all others efforts to point you in the right direction you harp on other aspects instead of what was the point of the video.
Again I will stop answering your posts and you can stop "challenging" my posts which the challenge is utter BS.
As for the ideal this and the ideal that well IDEAL=MADE UP. It is not real in any sense of the word. There is no such thing as an IDEAL anything. That is only a suppression tactic put out by people who do not like transients. They remove the transient from the equation and then don't have to deal with it. IDEAL=FAKE=MADE UP or NOT REAL. Hows this for an ideal situation. You not being here messing with our investigations and experiments. Now that would be an ideal situation. Go have "fun" somewhere else and let the big boys experiment in peace with out disruptions and delay tactics or logical fallacies. This is not a healthy debate because in order to debate you must know something about the opposing sides take on it. You are just posing counter attacks without even knowing the terminology or concepts for which we are trying to experiment on.
Again I call out your reasoning for doing as you are doing and that is two things GREED and PRIDE.
Great post! ;)
" Again I will stop answering your posts and you can stop "challenging" my posts which the challenge is utter BS."
I agree and I will stop also. Pages are filling up with garbage because of it.
Continue on. ;D
Mags
If an electronic cloud forms a medium. And we compress this medium by moving a charged plate straight away at it. Would a longitudinal wave move through the electron cloud like a sound wave? If tesla was charging his ground terminal with lots and lots and lots of electrons would they create electrical sound waves in any free electrons in the earth? In a klystron microwave tube we get a stream of electrons to move from cathode to anode that is caused to become rarified and compressed along the flow path. A fixed observer perpendicular from the stream is alternately charged from more negative to less negative without one electron moving from the stream to the observer. His hair will alternately stand on end then collapse against his skull due to the charge of the clumps of electrons moving in the stream. In an electroscope you can move the gold leafs by just passing a glass rod with a wire in it connected to ground near the metal at the top of the electroscope. Electrons in the metal are pushed into the gold leafs and they move apart. Again not one electron moves from the glass rod to the electroscope. What does move from the grounded metal to the electroscope is the electric field of the electrons inside the rod. This is how we couple two resonant tanks together. We use a capacitor between two tanks. As the electric field in one tank changes it excites oscillations in the second tank. The second tank is excited using electrostatic induction or capacitave coupling.
My question sparks is this:
Would two bifilar pancake coils that are connected via two capacitors create an oscillator? Now that would be an experiment. As I go and perfect my technique for winding the coils this will have to be looked into. Would stacking the coils in parallel reduce the nominal resistance of the wire and allow for better oscillations? Or should we use the litz wire method to do that?
Jbignes5:
QuoteAs for the ideal this and the ideal that well IDEAL=MADE UP. It is not real in any sense of the word. There is no such thing as an IDEAL anything. That is only a suppression tactic put out by people who do not like transients. They remove the transient from the equation and then don't have to deal with it. IDEAL=FAKE=MADE UP or NOT REAL.
So, we have clearly established here that over the past several postings made by you were you claimed that you answered the question, you have been lying. You are unable to answer the question on a circuit that consists of one single component. All that you can do is rant about the term "ideal." In your electronic technician training (if you really had any which is doubtful) that term and concept should have been taught to you.
Why all the lying? Why can't you just be honest?
This quote from you:
QuoteWould two bifilar pancake coils that are connected via two capacitors create an oscillator?
That just shows how clueless you are with respect to electronics, you can't even pose a question that makes sense. And yet you are going to do bench 'research.' You should work with Rosemary Ainslie, the two of you are on the same level.
Another goodie:
QuoteIt doesn't matter what I think about radiance. Go look it up, it is very clear what radiance is both in my usage of the term and it's meaning.
You said, "But when talking about impulses and longitudinal waves within the electric field it transforms to a radiant field." You can't even define your own terms that you used in your own prose.
QuoteYou make your stream of cash on us and will protect that stream with every last breath. That includes making logical fallacies to support your income stream. We on the other hand are here to free humanity from scumbags like you. You lie with every breath and when shown those lies close your eyes and continue on with the attacks of credentials and logical fallacies ad numb. I for one will not be answering your tripe anymore after this last batch of posts. I have better things in my life to attend to. Like my experiments. You do this for "Fun", we are doing this to free ourselves from the likes of your kind that only feed off of our hard work like the parasites you are.
That's comical and there is an explanation for it. There is a natural variation in people, like a bell curve, a.k.a., a normal distribution. You are way out there in the Five Sigma Society. You are just a hapless victim of where you landed on the bell curve. It's unfortunate but Mother Nature does her thing.
QuoteYou ask all kind of questions and this is because you are outside of your field as I have said many many times.
I have a Great Revelation for you Jbignes5. It's my field and you are one that's on the outside. You just can't see that looking through your psychedelic pinhole. The society is not healthy if we don't have people like you.
QuoteThere is a lot being said about the comparison video of bifilar vs. solenoid style coils.
If you only understood how a coil actually works that would help. But hey, don't let those chains of knowledge hold you down in your coil 'research.'
QuotePages are filling up with garbage because of it.
A stinky troll that is also displaying his capacity for being a morally bankrupt self-contradictory 'dude' that lacks character and courage. Magluvin also knows that you are in the Five Sigma Society too Jbigness, but he won't admit it. He doesn't have the courage to say that to you. So he is just making a fool of himself as the sad thread clown. And after years of working on the bench and winding up an innumerable number of coils and doing countless 'experiments,' he can't answer the question either. ;) ;) ;)
MileHigh
Don't rightly care what you think anymore. I will leave this up to a third party and that party is named Stephan. I will have him look at all your posting and see that you are the liar. If need be he will moderate you to clear up this mess you have made of this thread. You my "friend" are the one playing games here. You say that I did not answer your question but I did in post 319.
Here is the quote if you are too lazy to go find the post. " A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current."
So who is the liar now?
Also lets see your experiment with the real ideal inductor? Come show us this ideal inductor?
That ideal inductor is just a mathematical construct from your delusional mind and theory that couldn't possible explain the electric field side of electricity. Lets stop the games ok liar.
Just for giggles lets see what Tinman has realized about the coil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=lVEVCo0wXAA&feature=endscreen
Now lets look at the ideal vs reality situation:
"******In circuit theory, inductors are idealized as obeying the mathematical relation precisely.****** An "ideal inductor" has inductance, but no resistance or capacitance, and does not dissipate or radiate energy. However real inductors have side effects which cause their behavior to depart from this simple model. They have resistance (due to the resistance of the wire and energy losses in core material), and parasitic capacitance (due to the electric field between the turns of wire which are at slightly different potentials). At high frequencies the capacitance begins to affect the inductor's behavior; at some frequency, real inductors behave as resonant circuits, becoming self-resonant. Above the resonant frequency the capacitive reactance becomes the dominant part of the impedance. At higher frequencies, resistive losses in the windings increase due to skin effect and proximity effect.
Inductors with ferromagnetic cores have additional energy losses due to hysteresis and eddy currents in the core, which increase with frequency. At high currents, iron core inductors also show gradual departure from ideal behavior due to nonlinearity caused by magnetic saturation of the core. An inductor may radiate electromagnetic energy into surrounding space and circuits, and may absorb electromagnetic emissions from other circuits, causing electromagnetic interference (EMI). Real-world inductor applications may consider these parasitic parameters as important as the inductance."
So lets not post hypothetical questions as fact troll.
What's there to giggle about Jbignes5? What has Tinman realized about the Tesla series bifilar coil? Why don't you share your thoughts with us about Tinman's clip. I did watch it so I am curious to know what you have to say.
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
Here is the full paragraph from your posting #319:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Again the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here was the question I asked you:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your few sentences embedded in a paragraph does not constitute an answer to my question. And if you wanted to consider it an answer then you would be wrong. Your comments about the bifilar not having the same "push back" are also wrong.
This is a pearl, "Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current."
Is your brain in gear? Can you act normally, like posting, "The answer to your question is......."
Unbelievable.
I will agree with you and I am done talking with you. We have done a lot of good things on this thread in examining the Tesla series bifilar coil patent and possible applications. I took off the "Tesla blinders" and tried to get people to think critically and cast away their prejudices. You joined the thread and said a lot of nonsensical stuff that should have been challenged. We have had a debate and you were the instigator of the name calling and you even went as low as calling me a "scumbag." In my opinion it's hopeless just like other good people on this forum have tried to get through to Rosemary Ainslie, it's hopeless.
What freaks me out is the complete cognative dissonance. You actually believe that you can do research on the bench into coils and damn all of that "stupid textbook stuff."
From Wikipedia:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are safe now Jbignes5. You can run away and live out your fantasies. I give up on you, it's a lost cause.
MileHigh
I'll bite on your last point Jbignes5:
QuoteNow lets look at the ideal vs reality situation:
"******In circuit theory, inductors are idealized as obeying the mathematical relation precisely.****** An "ideal inductor" has inductance, but no resistance or capacitance, and does not dissipate or radiate energy. However real inductors have side effects which cause their behavior to depart from this simple model. They have resistance (due to the resistance of the wire and energy losses in core material), and parasitic capacitance (due to the electric field between the turns of wire which are at slightly different potentials). At high frequencies the capacitance begins to affect the inductor's behavior; at some frequency, real inductors behave as resonant circuits, becoming self-resonant. Above the resonant frequency the capacitive reactance becomes the dominant part of the impedance. At higher frequencies, resistive losses in the windings increase due to skin effect and proximity effect.
Inductors with ferromagnetic cores have additional energy losses due to hysteresis and eddy currents in the core, which increase with frequency. At high currents, iron core inductors also show gradual departure from ideal behavior due to nonlinearity caused by magnetic saturation of the core. An inductor may radiate electromagnetic energy into surrounding space and circuits, and may absorb electromagnetic emissions from other circuits, causing electromagnetic interference (EMI). Real-world inductor applications may consider these parasitic parameters as important as the inductance."
So lets not post hypothetical questions as fact troll.
So, the question is
easier to answer if you use an ideal inductor instead of a real inductor because you don't have to deal with all of the other parameters - but you still can't answer it.
And you bash the concept of an ideal inductor after looking it up because you are incapable of appreciating what it really is all about. Every single person that takes an electronics course is taught about ideal inductors and ideal capacitors before they discuss the real versions of these components. It's your ignorance talking.
I sent the following email to Stefan and Jbignes5 because I am going to cover my behind and not get railroaded by Jbignes5:
Stefan,
Myself and Jbignes5 had a strong debate and he said that he was going to run to you.
Here is the quote:
<<<
Don't rightly care what you think anymore. I will leave this up to a third party and that party is named Stephan. I will have him look at all your posting and see that you are the liar. If need be he will moderate you to clear up this mess you have made of this thread. You my "friend" are the one playing games here. You say that I did not answer your question but I did in post 319.
Here is the quote if you are too lazy to go find the post. " A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current."
So who is the liar now?
>>>>>
I asked Jbignes5 to answer my question several times after he claimed that he answered it. In fact, his "answer" was embedded in a paragraph and he gave no indication that he was answering my question at all.
Here is his supposed "answer," just one of several paragraphs in a longer posting.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Again the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked him several times for the answer but he did not have the courtesy to 1) indicate that he was answering the question in the first place, and 2) simply copy/paste the answer after I asked him the first of several times.
This is gratuitous belligerence on Jbignes5's part for who knows what reason.
Yes we argued and had strong words but I was not the instigator of the strong words. The worst was when Jbignes5 called me "scumbag."
I brought a lot of value to this thread by getting the contributors to take a serious look at the Tesla series bifilar coil patent without the just blindly believing that "everything that Tesla ever did must be amazing." It's just a patent for a coil winding configuration and it's applications and possible advantages (or not) have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
I am not going to be "railroaded" by Jbignes5. We had a good healthy strong debate in the overall thread and when Jbignes5 joined the thread very recently, the debate continued on. The types of things that Jbignes5 said were too far out to not be challenged. That is part of what this forum is about. If we don't challenge ideas and debate them from both perspectives then we all lose. The simple truth is that many many people would disagree with Jbignes5's claims and there is the issue of technical competence also, very similar to the Rosemary Ainslie case.
With respect, I am going to take the liberty of posting this message in the thread itself. I will not be held 'hostage' to Jbignes5's threats to go to you and complain about me. If you do actually read the thread you will sometimes see "push back" from me but only after I have been pushed first.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your forum. It's very seriously arguable that when Jbignes5 makes wild claims that go unchallenged that that's to the real detriment of your forum.
What I can assure you is that my debate with Jbignes5 is now over because it's hopeless.
Respectfully,
MileHigh
ugh.. rofl...
Here is what i think of your message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOcoWqGg3mY
It is very clear you were the instigator to this Debate and the name calling started from your side.
In every case I told you I answered your question that was a loaded question. I knew you would throw the ideal case out on the floor and when faced with your outright lies you have no choice but to, how did you put it, Call mommy.
So to be fair this was a test. A test to see if you felt threatened by the proof of your lies. When faced with that truth you thought to preemptively bring Stephan into this Before I had a chance to lay it all out. But the proof is in the thread. The video in this reply tells the tactics you are applying as well. This is an old problem and we need to weed out the ones who do not follow a modicum of civility. My name calling was a direct result of you calling me snide names and remarks and now you think that Stephan is going to rescue you with the poof still in the thread about what you have done?
The thread Name is Tesla's "Coil for Electro-magnets" All you have been doing is trying to derail conversations over this topic and distract us from talking about such. We asked you many many times to keep it civil and at least keep the nay saying to a minimum to allow us to further this topic, of which you are quick to respond every time with more distractions and out right disinformation. Stephan knows my character and of which he had to do investigations before on my behalf to ferret out the bad element.
My initial suspicion was that you didn't read anything and understood very little in the "Debate". This is never more evident when i replied about your question but you failed to look back and check. Then you called me a liar and a troll and before that even stronger language. I mean really how many times does someone have to tell you to look for yourself and reread the posts that you said I never wrote.
I don't go to Stephan often because he likes to do real experiments like most of us. He is busy with his own investigations but when someone has the logical fallacies that you put forth as facts then ignore when people reply to them showing you of your Fallacies, What are we to do. I mean I actually knew you were going to do what you did. The proof is in the thread and Stephan is a very smart man. I trust that he will see the games much like he has done before when people like you try to derail any progress in a thread and tend to belittle anyone that counters your disinformation.
And for the fact of the matter I joined the conversation at reply #9 Not later as you say. Yet more disinformation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
The Tesla secondary is excited due to I guess you would call it parasitic capacitance. The entire secondary is a tank that converts impulses from the primary into highvoltage high frequency oscillations in the secondary. Each impulse is saved in the tank and not radiated. Below is a link to Tesla's pancake coil inside a 2 turn primary under experimentation back in 1988.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFa-IymyWHM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFa-IymyWHM)
Hey everybody,
Let's dip into the Energetic Forum for a second. In the "The Solenoid/Electromagnt" thread a lot of posters make comments related to the Tesla bifilar coil patent.
I am going to quote some of the comments here:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've been advocating this particular "improvement" for some time for particularly efficient electric motors using magnetic attraction. If you take a coil with the same number of turns, and compare it to this configuration using the same power supply, you will find this coil design produces a much stronger field for the same applied power (about 75% gain).
These coils also store much larger amounts of energy in the electric field, which causes huge current spikes (amperage = change in the electric field/time) along with huge voltage spikes (voltage = change in the magnetic field/time) when the power is "Abruptly Disrupted".
----------
Well Chain, looking at the patent I see why it's an improvement as the coil b. acts as gears working with each other if you picture the direction of the flux spinning around the wire. figure a. being a standard coil has every flux orbit in a state of reluctance with the ones adjacent to it.
----------
A coil will heat up if it produces a magnetic field (stator) in opposition to another magnetic field (rotor). When you smash two opposing fields together, alot of heat is produced, much akin to slamming two cars together head on.
----------
P.S. I did read the patent many, many times. I have not "deciphered" it incorrectly. Tesla doesn't really mention magnetism even though it's part of the title. The claims of a stronger field per watt are coming from me. I don't know where you gathered that I was claiming Tesla.
----------
If that happen surely it will give more power to the created magnetic field, which is in other cases consumed into resistance heating. In such case pancake bifilar coil wound be essentially close to room temperature superconductor or self-adjusted tank circuit at resonance.
----------
I have never understood the pancake coil but thought
it was about Tesla's high voltage high frequency work,
and a coil which generated a good magnetic field
without the inductance that interferes with HV/HF
circuits. Is this right?
-----------
I believe a finely tuned/designed a coil can have a tighter stronger flux if aligned properly like a north/south halbach. Or a looser general field. These modifications would require very precise latices with magnetically resistive and conductive layering.
-----------
I notice that when the power is applied there is a huge surge of field strength that dampens out. A single wire wound coil also possesses this interesting phenomena, however the bifilar coil in either configuration (series or parallel) causes a much more pronounced effect. The currents circulating inside the coil by it's own induction could have something to do with it based on the formula (Amp = change in electrification / time). But as to why the coil produces a stronger field per watt, I don't know. All I know is it does based on the experiments of 2 others and myself.
What this means is that less power is needed to saturate a core with the lines of force.
-----------
So to properly tune a Coil for electro-magnets, the voltage to be used is also
a consideration. A coil wound for effect at 100 Khz using 10 000 volts will not
work the same if 10 volts is used due to the capacitor plate separation
(thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self
capacitance to be less.
------------
I found a page where someone also compared field strengths of bifilar coils compared to single wire coils. They also state that the magnetic field is stronger.
------------
And I have conducted the experiment myself using the same amount of wire and the same power supply and came to a very different conclusion. I did not use nails, I used a compass. Nails are another way to go but a compass is far more accurate. You will see a gain in field strength. 1 coil with 100 turns of wire is equal to 2 coils with 50 turns of wire on the same diameter core.
------------
I've noticed something about the pancake style coil, from the spin of the magnetic force in the wires it appears that the coil fields would resemble a north/south Halbach array. The north south Halbach increases the density restricting the flux field to a small area. Has anyone been able to measure if the field size and shape between the two coils differ?
------------
The geometry and the advantage of pancake types coils is one of dimensional usage, the shape of the field and the compact form.
-------------
It is not the increase of field strength when you energize the coil with an AC,IC,OC input, it is the simple result of reduced reluctance in its inherent geometry, it acts in mutual inductance to the second winding reinforcing its magnetic component.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Every single one of the statements above has a mistake or an error in conceptual reasoning.
And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate. Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people. And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 07:22:17 PM
And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate. Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people. And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.
MileHigh
Well we are looking into this bifilar coil no matter what you say. You want us to just believe that the bifi coil is just a coil and a cap, an LC. Well we are looking into that to see if it is true. But you dont want that.
You say you and Gyula cleared it all up and you educated people. Who did you educate? Sparks? Jbigs? ME? Farmhand? Who? You dont even do experiments! You push people to answer questions like you own this. You dont. You waste sooo much page space and that puts big gaps in threads that are useless. Id rather you were not here. Its all very disruptive.
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 07:22:17 PM
Hey everybody,
Let's dip into the Energetic Forum for a second. In the "The Solenoid/Electromagnt" thread a lot of posters make comments related to the Tesla bifilar coil patent.
I am going to quote some of the comments here:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've been advocating this particular "improvement" for some time for particularly efficient electric motors using magnetic attraction. If you take a coil with the same number of turns, and compare it to this configuration using the same power supply, you will find this coil design produces a much stronger field for the same applied power (about 75% gain).
These coils also store much larger amounts of energy in the electric field, which causes huge current spikes (amperage = change in the electric field/time) along with huge voltage spikes (voltage = change in the magnetic field/time) when the power is "Abruptly Disrupted".
----------
Well Chain, looking at the patent I see why it's an improvement as the coil b. acts as gears working with each other if you picture the direction of the flux spinning around the wire. figure a. being a standard coil has every flux orbit in a state of reluctance with the ones adjacent to it.
----------
A coil will heat up if it produces a magnetic field (stator) in opposition to another magnetic field (rotor). When you smash two opposing fields together, alot of heat is produced, much akin to slamming two cars together head on.
----------
P.S. I did read the patent many, many times. I have not "deciphered" it incorrectly. Tesla doesn't really mention magnetism even though it's part of the title. The claims of a stronger field per watt are coming from me. I don't know where you gathered that I was claiming Tesla.
----------
If that happen surely it will give more power to the created magnetic field, which is in other cases consumed into resistance heating. In such case pancake bifilar coil wound be essentially close to room temperature superconductor or self-adjusted tank circuit at resonance.
----------
I have never understood the pancake coil but thought
it was about Tesla's high voltage high frequency work,
and a coil which generated a good magnetic field
without the inductance that interferes with HV/HF
circuits. Is this right?
-----------
I believe a finely tuned/designed a coil can have a tighter stronger flux if aligned properly like a north/south halbach. Or a looser general field. These modifications would require very precise latices with magnetically resistive and conductive layering.
-----------
I notice that when the power is applied there is a huge surge of field strength that dampens out. A single wire wound coil also possesses this interesting phenomena, however the bifilar coil in either configuration (series or parallel) causes a much more pronounced effect. The currents circulating inside the coil by it's own induction could have something to do with it based on the formula (Amp = change in electrification / time). But as to why the coil produces a stronger field per watt, I don't know. All I know is it does based on the experiments of 2 others and myself.
What this means is that less power is needed to saturate a core with the lines of force.
-----------
So to properly tune a Coil for electro-magnets, the voltage to be used is also
a consideration. A coil wound for effect at 100 Khz using 10 000 volts will not
work the same if 10 volts is used due to the capacitor plate separation
(thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self
capacitance to be less.
------------
I found a page where someone also compared field strengths of bifilar coils compared to single wire coils. They also state that the magnetic field is stronger.
------------
And I have conducted the experiment myself using the same amount of wire and the same power supply and came to a very different conclusion. I did not use nails, I used a compass. Nails are another way to go but a compass is far more accurate. You will see a gain in field strength. 1 coil with 100 turns of wire is equal to 2 coils with 50 turns of wire on the same diameter core.
------------
I've noticed something about the pancake style coil, from the spin of the magnetic force in the wires it appears that the coil fields would resemble a north/south Halbach array. The north south Halbach increases the density restricting the flux field to a small area. Has anyone been able to measure if the field size and shape between the two coils differ?
------------
The geometry and the advantage of pancake types coils is one of dimensional usage, the shape of the field and the compact form.
-------------
It is not the increase of field strength when you energize the coil with an AC,IC,OC input, it is the simple result of reduced reluctance in its inherent geometry, it acts in mutual inductance to the second winding reinforcing its magnetic component.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Every single one of the statements above has a mistake or an error in conceptual reasoning.
And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate. Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people. And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.
MileHigh
You just can't stop choking up this thread with junk from another forum or from your own deluded posts. We are here and not other forums.
In fact earlier on in the thread you complain about your memory and that you can not do any bench work because you don't have a bench? So how do we trust someone who a: doesn't have a bench and B: that has memory problems and lack of the ability to remember your "supposed bench work from the past"?
I have caught you in many lies and yet you persist to continue. Why? What is so important that you must diverge this thread on OU many many times. Even after people have asked you to stop?
Quote from: jbignes5 on July 14, 2013, 07:58:37 PM
You just can't stop choking up this thread with junk from another forum or from your own deluded posts. We are here and not other forums.
In fact earlier on in the thread you complain about your memory and that you can not do any bench work because you don't have a bench? So how do we trust someone who a: doesn't have a bench and B: that has memory problems and lack of the ability to remember your "supposed bench work from the past"?
I have caught you in many lies and yet you persist to continue. Why? What is so important that you must diverge this thread on OU many many times. Even after people have asked you to stop?
Agree 100%. Lies about Tesla. If what MH says about the bifi is true, then why need to disgrace Tesla's name along the way? Ill say it again, he has something against people working with these coils. He even ridicules about the hours we might put into it, while he does nothing but quote the internet and other peoples YT vids.
And yeah, its always, "I cant remember" when he is found and shown to be incorrect, then the particular subject changes, then the next day the same crap. Sick of it.
Mags
Magluvin:
QuoteWell we are looking into this bifilar coil no matter what you say. You want us to just believe that the bifi coil is just a coil and a cap, an LC. Well we are looking into that to see if it is true. But you dont want that.
More Straw Man nonsense and crap from you. Will you ever grow up?
About two months ago we discussed how to test the bifilar coil and I gave you some good sound technical suggestions for how to do some tests on your bench. I encouraged you to test the coil. You have the audacity to say, "but you don't want that?" You talk junk and you know that you are talking junk and I know that you know that you are talking junk. You have no integrity whatsoever and you lie, as shown below:
From post #288:
QuoteMagluvin:
Good luck in your investigations and I will make a few comments.
.
.
,
I suppose the question is is it worth the trouble? Perhaps just an A-B comparison between two coils with the same number of turns, one regular, one series bifilar would be a good test. Supposing you notice a tiny current inrush on the series bifilar when you energize it and you don't see that with regular coil. Like I already said, there is no magic bypass for the energy it will take to energize either coil.
So this possible tiny current inrush, does it mean anything? Can you do anything practical with it? That's the real question.
The theme behind my posting is to try to recognize what's relevant and what's not relevant when you experiment. That is an important basic fundamental skill worth learning. Do you spend hours and hours doing some kind of special winding for a coil or do you spend 20 minutes and just wind an ordinary coil, or do you buy a spool of wire at the electronics store and have an "instant coil?"
MileHigh
Of course, like usual, you didn't have the courage or the character to thank me for my efforts to help you. Just like it's happened many times before.
QuoteIll say it again, he has something against people working with these coils. He even ridicules about the hours we might put into it, while he does nothing but quote the internet and other peoples YT vids.
More junk talk. You are not that stupid to believe what you are saying above. You're not! Like I said above, I encouraged you to do your own tests. Same thing when you try to imply I have ulterior motives like I am part of some group that wants to 'suppress' the investigation into these coils. You are not that stupid, both about me and the coils themselves.
I have issued the challenge to you, and others, to demonstrate something "amazing and unique" about the coil. Then you fall mute and you have nothing to offer.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 08:45:34 PM
Magluvin:
More Straw Man nonsense and crap from you. Will you ever grow up?
About two months ago we discussed how to test the bifilar coil and I gave you some good sound technical suggestions for how to do some tests on your bench. I encouraged you to test the coil. You have the audacity to say, "but you don't want that?" You talk junk and you know that you are talking junk and I know that you know that you are talking junk. You have no integrity whatsoever and you lie, as shown below:
From post #288:
Of course, like usual, you didn't have the courage or the character to thank me for my efforts to help you. Just like it's happened many times before.
More junk talk. You are not that stupid to believe what you are saying above. You're not! Like I said above, I encouraged you to do your own tests. Same thing when you try to imply I have ulterior motives like I am part of some group that wants to 'suppress' the investigation into these coils. You are not that stupid, both about me and the coils themselves.
I have issued the challenge to you, and others, to demonstrate something "amazing and unique" about the coil. Then you fall mute and you have nothing to offer.
MileHigh
I told you where im going with this coil. Im not done yet. My motor has 24 coils and will be wound with 42awg wire. Miles of it. Im winding 24 coils normal and 24 coils bifi to test the differences. The bifi coils, each of the 2 wires A and B, all of the A wires will be in series and all of the B wires will be in series, then All the A's in series with the B's. I explained why I will wire it that way in order to have half of the input voltage between all adjacent turns. I explained it. Maybe I have a different approach to testing these things as your tests are limited, in my opinion. The pics of what IM doing is here...
http://www.overunity.com/13523/has-anyone-seen-lasersabers-new-motor-runs-on-1000uf-cap/msg364608/#msg364608
And here...
http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=155.msg1753#msg1753
I will take my time and will not be pushed by the likes of you. You who does nothing.
"Of course, like usual, you didn't have the courage or the character to thank me for my efforts to help you. Just like it's happened many times before."
Thats right. When have I asked for your help? Yeah, thanks for nuthin but wasting my time. You tried to encourage me to build a fake pulse motor and that people would learn from it. There are so many out there and you want me to be involved and continue that trend, well no. I see your game. You order people to do your bidding yet wont even light an led with a battery on a bench to see if there are led's that conduct 1v forward current, as you once claimed led's do. Then you say its been 30 yrs. Then you say you are an electrical engineer. Then you say you only know as much about Tesla that you had seen in a documentary years ago, then.... Bullshit
" I have issued the challenge to you, and others, to demonstrate something "amazing and unique" about the coil. Then you fall mute and you have nothing to offer.
Stick your challenges where you wish. Why should I have to do anything you say? I challenge you to build something. lol Nutbag
Mags
Mags
Have fun building your motor. Looking forward to seeing your testing, no suggestions from me. Let's see if Magsy can bring something new to the table or if it's just the same old pulse motor song and dance we have all seen before.
Oh, the motor doesn't actually _do_ anything? Some people would call that being a nutbag.
P.S.: I have designed several products that have gone into production. You know, the real world.
Show the proof of your last claim. Show the devices then tell us your real name...
This is the thing. He gets off on this. He touts how he is this and he is that but from my observations he is a self serving egotistical meglomaniac. He does nothing but insist he is right. He quotes textbook examples and treats those examples like they are written by god himself.
Listen milehigh get you head out of the clouds and come back to earth. You are not the savior of anything acting the fool like you do. In fact most of your supporters have abandoned you and pulled away from the thread because even they have noticed some strange misinformation coming from you.
Here is a tip ok. Say your peace and back out.
We get the point.. You misquote everything including logical fallacies that permiate through that thick skull of yours. Like trying to apply ideal inductors as an example of real world applications. And for decades any real technician hates an engineer. This is why.. Because ideal situation never exist but you engineers live by them. You breath in an ideal way and your mind works in only the ideal world which only exists in your little world. Meanwhile the real world has to deal with all the ideal mistakes you have made in your designs. Thats why technicians have to rework the designs because you guys can't deal with reality, only the ideal.
Read the quote again that I gave for the ideal vs reality example. The last line... Wait let me refresh you memory for you, I know how bad it is sometimes.. "Real-world inductor applications may consider these parasitic parameters as important as the inductance."
Did you even look at the video that sparks linked to. It tells the problem at the end that you are having in this discussion. Did you watch the video I posted in my last link. Even though it was about archaeology it still shows the problem we are having here with you.
v = L di/dt. i = 1/L integral v dt Ans: i = 7/3 t ROTFLMAO
If you have a couple of hours free in both time and mind I think you will find the below videos quite interesting if your into electrical fields.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZmFY9W4eg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZmFY9W4eg)
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 10:14:26 PM
Have fun building your motor. Looking forward to seeing your testing, no suggestions from me. Let's see if Magsy can bring something new to the table or if it's just the same old pulse motor song and dance we have all seen before.
Oh, the motor doesn't actually _do_ anything? Some people would call that being a nutbag.
P.S.: I have designed several products that have gone into production. You know, the real world.
"Have fun building your motor. Looking forward to seeing your testing, no suggestions from me. Let's see if Magsy can bring something new to the table or if it's just the same old pulse motor song and dance we have all seen before."
Yeah, we'll see. ::)
"Oh, the motor doesn't actually _do_ anything? Some people would call that being a nutbag."
I have never met these people. ;) But with you, anything is possible. ;D
"P.S.: I have designed several products that have gone into production. You know, the real world."
Making claims. Any proof? Yet we have to prove what we say. ::)
Here is a pic of one of the 24 coils, single wire. 3300 turns till just about full. 649 ohms. 24 coils= 79200 total turns 15.5kohm all in series. All those values should be the same when I wind the bifi coils. ;)
Mags
What's your preliminary test plan for comparing your regular coils vs. series bifilar coils in your pulse motor?
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 07:22:17 PM
....
And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate. Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people. And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.
Hi MileHigh,
My tests shown with the electromagnets built on bolts proved that the lifting forces are identical for a single and a bifilar winding coil, using the same length of wire and core for both WHEN a steady state DC current is the input to both type of electromagnets.
Tesla obviously meant to drive his bifilar coil at its self resonant frequency with AC current (or probably pulsed current) and this has not been tested. Tesla wrote the advantage of driving the bifilar coil at its resonant frequency we all read it.
The question now is how a resonantly driven bifilar coil could be utilized to have energy advantage over a non bifilar equivalent single coil? Only further tests can give answers.
Gyula
Quote from: sparks on July 14, 2013, 10:41:53 PM
If you have a couple of hours free in both time and mind I think you will find the below videos quite interesting if your into electrical fields.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZmFY9W4eg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZmFY9W4eg)
Almost 4 hours of presentation by Professor Eric Dollard and not a single device which would show at least the boldest of his claims.
It would be the most effective demonstartion of any bold claim to show a device which works and to demonstrate the claimed theory step by step. But that never happens, only 4 hours of warm, not even hot air.
What amazes me is that people like Dollard can go on like this for decades. It is like self proclaimed healers who never heal but still make money.
I admit to be intrigued by "magic claims", and many must be like me, otherwise the people who make "magic claims" would be long out of business.
Greetings, Conrad
I found it interesting and more inspirational than progressive. Entertaining?
Hi Gyula.
QuoteMy tests shown with the electromagnets built on bolts proved that the lifting forces are identical for a single and a bifilar winding coil, using the same length of wire and core for both WHEN a steady state DC current is the input to both type of electromagnets.
Tesla obviously meant to drive his bifilar coil at its self resonant frequency with AC current (or probably pulsed current) and this has not been tested. Tesla wrote the advantage of driving the bifilar coil at its resonant frequency we all read it.
The question now is how a resonantly driven bifilar coil could be utilized to have energy advantage over a non bifilar equivalent single coil? Only further tests can give answers.
Nothing will come of this. Chances are that Magluvin has no preliminary test plan, he is just going through the motions. All of Jbignes5's grandiose claims about the coil are simply unfounded claims with nothing to back them up.
Sure they can get Tesla series bifilar coil to self-resonate, but so what? There will be no energy advantage to find with this coil no matter what test they do.
It's time to let the boys play with their toys until they get fed up. Nothing will come of this. The whole business of "pushing forward" no matter what the rational analysis says is just belligerence for the sake of belligerence.
In a way this is just a microcosm version of the whole RomeroUK or the Mylow affair. Lots of energy expended on the threads and in this case perhaps a few builders and testers, all for naught. Some of them even have a decent grasp of the issues at hand, they read this thread, but they will solder on and sleepwalk through it, knowing beforehand that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
Somebody might declare "victory" because they find that the coil is "different." ho hum
The sad thing is that some people don't want to look at things rationally. They don't want to be educated and take advantage of all that we have learned over the past 150 years.
We can sit back and watch the blinking lights and watch the builders go through the motions. There is a decent chance that nobody will report anything. Attempts to do a rational analysis and take a realistic look at this coil have failed at least in the public image of what has transpired on this thread. However, I bet you that the silent majority that follows this thread in the background knows the real deal.
MileHigh
To those who are busily working to get
their "builds" going it may seem that
MileHigh is needling.
MileHigh is usually correct about the
technical misconceptions he is striving
to set straight. He truly is attempting
to encourage fruitful thought and beneficial
research efforts since real knowledge will
ultimately lead to greater success and
the avoidance of costly mistakes.
It's an ages old phenomenon; those who
try to help others see their error are
frequently thought to be busybodies and
irritants. At least, until wisdom finally
takes up residence. We have a tendency
to want to cling to "our beliefs" no matter
what. Admitting wrong is very painful.
Everything I explained about "Impulse Magnetization" has been ignored. JLN demonstrates %100 energy transfer between his serial pancakes with no heat loss what so ever in his Gegene experiments. Regular coils would fry if you attempted that. Stop trying to trivialize these differences, and the way his coil for electro magnets worked had nothing what so ever to do with running D.C. current through the coil.
SeaMonkey thank you for your kind and wise words.
Synchro1, I have always encouraged people to experiment with this coil, notwithstanding what others try to say in some kind of Orwellian nightmare. You have to look at this coil configuration and take it at face value and then do some experiments. This notion that there is some "secret sauce" associated with this coil stems from the fact that there is a Tesla patent and the "Cult of Tesla" comes into play. When you actually look at the coil "on paper" you can deduce how it will operate in real life with a high degree of confidence.
QuoteJLN demonstrates %100 energy transfer between his serial pancakes with no heat loss what so ever in his Gegene experiments. Regular coils would fry if you attempted that.
Oh really? How do you know that "regular coils would fry?" See, you are just making it up to try to bolster your claim. You are playing the "Cult of Tesla" game when you say that.
Let's look at the issue of two coils coupling with each other without any core material. We are going to assume that the application is not a power coupling application since there is no core. We will assume that it is a signal coupling application.
Well, if you wind two separate wires together on a spool then you have a bifilar coil. And in this case I mean a true bifilar coil with two separate wires. That should give you pretty good coupling. However, the coil-to-coil capacitance is relatively high and may become an unwanted annoyance here.
What if you have two separate coils and you want to couple them? Should you put two pancake coils facing each other? The answer is no, there is a serious limitation for coupling when it comes to pancake coils. The inner coils are small and will not cut as much flux as the outer coils. On the other hand, two regular coils with a narrow length or "z" dimension facing each other will couple much better. They also won't have all of that nasty flux-self cancellation that you get in a pancake coil. Every loop in the "sender" coil will generate a nice blast of magnetic flux through the same circular aperture. Similarly, every loop in the "receiver" coil will "catch" almost 100% of the flux being generated by the "sender" coil. There will be no significant coil-to-coil capacitance to deal with in this case which might be highly desirable for your signal transmission application.
So what that means is for pure AC coupling applications without a magnetic core, and using two separate and distinct coils, that ordinary vanilla circular loop coils will most likely outperform pancake coils in most if not all applications.
Another point worth mentioning is that I am still being very generic in my comments, and generic comments when it comes to electronics can be dangerous. For example, if you are doing a signal coupling application, what frequency range are you trying to couple? That's probably the most important question and it must be answered as part of the process of either selecting or designing a coil.
So the moral of the story is to examine each case on it's own merits.
The second moral of the story is that there are literally thousands of configurations of stand-alone coils and transformers. They are available in all sorts of shapes and sizes depending on the application. For all I know you may be able to purchase a commercial off-the-shelf coil as per Tesla's patent assuming that there is an ultra-niche application for that configuration. However, my gut feel is telling me that it is highly unlikely.
MileHigh
You're a chronic pain and a fraud. Try to understand this and stop trying to defraud everyone with your "Cult Paranoia"!
The Tesla series bifilar has zero reluctance to change in current direction. Running A.C. through a regular coil generates heat because the single wire coil reluctance to change in current direction is greater then zero. They would smoke with JLN's input. Stop trying to pretend the coils act the same way. You're so dead and stupid wrong you should get help with your persistent delusions!
Synchro1:
I am telling you like it is and it's hard to decipher what you are saying technically.
QuoteRunning A.C. through a regular coil generates heat because the single wire coil reluctance to current change is greater then zero. They would smoke with JLN's input.
Can you explain that some more because I can't make head or tail of what you are saying?
I think I may have gotten it now. You are equating inductive reluctance to resistance and assuming that will heat up the wire. That's wrong and just shows that you don't understand how a coil works. The inductive reluctance is there because the coil is building up a magnetic field. The energy is not heating the wire, it's building up the magnetic field.
Honestly Synchro1, with statements like that, you need to lean the basics. Books, YouTube, surf the net, do something.
You have the delusions when it comes to this stuff, but you can get up the learning curve if you really want to. It's all up to you.
MileHigh
Look, get Gyula to run 9 volt A.C. through his iron core biflilar and test the magnetic pull and heat. Then try and run that same 9 volt A.C. current through the single wire version, then compare the heat and pull to the bifilars. I can tell you right off the bat that the single wire coil will very shortly grow too hot to touch, while the series bifilar remains cool! Why don't you try it "Hawkings"? Practicly everyone has tried to run A.C through a single wire electromagnet and caused an electicel fire.
Quote from: synchro1 on July 15, 2013, 04:18:36 PM
Everything I explained about "Impulse Magnetization" has been ignored. JLN demonstrates %100 energy transfer between his serial pancakes with no heat loss what so ever in his Gegene experiments. Regular coils would fry if you attempted that. Stop trying to trivialize these differences, and the way his coil for electro magnets worked had nothing what so ever to do with running D.C. current through the coil.
Hi synhcro1,
Yes I agree, Tesla's Coil for electromagnet patent had nothing whatsoever to do with running DC current through the coil. However, it was you who brought the paper clip tests with the nails into this topic as an example, remember? And in that link http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm (http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm) it was no where mentioned that the nail should be treated first by Impulse Magnetization i.e. first you make a permanent magnet from the nail and then pick up the paper clips, right? Please show me where it is written?
PS here is a permanent copy of the content of the page in above link because sometimes the link does not work:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Bifilar_Electromagnet.pdf (http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Bifilar_Electromagnet.pdf)
QuoteLook, get Gyula to run 9 volt A.C. through his iron core biflilar and test the magnetic pull and heat. Then try and run that same 9 volt A.C. current through the single wire version, then compare the heat and pull to the bifilars. I can tell you right off the bat that the single wire coil will very shortly grow too hot to touch, while the series bifilar remains cool! Why don't you try it "Hawkings"!
If it was only that simple. You are not specifying the frequency. Nor can you just compare two coils like you are stating. You are not even discussing how much inductance each coil has.
Beyond that, Synchro1, the resistive heat produced in the wires in all honesty is not a valid way to compare the two coils.
"Resistive heat produced in the wires in all honesty is not a valid way to compare the two coils."
This is utter rubbish!
If you want make a case for your statement Synchro1, by all means go ahead.
Just a few sentences will not be a strong case. Please, do a half-page or do a full-page or more write-up to explain your reasoning.
Gyula,
There's a trick to it knave! The bifilar throws a bigger spark, and can Impulse Magnetize the nail core
more deeply then the single wire version when the field collapses! That's the way to get it to work. How come you haven't tried it yet?
Get a 9 volt wall outlet transformer and try try the A.C. test while your at it.
Two single wire Hot Plates held one one over the other would melt after you turned the heat up all the way under one, not transfer power like JLN's Gegene and receiver! Think about this.
QuoteTwo single wire Hot Plates held one one over the other would melt after you turned the heat up all the way under one, not transfer power like JLN's Gegene and receiver! Think about this.
C'mon Synchro1, really. From your clips you sound like a grown man between 45 and 55 years old, please act like one. Your talk about "hot plates" is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. We have seen similar shenanigans like this from you in the past.
I will only say this once so if you make posts like that in the future I will ignore them.
From the way you sound I would place your age at teenage punk!
Synchro1:
This thread could use a video clip as a diversion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PinCg7IGqHg
Advice for you: Grow up and act like a man. Be honest. Loose the "freaky electronics crazy man" routine.
MileHigh
"The coil for electro-magnets patent is not about lifting magnets as such. But
it is definitely about negating reactance, which is not an issue with
uninterrupted DC. So it's about pulsed and AC magnets."[/size]
Gyula's in an exchange with a guy over at Energetic Forum who got greater compass deflection from a bifilar. [/size]
Tesla was slick. In his patents he always presents a lesson. In his patent for using cooling devices he for some reason applied for the patent then said it was useless. To negate resistance problems in his freely oscillating transformer secondaries instead of using refrigeration he ends up implying just increase the self-inductance of the windings. The induced voltage will cancel out any voltage drop due to resistance. Another thing that is confusing me is, in his patents pertaining to the magnifying transmitter I don't see any disruption device. No spark gap-no nothing just a capactior or a generator. Last thing I knew a capacitor can only act as a dc current source. Also in earlier patents he referenced the use of a dynamo feeding his primaries to start oscillations in his secondaries. Again no reference to a switching device. I think he alternately condenses the local electrical field into a condensor. The local electrical field is rarified. Mother nature abhors a vacuum and pours some more whatever it is thingies into the rarified situation. He makes sure that the condensor is discharged after the local electrical field is back to status quo. The electricity leaving the condensor expands in the scalar field and therefore causes a displacement wave to travel in the scalar electric field. He is directly effecting whatever produces charge therefore is immune to losses involved moving mass about.
Quote from: synchro1 on July 15, 2013, 06:45:59 PM
Look, get Gyula to run 9 volt A.C. through his iron core biflilar and test the magnetic pull and heat. Then try and run that same 9 volt A.C. current through the single wire version, then compare the heat and pull to the bifilars. I can tell you right off the bat that the single wire coil will very shortly grow too hot to touch, while the series bifilar remains cool! Why don't you try it "Hawkings"? Practicly everyone has tried to run A.C through a single wire electromagnet and caused an electicel fire.
Hi synchro1,
How can I exactly go about to test the magnetic pull and heat when the 50 or 60 Hz AC current is used? Please describe the details.
(Both my single and bifilar coils have about 417 and 423 uH inductance respectively, and 1.6 Ohm DC resistance. So the AC reactance at 50 or 60 Hz is about 0.13 to 0.15 Ohm, a negligible value beside the 1.6 Ohm DC resistance, so in case of a 12V wall outlet transformer the AC current taken by any of the coils is about 12 V/1.73 Ohm = 6.9 Amper. I repeat: for both coils.)
Quote from: synchro1 on July 16, 2013, 01:02:51 AM
...
Gyula's in an exchange with a guy over at Energetic Forum who got greater compass deflection from a bifilar.
In fact, the guy has disappeared for 4 days now, left unanswered questions on his setup and on the bifilar coil test setup used by two yahoo group members he had referred to.
By the way, using a compass for comparing fields demand much higher precision to observe than using paper clips or nuts because less than a mm difference in the distances already can give high differences in compass deflection.
Gyula
Gyula,
What about using a Hall effect sensor to detect the strength of the alternating B field? Even a DC sensor might provide adequate measurement (half-wave)? It may be worth a try.
Google the "UGN3503". It is flat to 23kHz.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 16, 2013, 09:31:12 AM
Google the "UGN3503". It is flat to 23kHz.
But it may be out of production. Patrick's book suggests the A1302. Is this OK?
Hi poynt99,
I agree, using a Hall sensor is a good idea, thanks.
@Paul
The book suggestion is correct, the A1302 has a typical 20 kHz bandwidth and other parameters are also much similar or the same.
Quote from: sparks on July 16, 2013, 08:33:21 AM
Tesla was slick. In his patents he always presents a lesson. In his patent for using cooling devices he for some reason applied for the patent then said it was useless. To negate resistance problems in his freely oscillating transformer secondaries instead of using refrigeration he ends up implying just increase the self-inductance of the windings. The induced voltage will cancel out any voltage drop due to resistance. Another thing that is confusing me is, in his patents pertaining to the magnifying transmitter I don't see any disruption device. No spark gap-no nothing just a capactior or a generator. Last thing I knew a capacitor can only act as a dc current source. Also in earlier patents he referenced the use of a dynamo feeding his primaries to start oscillations in his secondaries. Again no reference to a switching device. I think he alternately condenses the local electrical field into a condensor. The local electrical field is rarified. Mother nature abhors a vacuum and pours some more whatever it is thingies into the rarified situation. He makes sure that the condensor is discharged after the local electrical field is back to status quo. The electricity leaving the condensor expands in the scalar field and therefore causes a displacement wave to travel in the scalar electric field. He is directly effecting whatever produces charge therefore is immune to losses involved moving mass about.
The Magnifying transmitter Patent http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false shows a capacitor on the primary to indicate that primary is tuned. THe interrupter goes further back and as he states quite clearly and I have mentioned numerous times, the primary can be excited by an alternator or by an interrupter. Many people tune their primaries with a capacitor. With my coil the primary is resonant only when the spark gap is conducting.
When we couple the high voltage transformers to the primary circuit we should also tune the HV transformer primaries for power factor correction to reduce unwanted or false currents. ;) See attachment. See the PFC cap on the input to the MOT's.
If an alternator is used the capacitor is basically power factor correction which is basically an almost resonant or resonant condition.
Tesla states that the primary can be excited in any manner desired as long as the resonant condition is achieved with the maximum potential at the top of the oscillating circuit, or the top of the extra coil as we usually refer to it.
For the transmission of power (not signals) an alternator and a high rate of transformation would work better. For signals and producing enormous potentials with minimum input power then an interrupter would work better, still in all cases Tesla intended the primary to be excited on every cycle in my opinion. If using a high frequency alternator then it would be necessary to do so.
He states in the patent the primary can be excited in any desired manner so long as resonance is achieved. Any wave shape can be used and the oscillating circuit will produce continuous sine wave if properly tuned and excited.
The idea is to produce a continuous sine wave and with continuous sine waves the energy is less likely to "break out" from the top terminal than if radical transients are produced. As well it makes a carrier wave I guess. And if the planet was resonated it would resonate with sine waves.
Cheers
does anyone here see a switching device
Quote from: poynt99 on July 16, 2013, 09:31:12 AM
Gyula,
What about using a Hall effect sensor to detect the strength of the alternating B field? Even a DC sensor might provide adequate measurement (half-wave)? It may be worth a try.
Google the "UGN3503". It is flat to 23kHz.
That would be interesting. Probably a coil of wire and a scope would do also.
Im looking at testing the difference with my rotor. Will have the rotor set in a position and arrange the coils for 1 timed pulse and see how far around it goes for either regular or bifi coils. A pendulum would be interesting also. Have a magnet as the weight of the pen, and mount the coil to the base facing the resting magnet and see how far the pen moves on impulse.
What I have to prove is that a bifilar coil can be beneficial to a pulse motor. As Milehigh says it cannot be. So im going to do solid tests where the output is physical motion. Not that I dont feel other tests are valuable, but the motor will tell me exactly the differences between coils will be in a pulse motor. Im in the belief that using the fine wire and lots of it in bifi will have substantial capacitance. over 10,000 ft 42 awg(total). 70 some thousand turns. Im not forgetting about the resistance. But its the inductance of this mass of 24 coils in series bifi(described the connections earlier) that is what I see as an impediment in getting max current during pulse times. So what if the bifi neutralizes the self inductance of this large inductance like the patent says? We end up with a field that is produced much faster than a normal coil, of which should have a meatier pulse, more impact, or even a faster field expansion to induce a secondary all because the cap 'in the coil' wants to be filled. ;D
So the bifi coils Ill be winding will have some decent capacitance. They should get to max current flow much quicker than the normal coils Im winding now. Will see.
If the rotor gets to speeds that pulse the bifi coils at their resonant freq, I suppose there will be some kind of effect from it in that range. But that is a secondary goal to all this.
Mags
@farmhand
So his alternator would probably be a high frequency alternator of some type? By varying the rpm on the alternator he could increase the rate of input exciting the tank. The tank basically transforms and STORES the input. The watts in are stored and show up as a huge standing wave with voltages between node and antinode of the standing wave in the millions. You can do this with a piece of coax by increasing the standing wave ratio towards infinity. At some point the current will cause a melt down or the voltage will compromise the dielectric. The whole mt must have been modulated as a function of the frequency of the impulses supplied to the primary. Not changing the frequency of the tank but changing the amplitude of the standing waves in tune with the number of impulses per second. The field surrounding the open terminals of the tank would be alternating in intensity while overall they would be held at a very high potential. The terminals would form electrical monopoles whose charge state would be fluctuating minutely compared to the overall state of charge maintained there. I sometimes wonder if he was using the coulumb force developed between the top node and the Earth to create high frequency seismic waves. He did spend alot of time on making sure the tower was anchored well. It is reported that he was talking about causing the whole Earth to quiver. The pyramids have a free standing mass inside the kings chamber that is in connection with a resonate chamber and a tunnel leading to what appears to be some sort of electrolysis process. ( liquid tank with electrodes down one end). Could be the priests were just causing explosions and playing around with uranium in the granite they mined to keep the temple bottom line in the black. The faithful stop adoring pharoh with their earned income the priests get the Gods pissing and moaning for more loot by causing explosions in the pyramids shooting light out the portals shockwaves rocking the town and the whole pyramid lighing up due to piezo electric effects in the crystals mixed into the gypsum. But it could be some kind of seismic wave broadcast at high frequencies to jiggle wires by loadstones miles away from the epicenter.
Quote from: sparks on July 16, 2013, 06:27:51 PM
does anyone here see a switching device
Look at point G. Lower coil. It says suitable source of current.
In the second paragraph he tells of the source of currents.
"In endeavoring to adapt currents or discharges of very high tension to various valuable uses, as the distribution of energy through wires from central plants to distant places of consumption, or the transmission of powerful disturbances to great distances, through the natural or non-artificial media. I have encountered difficulties in confining considerable amounts of electricity to the conductors and preventing its leakage over their supports, or its escape into the ambient air, which always takes place when the electric surface density reaches a certain value."
Now lets look at his fix for leakage of higher voltage examples.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-514,167-electrical-conductor
Do not connects this sheath to ground directly. Always go through an inductance or capacitance or do not connect it to ground at all.
Now back to this topic.
"In order to attain my object and to properly increase the capacity of any given coil, I wind it in such way as to secure a greater difference of potential between its adjacent turns or convolutions, and since the energy stored in the coil—considering the latter as a condenser, is proportionate to the square of the potential difference between its adjacent convolutions, it is evident that I may in this way secure by a proper disposition of these convolutions a greatly increased capacity for a given increase in potential difference between the turns."
This is and will be the only reason of this coil. I have never asserted that DC should be used in this coil. In fact AC and impulse currents would be the only beneficial currents to use. With Impulse currents not even looked at for this coil in the patent. I have never asserted that the proper resonance not be used in either case. Why one would be focusing on the non resonant condition to me would be so inefficient that it would be counter productive. In order to use impulse currents one needs to use the resonant condition. But as Tesla talks about in the first example "The Tower" you must bring the system slowly up to resonance and then hold it there. This increases the efficiency as it nears resonance and will stop excessive break down events.
My further experiments have always been in the AC/impulse direction. With very high frequencies for the AC/Bifilar coil and Impulse around the Bifilar coil as an Exciter.
This will be my direction that I am going in. If the two types of current AC/impulse is kept in synchronization it should have a Laser like amplification of the current exiting the bifilar coil.
As for other claims I will let others experiment on those claims. There is no point in "Debating" these claims because the debaters have not done the experiments. So they can not argue the validity with no proof. They can postulate till their hearts desire but it is only guessing at this point with no real evidence to the contrary.
As for the claims of increased magnetism it does make sense from the descriptions of the patent but this also comes with increased current and then a diminishing of that current over time. But I have not done the experiments to those claims so I can not say anything about those claims and it would bear little resemblance to reality without actually doing the experiments.
You guys really don't have to go through all the trouble of building a T coil to understand it's operation. Dollard's analogue computer is pretty much one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnCUBKgnnc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnCUBKgnnc)
I would also like to comment about Eric's position on things. Eric has built devices on the subject of Tesla. But like in any other field those who do not understand the Technology or don't even care to build the actual devices will never understand the principles of those devices, they tend to destroy any attempt to build and show those principles. Eric has had many of labs and many many components stolen or destroyed by the ones in power. I can not refute such claims and tend to believe them because Eric has never, in all my days of investigating Tesla or the claims of Tesla and the work of eric, lied about anything in his videos.
Lets check this video out about a strange device which does two things. A: It establishes he has been replicating Tesla devices or methods. B: That others have gone to great lengths to destroy anything showing proof of those experiments. Except for some video's that he has saved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtM6rJxs0uM
I am not claiming any validity to the claims yet. But again I will be looking into these claims at a later date.
"I'm looking at testing the difference with my rotor. Will have the rotor set in a position and arrange the coils for 1 timed pulse and see how far around it goes for either regular or bifi coils. A pendulum would be interesting also. Have a magnet as the weight of the pen, and mount the coil to the base facing the resting magnet and see how far the pen moves on impulse."
This approach should pay off. "Moves on impulse"! That's the ticket. This test will vindicate everything I've been saying. The biflilar will outperform the single wire with it's stronger magnetic collapse field!
Quote from: synchro1 on July 17, 2013, 03:06:30 PM
The biflilar will outperform the single wire with it's stronger magnetic collapse field!
Honestly, I would be very pleased to see such result!
Gyula
If the bifilar pulser does outperform the conventional coil pulser, then I would recommend an input power measurement comparison to be sure there is no discrepancy. With the higher turn-to-turn capacitance it might be possible that the bifilar coil is being energized to a higher level on each pulse.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 17, 2013, 05:37:51 PM
If the bifilar pulser does outperform the conventional coil pulser, then I would recommend an input power measurement comparison to be sure there is no discrepancy. With the higher turn-to-turn capacitance it might be possible that the bifilar coil is being energized to a higher level on each pulse.
Yes, this could be the case. I imagine it so really. Once they have been tested for any difference in pulse and rotor motion, if I send one pulse to the coils, using a charged cap as the source to see how far the rotor goes, then we can calculate from what is left in the cap. Those 2 tests together would say one way or the other pretty much. To further the test, rigging a way to measure the amount of energy induced into the rotor motion. Will have the single wire coils done soon and then I have to mark and drill the rotor for magnets.
I find it fascinating that Lasersabers motor even moves with 5v 20kohm of series coils and 1ua usage. Its really one for the science books I would say. It has changed the way I envision what certain amounts of power can do in a sense. It kinda makes an LED running at 30ma seem like a huge amount of power in comparison. Like if LS's motor were made larger or stacked lets say in parallel connection, it would take a lot of stacks to get 30ma consumption. And I would have to say that at 30ma, from what I have seen, it would be pretty powerful. ;)
Mags
edited something little that didnt make sense. :o ;D
It's quiet around here, perhaps we are waiting for some test results. So I will go back and comment on my question and the answer.
The question: You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen?
The answer: i = 7/3 t
So the current flow is zero when the voltage source is first connected (t = 0). Then the current rises in a linear ramp, at one second, the current is 2.33 amps. At two seconds, the current is 4.67 amps. After ten minutes, the current is 1400 amps.
Notice that as time goes on, more and more power is being pumped into the coil. At one second, the power flow into the coil is 16.33 watts. At ten minutes, the power flow into the coil is 9800 watts.
The coil is soaking up all of this power supplied by the voltage source and storing it.
A mechanical inductor is simply a flywheel that spins on a a high quality bearing. You substitute the voltage for torque. You substitute the current flow for angular velocity. You substitute the inductance for the moment of inertia.
The question could have been rephrased: You have a flywheel on perfect bearings with a moment of inertia of three kilogram-meters-squared. You connect a constant torque source to the flywheel of seven newton-meters. What will happen? I am sure that you can all imagine what will happen if you think about the flywheel example.
People talk about doing all sorts of fancy lab experiments and Tesla impulse experiments but they can't even answer a basic question about how a coil functions. That means there is a good chance your lab experiments are just going to be a fuzzy walk down a garden path of your own creation, and not real research.
I'll give another example. Nowadays most people are just average Jow Blows when it comes to performing maintenance on their car engine. They open the hood and see a network of hoses and cables, you can barely even see the engine block. It's not like looking under the hood in the 1960s. They have no clue what the majority of those hoses are. The average Joe Blow does not have the umbilical connector and equipment to jack into the engine computer and read the error codes and interpret them and know what action to take. So the average Joe Blow would not even consider doing an engine overhaul, it's just too complicated and outside of his area of expertise.
But on the forums, people that don't understand the basic building blocks of electronics are more than happy to do "research" into high frequency impulse effects and play with coils, etc, etc. A wise person would want to master the basics before doing that. That ties into the whole "intense" debate that transpired here. Not one person was willing to say, "I don't know the answer but I would like to learn."
So we can now return to the quiet time on the thread and wait for results or whatever...
Quote from: MileHigh on July 18, 2013, 08:45:01 PM
It's quiet around here, perhaps we are waiting for some test results. So I will go back and comment on my question and the answer.
The question: You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen?
The answer: i = 7/3 t
So the current flow is zero when the voltage source is first connected (t = 0). Then the current rises in a linear ramp, at one second, the current is 2.33 amps. At two seconds, the current is 4.67 amps. After ten minutes, the current is 1400 amps.
Notice that as time goes on, more and more power is being pumped into the coil. At one second, the power flow into the coil is 16.33 watts. At ten minutes, the power flow into the coil is 9800 watts.
The coil is soaking up all of this power supplied by the voltage source and storing it.
A mechanical inductor is simply a flywheel that spins on a a high quality bearing. You substitute the voltage for torque. You substitute the current flow for angular velocity. You substitute the inductance for the moment of inertia.
The question could have been rephrased: You have a flywheel on perfect bearings with a moment of inertia of three kilogram-meters-squared. You connect a constant torque source to the flywheel of seven newton-meters. What will happen? I am sure that you can all imagine what will happen if you think about the flywheel example.
People talk about doing all sorts of fancy lab experiments and Tesla impulse experiments but they can't even answer a basic question about how a coil functions. That means there is a good chance your lab experiments are just going to be a fuzzy walk down a garden path of your own creation, and not real research.
I'll give another example. Nowadays most people are just average Jow Blows when it comes to performing maintenance on their car engine. They open the hood and see a network of hoses and cables, you can barely even see the engine block. It's not like looking under the hood in the 1960s. They have no clue what the majority of those hoses are. The average Joe Blow does not have the umbilical connector and equipment to jack into the engine computer and read the error codes and interpret them and know what action to take. So the average Joe Blow would not even consider doing an engine overhaul, it's just too complicated and outside of his area of expertise.
But on the forums, people that don't understand the basic building blocks of electronics are more than happy to do "research" into high frequency impulse effects and play with coils, etc, etc. A wise person would want to master the basics before doing that. That ties into the whole "intense" debate that transpired here. Not one person was willing to say, "I don't know the answer but I would like to learn."
So we can now return to the quiet time on the thread and wait for results or whatever...
Quiet? 8 posts since yesterday morning. ??? But I can say it was a nice break from your insulting, degrading, page filling posts. :P
Maybe its that nobody wanted to give you the time of day in answering your question. :'(
Gyula surely knows the answer. I know the answer. Im sure Syncro and Jbigs know also. So now you have answered yourself. After reading your self answer, ive gota say, what is your point? Is it that without the resistance you wanted to demonstrate infinite current climb in the inductor over time? Is that it? All those pages of repeatedly hashing out, "Answer my question!!!" ::) Now that was a waste of time. Big time.
You dont think I understand the relationships between an inductor and a flywheel? Well, that was a year ago or so, and we know you have memory problems that you deal with, on a daily basis at times ;) , soo, if you cannot remember the thread, let me know and I will help you out there if need be. ;)
"People talk about doing all sorts of fancy lab experiments and Tesla impulse experiments but they can't even answer a basic question about how a coil functions. That means there is a good chance your lab experiments are just going to be a fuzzy walk down a garden path of your own creation, and not real research."
All talky and no walky? ;) Yeah yeah, I know, its been 30 years.You dont have to say it again. ::) Ill do it for you when its appropriate. ;D
"I'll give another example. Nowadays most people are just average Jow Blows when it comes to performing maintenance on their car engine. They open the hood and see a network of hoses and cables, you can barely even see the engine block. It's not like looking under the hood in the 1960s. They have no clue what the majority of those hoses are. The average Joe Blow does not have the umbilical connector and equipment to jack into the engine computer and read the error codes and interpret them and know what action to take. So the average Joe Blow would not even consider doing an engine overhaul, it's just too complicated and outside of his area of expertise."
Oh really? Jow Blows? lol Mr Perfect you are.
Yeah. These cars today are a mess. But they are not as bad as what I am working on at my job. ;)
We received a 1965 mercedes that the customer had at another shop for 5 years and $430,000 into it thus far. The car is painted, no interior, no lights, no bumpers, no trim, piles of wire on the floor all over, some cut, stripped, some marked, some not, bare wires here there everywhere.
Open the hood and what do we see. A 5.0 10cyl twin turbo engine from a VW Touareg, all nice and neat, and tight. :o The things is a sleeper. Race suspension, Jag rear end, just sick.
The customer pulled the job from the other shop because they wanted another $50,000 to finish it. :o :o
Inside the car, wires and plugs for modules all over. No harnessing except for what goes out to the engine bay. Like the guy that did the engine bay wasnt on crack, but the other guy working on the inside was on crack. Or the engine bay guy had just started crack when he got to the interior. ;D
The first week I went through all the rats nest and fixed up some general harnesses to get things in some sort of order. They had wires going direct to other places just twisted in a mess. Located the 8 of over 20 Touareg modules, and installed them to their plug connector locations, only after careful study over the wiring diagrams from Mitchel and internet info, as some plug connectors were the same here and there. Also there are 2 ECU's, 1 for 1/2 of the motor and the other for the other half. They are not interchangeable according to info in the internet, but the part numbers are the same, go figure. They were marked 1 and 2 as were the plugs.
First issue was no power to just about everything. All the original power control modules and relays were replaced with DIY. The Touareg has some big relays and lots of them, but we dont have 4wd anymore, no traction control, airbags, electronic suspension, second fuel pump, etc etc. We only have 2 ECU, steering control module, Accessory start module, comfort module, Lighting module and the gauge cluster, which is considered a control module, and finally the transmission control module.
After checking for power at my power relays, the biggest one had no b+ to be switched on. So I traced the wires back to the batteries in the trunk. Well the power wire for the relay was taped up in the harness near the batteries, as if it were never to be used. With an eyelet connector ready to connect to the + side of the battery, where there are many other wires already. Supposedly the other shop had it running before we got it. Hmmm, well it couldnt have run with that wire all 'hidden' like that. ;)
So now we have 'some' power, for some things. Electronic ign switch did nada except allow me to remove the key by turning it to the left first. That was the only thing that worked. But I had powers to other things that didnt have it before. I hooked up the VAGCOM VW interface to the diagnostics connector to see what it might show up. I had communications to the steering module and thats it. ???
I went over all the modules to check for power, grounds. All were good except for the gauges. Once I got power going to the gauges, all I got was an initialization screen on the lcd and still no communications to it or the other modules. I physically checked all data lines between modules. All seemed to be ok where they were joined together by the other shop and all went to the plugs of the modules they were suppose to. There are 3 sets of data lines, only 2 used here.
So now I checked to see if the data lines were possibly shorted to each other or to gnd. Like maybe a module could have been bad, etc. Well well, 1 set of data lines were shorted. So I start unplugging modules 1 by 1. Bamo, acc/start module was the problem. I checked the 2 pins according to the schematic and no short to be found. ???
I then opened the plug connector cover to see the actual wire pinouts. Hmm, the data lines were not there in the terminal holes they were suppose to be in. They were in 2 blanks according to the diagram. So I removed the retainer clip that holds all the pins in the connector and put them where they were suppose to be. Badabing, we have liftoff! ;D We now have communications with all modules. But no start. Starter runs and runs but no ignition. Its diesel by the way. These guys at the original shop swapped the data lines in the acc/start plug connector so that the next shop would have a real problem getting things going. ;) Well they didnt know I was in town. ;D ;)
The power wire was another slick move by them, but amateurish move in comparison. There were others also, like relays on the harness that passed through seat mounting frame works in the floor, but no relays or gnd connections. If I didnt go over 'every' wire, I might not have found those relays. The wiring in that area looked complete and tied up. These guys rigged it up for disaster for another shop.
There were many wires that were not terminated yet. Some were marked, like fuel sending unit, windshield washer fluid level, etc, all things that I did not put any time into yet, because if I cant get the engine running, all else does not matter.
So I went over the wiring between modules pin to pin. All seemed ok.
I cleared all the codes(9 of them) and the fans made a different sound. They were lower in freq. I said hmm, give it a shot. It started!! yay!! Actually it scared me. I wasnt expecting it. This engine isnt quiet. But once I shut it off, I was back to square one, no restart. But if I clear the codes, she starts. After doing some programming and eliminating things like EGR, etc. which isnt on the motor any longer, and getting rid of airbag processes and other things that wont be needed(the gauge cluster was a literal christmas tree beforehand, she still didnt restart without clearing codes. I cant clear 1 code at a time to isolate code and symptom. We had a guy that knows this stuff. He and I did a lot of research and he has a lot of friends at VW. We got a lot of good info but no non-restart answers. Nobody wants to even come and look at it. They dont like this motor much and all of them said that it was idiotic to do a conversion with that engine.
After some research, Frank and I came to a conclusion. It came down to the possibility that ecu 1 and 2 could be swapped and were marked incorrectly by the other shop. Examining the schematics, each ecu had identical wiring for 'some' things, not all. All the guys at VW said if we swapped them, the 'immobilizer' would be set off and the car would have to be sent to them and they have to communicate with VW servers in Germany, bla bla bla. Lets put it this way, about $500 min.
But we did it anyways. Badabing again!!! She runs and restarts!!
Now we are finishing up the other wiring beyond the engine requirements and finish the rest of the car.
So Milehigh oh so high, you can take your Jow Bow and put it you know where. :o ;)
Who do you think your messing with? I can blow your mind with what I know about cars. I dont answer your ridiculous questions because I know that it doesnt mean much in the end. I know how coils work. Yet you yap and yap and yap on about the simple things. Well Im beyond that and going further. I know you dont have the ability to go beyond the walls of your box. But Im not going to follow your lead, of which is distracting and full of balony half the time. Its a waste. It was nice here for a day. And now your back. ::)
"A wise person would want to master the basics before doing that. "
More insults. ::)
"So we can now return to the quiet time on the thread and wait for results or whatever..."
The only reason it 'seemed' quiet is because you were not filling 2 pages a day with your so called 30 years ago expertise, and convenient forgetfulness where you see fit. ;)
Mags
You are one piece of work Magluvin....
The question was posed for a valid reason, Jbignes5 made two postings filled with nonsense and disinformation whose roots stem from the "we are into 'alternative' electronics that conventional science doesn't understand" angle. That was the disinformation and the basic question illustrated that point.
The person that insults and degrades is you, and you make a fool of yourself when you do it. You didn't know the answer, no chance Synchro1 or Jbignes5 did. If they knew they would have answered. So you are lying. Even the fact that you would claim they knew shows how low you are willing to stoop. Everybody with half a brain sees through you - you make these ridiculous nonsensical statements where everybody knows you are lying, including you yourself. It's pathetic.
Quotewe know you have memory problems that you deal with
Do you have any self-respect Magluvin? That crap is the worst of the worst, just like watching awful gratuitous spinning on a political talk show by some sleazy out-of-control political hack. It's gross and you are demeaning and degrading yourself when you act like that.
You talk about filling up the thread and then you give us a big treatise on working on a car??? The pot calling the kettle black.
QuoteSo Milehigh oh so high, you can take your Jow Bow and put it you know where.
Making a jackass out of yourself. Taking a hypothetical example that anybody can relate to and talking about your own occupation. That's just mindless logic that anybody can see through and you keep on digging that hole for yourself.
Mastering the basics is sound advice, not an insult. More mindless nonsense from you.
Before I jumped back into this thread it was going nowhere and nobody even talked about the basic parameters for the coil. Nobody dealt with what the self-resonance was all about, including you. You had no concept and kept on confusing the AC and DC operation and I taught you.
You can take your whole sleazy and lying post and shove it up your exhaust pipe. Be a man and not some MileHigh attack troll. Get yourself some self respect and character.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 18, 2013, 11:39:55 PM
You are one piece of work Magluvin....
The question was posed for a valid reason, Jbignes5 made two postings filled with nonsense and disinformation whose roots stem from the "we are into 'alternative' electronics that conventional science doesn't understand" angle. That was the disinformation and the basic question illustrated that point.
The person that insults and degrades is you, and you make a fool of yourself when you do it. You didn't know the answer, no chance Synchro1 or Jbignes5 did. If they knew they would have answered. So you are lying. Even the fact that you would claim they knew shows how low you are willing to stoop. Everybody with half a brain sees through you - you make these ridiculous nonsensical statements where everybody knows you are lying, including you yourself. It's pathetic.
Do you have any self-respect Magluvin? That crap is the worst of the worst, just like watching awful gratuitous spinning on a political talk show by some sleazy out-of-control political hack. It's gross and you are demeaning and degrading yourself when you act like that.
You talk about filling up the thread and then you give us a big treatise on working on a car??? The pot calling the kettle black.
Making a jackass out of yourself. Taking a hypothetical example that anybody can relate to and talking about your own occupation. That's just mindless logic that anybody can see through and you keep on digging that hole for yourself.
Mastering the basics is sound advice, not an insult. More mindless nonsense from you.
Before I jumped back into this thread it was going nowhere and nobody even talked about the basic parameters for the coil. Nobody dealt with what the self-resonance was all about, including you. You had no concept and kept on confusing the AC and DC operation and I taught you.
You can take your whole sleazy and lying post and shove it up your exhaust pipe. Be a man and not some MileHigh attack troll. Get yourself some self respect and character.
MileHigh
"You are one piece of work Magluvin...."
Why thank you. ;D Surely you jest. ;D
"The question was posed for a valid reason, Jbignes5 made two postings filled with nonsense and disinformation whose roots stem from the "we are into 'alternative' electronics that conventional science doesn't understand" angle. That was the disinformation and the basic question illustrated that point."
Jbigs is doing his thing. He is doing something that you cant get a grip on because most all you know about Tesla is from a documetary that you dont remember much of, like you said earlier in this thread. ;) You belittle Tesla like a book that doesnt exist. You either know nothing, or you do know and just dont want to throw any credit his way, or some newbies might get on the net and look up some of the stuff Jbigs is talking about. :P
"The person that insults and degrades is you, and you make a fool of yourself when you do it. You didn't know the answer, no chance Synchro1 or Jbignes5 did. If they knew they would have answered. So you are lying. Even the fact that you would claim they knew shows how low you are willing to stoop. Everybody with half a brain sees through you - you make these ridiculous nonsensical statements where everybody knows you are lying, including you yourself. It's pathetic."
Oh really. You knew they would have answered? Do you know how many times I have seen you repeatedly insist and reinsist again and again and again for people to answer your questions, over and over, because you didnt get an answer? lol You just dont get it do you. You just cant get it through your thick goop of a skull that people dont want to answer your questions. You act as if the thread cant go on unless someone answers you. Screw you. Your pathetic. ;)
"You didn't know the answer"
Dude Ive done a LOT of sim work on this stuff in the past year. I know that resistance must be factored into an inductor or transformer to come close to real world components. If I dont include that resistance then its just fantasy land, like Jbigs said earlier about it, and he is right, we will never experience your fantasy. Again, what was the BIG point of your question anyways? I dont get the point other than you 'trying' to belittle the intelligence of these nice people here.
What if someone did answer you? Then what?? Would you say "ok then, carry on, this thread inspection is complete" ::) No, you would then take it a step further with a new question, and pages of you repeating and so on and so forth.
If someone did answer, and then answered your next step question, and the next, and the next, all until a time that you finally know and or believe that we get it now, then what? What if we still continue to experiment with expectations of possibly more than what you know? Would we have to start at square one again because we could not possibly understand anything if we continue our endeavors into the forbidden world of Tesla?? Get a grip man. Gees. ;) When does it end? Ill tell ya when it ends. When they stop posting because you drove them off. You have been banned before. ;) Lets just say it was because you were unlikeable. :P
""Do you have any self-respect Magluvin? That crap is the worst of the worst, just like watching awful gratuitous spinning on a political talk show by some sleazy out-of-control political hack. It's gross and you are demeaning and degrading yourself when you act like that"
Well its true isnt it? Shall I call the pose and we go back and look for how many times you have used the bad memory shtick? There was one just the other day on the thread about Rose Ainslie. Its not hard to find them as they are plenty. ;)
"You talk about filling up the thread and then you give us a big treatise on working on a car??? The pot calling the kettle black."
I was making a strong point. ;) You want answers, Im giving them to you, my way. ;)
"Making a jackass out of yourself. Taking a hypothetical example that anybody can relate to and talking about your own occupation. That's just mindless logic that anybody can see through and you keep on digging that hole for yourself."
No. You were implying that nobody here could work on a car because they know nothing about the basics of inductors. ??? Joe Blows Jow Blows and Joe blow. Jow Blow Ok one more time, Joe Blow.. Idiot
If it were so hypothetical, then explain the connection of ideal inductor science and todays automotive repair? You will not find a meter in the automotive repair 'industry' that measures inductance. Not one. Call up Snap-on, Matco tools, they will be like, 'umm wut?' ;) Actually, if you can give me a single example of an auto tech that needs to measure 'inductance' or is even ever concerned about 'inductance' I will give you a dollar. lol Actually a dollar for each one.
"Before I jumped back into this thread it was going nowhere and nobody even talked about the basic parameters for the coil. Nobody dealt with what the self-resonance was all about, including you. You had no concept and kept on confusing the AC and DC operation and I taught you."
You still have no clue. Im not looking for self-resonance. Im not confused about anything. Its a pulse motor. DC pulses. If there is AC resonance at a particular rpm then so beit and we will check out what happens there also. Im looking for the coil to pop out a mag field faster than a normal coil. Is this not what I have been saying here or what? Im not talking about back with Romero or Zeropoint132, Im talking about here and now.
Basic parameters of the coil? I tell ya what. Here are some basic parameters. You go wind 2 coils 26awg 500turns, one regs and one bifi and you go right ahead work out those parameters. Let me know what your bifi neasures in inductance compared to the regs jimmy. Ill be waiting for your answers and I wont be patient. ::) ;) Should I hound you each day for those answers? It works for you doesnt it? :P
"You had no concept and kept on confusing the AC and DC operation and I taught you."
Show me where you taught me!! You always want us to prove things, well here is your 15 min of fame. Show me where you taught me as you state!!! And THIS, I will hound you about till you come clean on that one jack. Count on that. ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
"You can take your whole sleazy and lying post and shove it up your exhaust pipe. Be a man and not some MileHigh attack troll. Get yourself some self respect and character."
Lying? Really?? Well Ill just have to take pics tomorrow of the 'dark green metalic' Merc and show you all the lies I told. Lies in HD. ;) Oh dont you worry if Im a man or not, lol , just have them answers on the page tomorrow you ole slicker you.
Mags
Magluvin piece of work part 2:
Jbignes5 was saying incorrect things and he was rightly challenged. He asked me to pose the question because he wanted to take me up on the challenge. And then he claimed that he answered it but he didn't. He falsely claimed that a few sentences embedded in a paragraph were the answer. The point of the question was to show that Jbignes5 did not have a mastery of the basics so that beginners would take a second look and consider all views on the subject. The goal was to make the thread realistic and not your typical fantasy thread.
Kiss my ass about the memory issue. It's crap and you know it. If you think from now on you are going to try to claim I have "memory problems" all the time then you are just making a jackass out of yourself. So I am asking you to stop it right now.
QuoteNo. You were implying that nobody here could work on a car
Pure garbage, self-degrading idiocy on your part. Fool talk from a person that pretends he can't understand a hypothetical example. Why are you playing stupid? You are not scoring any points like that. How low can you go?
QuoteActually, if you can give me a single example of an auto tech that needs to measure 'inductance' or is even ever concerned about 'inductance' I will give you a dollar. lol Actually a dollar for each one.
Have you been hit in the head with a 16-ton weight like in a cartoon? I think you need to bang your head again to get back to normal.
QuoteYou still have no clue. Im not looking for self-resonance. Im not confused about anything. Its a pulse motor.
This thread is not about your pulse motor. You only introduced that very recently. Wake up!
QuoteShould I hound you each day for those answers?
Yeah you could hound me if I agreed to answer your question, then didn't actually answer your question, and then claimed that I did answer your question. But I am not going to answer your question so the whole thing is moot.
QuoteShow me where you taught me!!
It happened just a few weeks ago where I corrected your mistake. Remember I reminded you that you didn't have enough character or integrity to even thank me?
Quotepics tomorrow of the 'dark green metalic' Merc
We are not talking about your car work Magluvin, still more nonsense from you.
You are doing a great job of digging yourself deeper into that hole. Stop trolling me Magluvin.
MileHigh
Here is the example you asked for Magluvin, it's from July 4th:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Magluvin:
Quote
The difference between the 2 voltages is 2500%. And the parts of my post you neglected to reply on explain percent levels up to 60,000% difference. Not beating on you here but I think those are important and very significant numbers while we are having this conversation.
I read all of your comments I just responded in a generic way at the beginning of the posting. If you try to measure the capacitive energy in the SBC coil it will be interesting.
Quote
So in 'reality' , there is nothing high freq about 60hz, is there? Now replace that 100nf cap with a 1uf cap. What would our operating freq be then? Pretty much subsonic. So maybe we can ditch the fact that we are only limited to high freq operation, as long as we have large enough bifi inductance in our motors.
It may be possible, but I seem to recall various testers getting their coils to self-resonate in the hundreds of kilohertz to megahertz range. I don't know how big you want to go but it sounds to me like 60 Henries is one big mother of a coil.
If you can get low frequency resonance, what do you want to do with that coil?
Quote
The way I see it, if we want to use high inductance coils in our pulse motors, more than likely the rise time of the coil is going to be slow, limiting the max potential of its field strength within the time allotment of on time of the switch. Depending on the speed of the motor and switching of course.
You are actually suggesting a good experiment. Test different drive coil configurations where you vary the inductance. Is there a 'sweet spot' for the drive coil inductance?
Quote
So by 'neutralizing' the self inductance of a very high inductance coil, we eliminate rise time in the coil. The coil will produce max field much faster than a regular coil, giving a sharper pulse than a normal coil of similar inductance and be able to shorten the on time of the switch being we dont have to wait for the field to build like a normal coil.
Another issue worth revisiting. You are not visualizing this properly. The 'neutralizing of the self inductance' relates to the coil acting as a band pass filter for an AC signal. At the resonance frequency the complex impedance will drop to zero and you will be left with just the wire resistance. When you talk about rise time in the coil this is for the coil acting in a pulse circuit, a different animal. You will have to wait for the field to build in an SBC coil the same as in a normal coil as a the voltage starts to overcome the inductance and gets it to move. We know that the SBC coil and the same-sized normal coil have approximately the same inductance, and thee is no short-cut like you believe. You are mixing apples and oranges. Check it out for yourself on the bench.Quote
Having the capacitance distributed throughout the coil with much higher potential levels between turns can draw in current through the coil, especially if the capacitance is between turns that are not physically connected electrically just 1 turn away. I believe a normal coil has an inrush of current in relation to its very tiny capacitance's in series from one end of the coil to the other.
That sounds reasonable to me. It's hard to know exactly what the dynamics are for the SBC coil and capacitive charge distribution in the coil and how the current might flow, etc. It may be next to impossible to measure because any current associated with charging the inter-loop capacitance may be superimposed on the main current flow as the inductor energizes. You sound like you want to do the investigation and it should be fun. I think looking for differences between a standard coil and an SBC coil, same dimensions, same wire and turns, would be your best bet at detecting something of note. I don't think you have a DSO but you might have a USB scope? That would come in handy.
Just to look at this one more time:
Quote
Here is something to think about. If we have an LC and we apply a voltage across its ends, what would happen immediately? The cap would charge, and fast. So if you think a bifi coil is the same as just a coil with a cap across it, then you must believe that the capacitance in the bifi would do the same, correct? And where is that capacitor in the bifi coil? Its in the coil!! (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) With the bifi we have just neutralized the self inductance of the coil and current would flow instantly.
Here is the problem in a nutshell: Even though the capacitance is there, the current still has to corkscrew though the coil. So on its way to charge the inter-loop capacitance the current still has to overcome the inductance and push it along. The dynamics of it are not trivial.
Here is something that may be applicable to visualize what is going on. You take the analogy of inductance as the massless spring and capacitance as the mass. So an LC resonator is like a massless spring affixed to a concrete wall on one end and to the oscillating mass on the other end. Imagine that setup about pallet-sized with a big 100-turn mechanical spring made out of thin Berryllium and a 10 kilogram mass on a very low friction surface oscillating back and forth at about 5 Hz. Let's assume that the spring is not too stiff hence the low oscillation frequency.
We know pure inductance is represented by a massless spring. But you have a real-world spring you know it's made of a loop of wire with windings that have mass. Mass is capacitance, and the SBC coil has inter-loop capacitance.
So, it's very possible that a real-world spring with mass would be a decent model for how an SBC coil behaves. So imagine kicking that big spring and watching it vibrate and wiggle in a kind of random and unstable way until it rings down completely and stops moving. Even think of doing something similar as a kid with a Slinky, where you pull the slinky tight and then pluck it to send waves bouncing back and forth through the loops. It's possible that the SBC coil will behave like that in the electrical domain. You never know...
MileHigh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you forgot.
MileHigh
"It happened just a few weeks ago where I corrected your mistake. Remember I reminded you that you didn't have enough character or integrity to even thank me?"
Thats easy enough to spit out as some sort of proof. Thats why I said to provide links and quotes. But you did not include that in your quote of me above, selectively of course. ;) Thats a good example of how you work, and the good readers will learn from that. ;D
Show me the quotes and links.
Mags
Prove what you say otherwise its useless. ;) Right? :P
Mags ;D
It was just proven and the good readers of this thread have no problem recognizing a troll.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 02:26:10 AM
It was just proven and the good readers of this thread have no problem recognizing a troll.
Lol. The guy that pushes people to prove everything they say, yet is immune to his own rules he pushes upon everyone else. Hmmm. I know a guy like that. Spittin image. You know, that guy on tv every once in a while, been around about 41/2 years or so. You know. ;)
Yes, the readers see that you are telling stories that you cannot prove. Like the way you treat Jbigs and Syncro for their ideas and pester them to death to prove what they say or else they will never hear the end of it.
So now it is you that needs to step up and prove your story. And if you cant then nobody here needs to answer any of your questions. None. Why should they? You dont do it for them or me. A bit one sided Ay? Hmmm???
Yes, this is what the readers are reading. ;) Been over 100 of them today alone. Gota love them readers. ;D
Sleep tight. ;)
Mags
Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection.
Hopefully you and others will generate some legitimate data about the coil configuration as per Tesla's patent. Easier said than done.
Rational analysis of this special coil configuration is telling us that it is marginally different from a regular coil of the same number of turns and dimensions. That's what we are trying to examine here. The claims and the fantasy claims versus the rational analysis and the actual bench testing. Which ones are real? Which ones are the truth? I think of the excellent contributor Itsu and his great clips. He has been examining Kapanadze claims on his bench for months and months and none of the claims and speculations from the various Kapanadze threads have ever turned out to be true.
I have done the testing on the bench myself, and yes, it was a long time ago. BFD. I have measured the inductance by looking at the L/R time constant of a coil. I have measured the energy stored in a coil. I have done the AC and pulse analysis of a coil on the bench. I have measured the core saturation level. I have sat through all of the derivations based on looking at the geometry of the coil. I understand the differential and integral equations that describe the behaviour of a coil. I have done the S-parameter modelling for a coil. I have done the linear network analysis that allows you to solve for all loop currents and node voltages in a circuit where coils are some of the circuit elements.
So going back to the basics: What can we say about this coil configuration in looking at the patent, and looking at what we know about how a coil actually works, and what we can see on the bench? For this most basic of components are we going to try and understand it, or is the "free for all" mentality going to extend down to the most basic circuit components that people work with on a daily basis? Do we delude ourselves and listen to anything anybody says about the coil or do we try to really understand how a coil works so we can apply that knowledge to other circuits and other experiments?
This notion that I am somehow a "bad guy" for trying to get enthusiasts to understand the basics so that they can get more out of their bench experimenting and circuit analysis is just plain ridiculous. I am fully aware of the self-defeating patterns that happen over and over on the threads. The fact that we can't even try to get on the same page for a bloody coil says a lot about the state of free energy research.
MileHigh
Hi All, while I was reading this thread, I am also working on my basic coil designs, so I decided to show the readers how easy it is to work out some of the simple coil parameters required before winding. I hope this helps those who need to wind a coil suitable for their experiments. Regards Arto.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 02:54:27 AM
Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection.
Hopefully you and others will generate some legitimate data about the coil configuration as per Tesla's patent. Easier said than done.
Rational analysis of this special coil configuration is telling us that it is marginally different from a regular coil of the same number of turns and dimensions. That's what we are trying to examine here. The claims and the fantasy claims versus the rational analysis and the actual bench testing. Which ones are real? Which ones are the truth? I think of the excellent contributor Itsu and his great clips. He has been examining Kapanadze claims on his bench for months and months and none of the claims and speculations from the various Kapanadze threads have ever turned out to be true.
I have done the testing on the bench myself, and yes, it was a long time ago. BFD. I have measured the inductance by looking at the L/R time constant of a coil. I have measured the energy stored in a coil. I have done the AC and pulse analysis of a coil on the bench. I have measured the core saturation level. I have sat through all of the derivations based on looking at the geometry of the coil. I understand the differential and integral equations that describe the behaviour of a coil. I have done the S-parameter modelling for a coil. I have done the linear network analysis that allows you to solve for all loop currents and node voltages in a circuit where coils are some of the circuit elements.
So going back to the basics: What can we say about this coil configuration in looking at the patent, and looking at what we know about how a coil actually works, and what we can see on the bench? For this most basic of components are we going to try and understand it, or is the "free for all" mentality going to extend down to the most basic circuit components that people work with on a daily basis? Do we delude ourselves and listen to anything anybody says about the coil or do we try to really understand how a coil works so we can apply that knowledge to other circuits and other experiments?
This notion that I am somehow a "bad guy" for trying to get enthusiasts to understand the basics so that they can get more out of their bench experimenting and circuit analysis is just plain ridiculous. I am fully aware of the self-defeating patterns that happen over and over on the threads. The fact that we can't even try to get on the same page for a bloody coil says a lot about the state of free energy research.
MileHigh
"Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection."
Squirm??? First off you said you 'taught' me about AC DC a couple weeks ago lastnight and I called you on it, and the link you give is from a couple days ago??? Nice try liar. Or maybe your memory was off when you wrote that yesterday. :o ;)
Anyone who reads what we talked about lastnight will know now that you LIE. And thats a fact. ;D
lol, how do you live with yourself lying like that? Compulsive? Or you just have to always be right even when wrong(lying)? You are a fool to think that 'we the readers' cant see though what you are saying. I rank you up there with Rose Ainslie's lies. From one page to the next, lies.
Lets see what you come up with today. ::) The readers are watching. 300 more since my last post about 7 hours ago. lol
I gota go to work. Have a nice LIE, I mean day.
Mags
The link was from July 4th and you have been reduced to a parrot whizzing into the wind.
My intention was to give some explanation to my question about the ideal inductor driven by the ideal voltage source. And you have done nothing but attack me and dig yourself into a hole and demonstrate your moral bankruptcy, just a troll.
This 'debate' is over and thanks for showing everyone your true colours.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 02:54:27 AM
Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection.
Hopefully you and others will generate some legitimate data about the coil configuration as per Tesla's patent. Easier said than done.
Rational analysis of this special coil configuration is telling us that it is marginally different from a regular coil of the same number of turns and dimensions. That's what we are trying to examine here. The claims and the fantasy claims versus the rational analysis and the actual bench testing. Which ones are real? Which ones are the truth? I think of the excellent contributor Itsu and his great clips. He has been examining Kapanadze claims on his bench for months and months and none of the claims and speculations from the various Kapanadze threads have ever turned out to be true.
I have done the testing on the bench myself, and yes, it was a long time ago. BFD. I have measured the inductance by looking at the L/R time constant of a coil. I have measured the energy stored in a coil. I have done the AC and pulse analysis of a coil on the bench. I have measured the core saturation level. I have sat through all of the derivations based on looking at the geometry of the coil. I understand the differential and integral equations that describe the behaviour of a coil. I have done the S-parameter modelling for a coil. I have done the linear network analysis that allows you to solve for all loop currents and node voltages in a circuit where coils are some of the circuit elements.
So going back to the basics: What can we say about this coil configuration in looking at the patent, and looking at what we know about how a coil actually works, and what we can see on the bench? For this most basic of components are we going to try and understand it, or is the "free for all" mentality going to extend down to the most basic circuit components that people work with on a daily basis? Do we delude ourselves and listen to anything anybody says about the coil or do we try to really understand how a coil works so we can apply that knowledge to other circuits and other experiments?
This notion that I am somehow a "bad guy" for trying to get enthusiasts to understand the basics so that they can get more out of their bench experimenting and circuit analysis is just plain ridiculous. I am fully aware of the self-defeating patterns that happen over and over on the threads. The fact that we can't even try to get on the same page for a bloody coil says a lot about the state of free energy research.
MileHigh
This isn't just a bloody coil. There is somethingt that the capacitance of the coil, being so high, that brings other effects to the table. Adding more of the Voltage conversion does do something. Something rather odd with very high oscillations or impulse currents.
Do anything you want but do not try to compare the DC component of this coil. It will not work because it is not based off of the DC end of things. The capacitor inside of the coil is a very important role in this design. It not only cancels self inductance but also creates a larger capacity inside of the coil. Hence my naming it a Cap/Coil. There is nothing wrong with stating the coil as it is and that is a Cap/Coil.
There is also a phase relationship between the two coils that are series connected. Both coils have currents that move from outside to inside and each could be considered to be in a different phase to each other. My ideas on the acceleration type of operation are but only an observation from previos work,the only thing that will tell the two is to measure the first coil on an oscilloscope and the second coil on channel b. This should show the phase relationship and if it modifies one to the other through the capacitance and induction. As for proof it will come but on my time and not your demands. If you can not wait or are impatient then maybe you should get a bench together like I have done.
My scope isn't the best and I have to get another probe. They are not cheap. The scope is a B+K Precision 1477, 15Mhz Max.
So accurate data collection will be high on the list. My next buy will be a damn good fluke Multi meter, Hopefully the best but we will see what I can afford. I have shown the Oscilloscope before on Energetic forum with my work from the Joule thief thread there and with the addition of the Captret experiments.
The Captret experiments led me an Ibpointless to the crystal batteries. Then I started on the bifilar design because I wanted to see every aspect of the captret. From the self charging of a capacitor to the inductive relation of the plates to the case(induction).
So the bifilar I believe is the culmination of all of these investigations. My investigations.
There is also another investigation that I am planning on doing. Two coils of different metals suspended in a crystalline medium like alumn. Further experiments will be tried on the medium of oils as well. This will improve the dielectric value and increase the capacity even further. This does two things: A: it raises the capacity. B: increases the dielectric break down incase the magnet wire looses it's sheath of dielectric. Oils have been shown to extend the range of Peak voltage of the coil. Extreme voltage potential of the impulses will need to be dealt with and this is the perfect way. The drive caps of the exciter and driver unit will be oil filled as well to include these properties in the AC operation of the bifilar coil. This should augment the AC current even further.
It might be that hese coils are polarized as well. This means two coils should be used on a battery source. One positive and one negative. I would think we could figure out the n/s of these coils from the faces of the flat pancakes. We could either increase current bucking compressing or increase voltage by current aiding or acceleration mode.
The output I would think should be augmented AC via laser like excitation of the current going through the bifilar coils but I'll have to experiment more before determining that route.
Like I said the videos of tinman are very telling about the coils abilities to create an imbalance. I would think there would be some kind of standing wave on the surface of the flat coils. Like a surface that can be impulsed like a drum head. In this analogy you could think of it like this glorious video shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5u5nXZqYq0
This is what we are looking for. This exactly type of action.
I think if you check out the water hammer you might see how this concept works.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 02:54:27 AM
Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection.
Hmm. Well you did say post 434, which is only a page back. I didnt read it and just thought how could that be weeks ago. But I see it was a copy of an original post now. So you can see MY train of thought at nearly 3am, or was it 2. Ok. I apologize for saying you lied based on the point of my confusion of weeks ago. lol I was 2 hours late for work this morning and posted what I did before I left.
Then you posted a bit later and I saw it on my phone. I went back through posts and I could not find what post where you said what I pasted above. I was like, jimmy edited his post!! >:( Seriously. :)
I was kinda po'ed most of the day planning on figuring out what is what when I got home. But then I found it, then found the post and read it.
But on the statement that you taught me something with that post, well just because you posted it doesnt mean that I dont know much until you posted it. ;) You said you were into car audio. Ever make a custom passive crossover for a system? This is old school for sure. Low pass, band pass and high pass. I learned a lot back then working with a guy that developed home speaker systems. His stuff was not cheap. $2000 for a pair of 6 1/2 with 2 tweeters. Vented, no sub needed. He would test them with just a high end cd and a nice stereo amp with just a volume control. This guy spent ridiculous money on wire and cable. He would sit you down in a room with 1 chair and tell you to close your eyes and hit play. It was a beautiful thing.
Also back when I had first met Poynt in Roses thread, couple years back. I had some conflicts with statements like 'back emf" or counter emf when describing what happens during a field collapse. The problem I have with it is there is nothing, back, reverse or counter about it. The current continues in the same direction as the input. Though, that isnt always the case, as you and I have argued before at OUR.
I think I made a vid on YT that shows it. Will look. I had a pulse motor that I used 1 diode to capture the collapse current into a cap. But when I reversed the diode, I still got more than input voltage into the cap. Now that is what I would call BEMF. I even wrote theories on why I thought it would do so. And the reason I proposed was due to that tiny ity bitty capacitance in the coil. I believe it was the Energy Amplification here and one on an OUR thread. Now granted, when I reversed the diode, when the reed closed, the reed sent power to the coil and to the cap(through the diode) directly from the source. No inductors inline with the diode/cap. So how did the cap reach just about as much voltage beyond input voltage with the diode in either direction? ;)
Anyways, sorry about the confusion there. Its the man thing to do. ;) I dont hold on to my mistakes, I clear them up when realized. Been here before. ;)
Ok, gota eat and check out this LCR meter. Now that I got it, it seems a bit cheap compared to what I thought. Instructions on folded paper. ::)
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on July 18, 2013, 08:45:01 PM
It's quiet around here, perhaps we are waiting for some test results. So I will go back and comment on my question and the answer.
The question: You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen?
The answer: i = 7/3 t
So the current flow is zero when the voltage source is first connected (t = 0). Then the current rises in a linear ramp, at one second, the current is 2.33 amps. At two seconds, the current is 4.67 amps. After ten minutes, the current is 1400 amps.
Notice that as time goes on, more and more power is being pumped into the coil. At one second, the power flow into the coil is 16.33 watts. At ten minutes, the power flow into the coil is 9800 watts.
The coil is soaking up all of this power supplied by the voltage source and storing it.
A mechanical inductor is simply a flywheel that spins on a a high quality bearing. You substitute the voltage for torque. You substitute the current flow for angular velocity. You substitute the inductance for the moment of inertia.
The question could have been rephrased: You have a flywheel on perfect bearings with a moment of inertia of three kilogram-meters-squared. You connect a constant torque source to the flywheel of seven newton-meters. What will happen? I am sure that you can all imagine what will happen if you think about the flywheel example.
People talk about doing all sorts of fancy lab experiments and Tesla impulse experiments but they can't even answer a basic question about how a coil functions. That means there is a good chance your lab experiments are just going to be a fuzzy walk down a garden path of your own creation, and not real research.
I'll give another example. Nowadays most people are just average Jow Blows when it comes to performing maintenance on their car engine. They open the hood and see a network of hoses and cables, you can barely even see the engine block. It's not like looking under the hood in the 1960s. They have no clue what the majority of those hoses are. The average Joe Blow does not have the umbilical connector and equipment to jack into the engine computer and read the error codes and interpret them and know what action to take. So the average Joe Blow would not even consider doing an engine overhaul, it's just too complicated and outside of his area of expertise.
But on the forums, people that don't understand the basic building blocks of electronics are more than happy to do "research" into high frequency impulse effects and play with coils, etc, etc. A wise person would want to master the basics before doing that. That ties into the whole "intense" debate that transpired here. Not one person was willing to say, "I don't know the answer but I would like to learn."
So we can now return to the quiet time on the thread and wait for results or whatever...
As soon as you start talking of "Ideal" components you stray away from physical reality.
Why not just say an inductor with three Henries and 100 Ohms resistance ? The ideal voltage is OK because that can be pretty much made to happen in reality if there is sufficient DC resistance.
The ideal situation is so far from reality it is funny.
MileHigh can you do the sums for us to show the difference between your "ideal inductor" situation and a similar situation using an inductor with the three Henries and also with 100 Ohms DC resistance ?
Then with AC excitation or pulsed DC excitation (Alternating polarity pulsed DC or unipolarity pulsed DC) and tuned to minimum reactance with the 100 Ohms DC resistance. We can deduce that if the effect of the self induction is cancelled and the coil only faces the DC resistance the delay for the maximum current is practically negated. That is what the patent is about and that is basically the claims of the patent. Is it not ?
Cheers
P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have great respect for the knowledge you higher educated guys bring to the table. I can see your point in your example, but can you see the point I'm trying to make ? The coil is like a flywheel yes, but a flywheel has windage and bearing drag, a coil has DC resistance, it cannot be avoided and should not.
The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !
At times it seems you almost try to provoke people to try to say they know more than they do, so that you can make them look bad or silly. Not saying you are trying to do that just that it seems that way at times. I do see where you are coming from. To me it seems like a sport to you, I and the others here are not your playthings, just sayin, just in case.
By all means debate is good but as far as I am concerned the debate is over the patent is explained. Not trying to brag but for an uneducated man in this field I think I hit the nail on the head with the turn spacing (self capacitor plate spacing or insulation thickness) meaning the voltage applied has to be considered, and differing voltages will produce different resonant frequencies because of that. Do you agree that insulation thickness or distance between conductors means different voltages will secure differing levels of self capacitance in a given coil ?
...
Consider for a moment an oscillator inside an electrostatic generated field. The energy leaves the oscillator as electromagnetic waves or as particle boys call it photons or light. The space volume the oscillator occupies is less energy dense upon each radiation from same. Mean while the electrostatic field permeating the same space is non variant in field strength. It's Tesla's bottle in a lake. The electrostatic field moves electricity (the water) continually into the tank which transforms it into electromagnetic waves that radiate from the same space. There is this whole dimensional field of energy density.
I really think his bifilar pancake coils is a tank inside his transformer. The below link gives some pretty good insight into what Tesla was into. No gain from the medium yet just plain old power distribution using one wire. His radar-like ground waves came later as he got into microwave bands. [size=78%]http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm)[/size]
Quote from: Farmhand on July 20, 2013, 12:52:58 AM
As soon as you start talking of "Ideal" components you stray away from physical reality.
Why not just say an inductor with three Henries and 100 Ohms resistance ? The ideal voltage is OK because that can be pretty much made to happen in reality if there is sufficient DC resistance.
The ideal situation is so far from reality it is funny.
MileHigh can you do the sums for us to show the difference between your "ideal inductor" situation and a similar situation using an inductor with the three Henries and also with 100 Ohms DC resistance ?
Then with AC excitation or pulsed DC excitation (Alternating polarity pulsed DC or unipolarity pulsed DC) and tuned to minimum reactance with the 100 Ohms DC resistance. We can deduce that if the effect of the self induction is cancelled and the coil only faces the DC resistance the delay for the maximum current is practically negated. That is what the patent is about and that is basically the claims of the patent. Is it not ?
Cheers
P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have great respect for the knowledge you higher educated guys bring to the table. I can see your point in your example, but can you see the point I'm trying to make ? The coil is like a flywheel yes, but a flywheel has windage and bearing drag, a coil has DC resistance, it cannot be avoided and should not.
The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !
At times it seems you almost try to provoke people to try to say they know more than they do, so that you can make them look bad or silly. Not saying you are trying to do that just that it seems that way at times. I do see where you are coming from. To me it seems like a sport to you, I and the others here are not your playthings, just sayin, just in case.
By all means debate is good but as far as I am concerned the debate is over the patent is explained. Not trying to brag but for an uneducated man in this field I think I hit the nail on the head with the turn spacing (self capacitor plate spacing or insulation thickness) meaning the voltage applied has to be considered, and differing voltages will produce different resonant frequencies because of that. Do you agree that insulation thickness or distance between conductors means different voltages will secure differing levels of self capacitance in a given coil ?
...
"The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !"
Exactly! ;) "the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance." That is what Im going after. Im not looking for AC cycle functions nor cycle resonance Like MH implies that I do. I had that idea a while back, but Ive deduced it to working with a portion of one cycle. All I want when the reed or transistor turns on is for the coil to avoid the inductive climb of the field till peak. So instead of when the switch goes on, there is a climb to peak, limited by resistance, of which is always there ;) , there will be quicker build of the field. Not saying that more input wont be required. But I do know the difference between a bullet thrown at something and a bullet shot at something. Add up all the energy that I used to throw it as hard as I can and compare it to the energy the target received and there will be 'big' losses. Then compare the energy put out by the gun and compare the target again. Much better efficiency. ;) Impact. Bruce Lee 1 inch punch vs picking them up and throwing them as far. If some motors today are near 90% efficient by picking up the armature and throwing it with a load, what might we get with the repeated 1 inch punch? ;)
Imagine Lasersabers motor running at say 5v 1ua as seen in the vids. Now if we stacked, just for example, 30,000 of these motors together. Would there be good output at 5v 30ma??? ;) This is another thing Im keeping in mind along the way. ;)
I should have this motor going tomorrow and start winding the bifi bobbins on sunday.
Mags
Jbignes5:
It is just a bloody coil in the sense that a regular coil has some associated minuscule capacitance and the Tesla patented coil has somewhat more associated minuscule capacitance. Normally "more minuscule" is still "minuscule" in the overall scheme of things. It's more a question of shades of grey than anything else. I am perfectly fine if you want to call it a cap/coil, but be aware that the inductance might be 10,000 times or even a million times the capacitance when equating Henries to Farads. You must examine the relative proportions and try to draw some conclusions from that information.
For example, take a resistor in a circuit. There is always inductance associated with a resistor. However, under "typical" operating conditions you can ignore it. In the case of the Rosemary Ainslie circuit, the conditions are not "typical" because of the high-frequencies associated with the MOSFET switching and you can't ignore the inductance in this case.
The capacitance will have a role in the operation of the cap/coil but only under certain conditions. You can expect typical series or parallel LC type effects to take place, which in an of themselves are not remarkable but certainly worth exploring. I am not sure specifically what you mean by the "phase" relationship between two coils in series. You have to keep in mind that the current will be the same in both coils in series but the voltage certainly doesn't have to be the same. But good luck and have fun investigating it.
Your 15 MHz bandwidth scope has enough bandwidth to do all sorts of experiments for sure. You talk about a Joule Thief, on a Lawrence Tseung thread I gave the full flywheel-based mechanical equivalent "circuit" for a Joule Thief to illustrate how it can't possibly be a source of over unity in case you are curious.
You discuss putting a coil in oil or another medium to increase the capacitance and increase the breakdown strength of the dielectric. Both statements are true. However, preliminary analysis suggests increased capacitance is going to reduce your maximum voltage output. Do you follow the rationale for that preliminary conclusion? It's still possible that your stronger dielectric will "win out" and be more significant than the potential voltage snubbing effects of the increased capacitance, I don't know and it sounds like an interesting investigation. You have to keep in mind that the current flow through the coil and the switching off speed will always be the two dominant variables that affect the output voltage.
See, now when you talk about coils being "polarized" you get into territory that can lead into heated debate. In my entire life I have never heard of polarized coils. So that might be your terminology. Let's leave it at that for now. I don't want to prejudge you or upset your test plans. However, if a day comes where you do experiments and make clips where you discuss polarized coils, and I look at the clip and see you are completely off base, then I will tell you what I see and why I think you are off base. Is that fair enough?
I just read further and you make reference to north and south faces of pancake coils. So perhaps I misunderstood you and by "polarized" you just mean the field generated by the coil. If that's the case ignore what I state above.
There should be no issues characterizing the output of a coil. You can think of the discharge of the energy stored in a coil through a load resistor being kind of like a firecracker going off. With a very high-value load resistance you get a very fast and energetic high-voltage "firecracker explosion" energy discharge. With a very low-value load resistance you get a very slow burn low-voltage "firecracker explosion" that's very "mellow." With a zero ohm load resistance and an ideal inductor the "firecracker" simply doesn't explode and retains its energy.
Please tell me Jbignes5 seriously, the business about the value value of the load resistance and the discharge speed and corresponding voltage - were you aware of that or had you ever heard of it? I am really curious and I am asking you to be honest with me.
The crab pulsar video is very cool, I saw it several years ago and I read that it took a few years to "film."
Anyway, if you make a video with coils. there is a decent chance that I will be able to tell you exactly what is going on. The real thing, and all that I ask is that you work to try to understand "my point of view." I hope that's fair for you.
MileHigh
Magluvin:
Apology accepted. I have never made a custom passive crossover for a speaker system. But like any curious teenager I opened up various speakers and examined the crossovers and had somewhat of an inkling of what was going on. Coils block high frequencies and let low frequencies pass and for caps it's vice-versa, one of the first things you learn when you read about audio. During the disco era I worked for a sound and lighting company. There were active crossover rack-mount modules that were programmable with plug-in cards. They may have been made by JBL. The cards had something like six sets of caps and resistors/inductors and I got the impression that the audio signal was run through six consecutive high pass filters that all did the same thing so that you ended up with a very sharp roll-off in the crossover, almost like a "step" functon. If I am right I am still wondering how cycling the same analog audio signal through six consecutive filter stages did not cause any S/N issues.
I suspect the term "back EMF" comes from most people seeing a negative voltage spike on their scope when they first start experimenting. If you switch your ground and signal scope leads around then you see that the negative spike all of a sudden becomes a positive spike. As you know the coil is trying to keep the current flowing in the same direction, a kind of "let's keep going forward" EMF.
Too hard to make more than a few basic comments about the diode. If you reverse the diode, you get the "fast firecracker explosion" effect. The coil discharge will be short and fast and plow straight though the reversed diode and there is a good chance you will destroy the diode if there is enough energy available.
MileHigh
Farmhand and Magluvin:
Here is the real answer for the real-world inductor with internal resistance:
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/ph/p/id/217 (http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/ph/p/id/217)
I tried to find a "friendly" link. What you might notice is that at time t =0, the circuit acts _exactly_ like an ideal inductor. As time goes on the resistive effects start to come into play and the current reaches an asymptote.
What's wrong with asking yourselves, "what would happen if there is no resistance" so that you can understand the pure effects of inductance without the complication and distraction of the resistance coming into play? It's just being a Luddite to reject valid concepts that try to isolate the inductor from extraneous effects. The goal is to try to understand how the inductor works, gain that insight, and then other aspects can fall into place. It's anti-science and anti-learning to reject these ideas.
I can't think of a decent example but let's use audio. When you listen to an old-fashioned LP record you insist on listening to a record with dirt and dust in the grooves and a scratch or two because that's the "real world." You refuse to listen to a virgin dist-free record because that's not "real." It's a sucky example but I think it makes the point a bit.
But then you have no problem with dealing with a pure voltage source with zero internal resistance because that's easy to relate to and you can understand that. By the same token you are comfortable with a normal voltage source with some internal resistance.
How often do you guys worry about the series resistance in capacitors? Not too often. So you don't care about ignoring the resistance in capacitors, you are quite pleased to treat your capacitors as ideal capacitors most of the time and ignore the resistance. But then the s*it hits the fan when someone dares suggest that you look at coils without resistance.
Going back to the real example, if you aren't familiar with the exponential function with the natural base of "e" as shown in the equations in the link, you should look it up if you want to advance your knowledge. "e" = 2.7182818, Googling it would be a start. The whole natural world (including electronics) revolves around this function. The first derivative of e^x = e^x. That means the nth derivative of e^x = e^x and the nth integral of e^x = e^x. A capacitor discharges at a rate that is proportional to the current voltage in the capacitor. So that means that a capacitor never fully discharges in the ideal sense, it just keeps on slowing down forever. Same thing for an inductor, in theory it never fully discharges either. It's all tied into e^x and the concept exists pretty much everywhere.
What is the ideal zero-resistance for the inductor example really showing you? Well, you know when you push on the flywheel it's storing the energy from each push. That's integration. So the ideal inductor is performing the act of integration when you excite it with a constant DC voltage, or an AC voltage. It integrates the voltage over time and the result of the integration is the energy storage in the inductor and the corresponding current flow. So what you are really supposed to be thinking about when you consider an ideal inductor is the fact that it is an integrator of voltage. By the same token a capacitor is an integrator of current. Just like a flywheel is integrating and storing energy when you apply torque to it.
So all of these endless experiments about pulsing real-world coils with resistance all of a sudden don't seem so fantastical. Every time you hit the coil with a short high-voltage pulse the coil just integrates on that pulse. You are giving the coil a nudge and it slowly starts to roll, and current starts to fliow. When I look at a scope shot of a coil being pulsed I can see the integration taking place on the screen. But perhaps more importantly, I don't even need to see scope shot, I _know_ that the coil is going to integrate on the voltage pulses. I can just look at the schematic. There are no "fantastical effects" it's all pretty boring in a sense. Coils and capacitors can perform both integration and derivation depending on what you are doing. When in doubt, think of the flywheel.
Different voltages will not produce different resonant frequencies, period, and I am too tired to argue it. Chew on what I said above for the hell of it.
I went off into the wild blue yonder in this posting but what the hell.
MileHigh
"The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !"
I can do it with my eyes closed.
So you have a horizontal flywheel on a vertical shaft and the shaft is affixed to to a nice solid marble table. Let's say the flywheel is made of granite and roughly the dimensions of a small tire, say 15 inches in diameter.
So you can spin the flywheel and watch it integrate your finger pushes.
Now, you take something that looks like a big watch spring and you mount it under the flywheel and connect one end of the spring to the table and the other end of the spring to the bottom of the flywheel.
Well, lo and behold, you have something that looks like a big watch spring movement. Let's say that it resonates at about one cycle per second.
Sitting at the table with your beers and your spring + flywheel, you start make it oscillate just with a few fingers. Slowly the amplitude of the resonance increases, and since the bearings are so good, the flywheel will happily resonate for five minutes or more before it stops. (We know in the ideal case it will never actually stop.)
So, the boys have their beers and fiddle with the flywheel with their fingers. Then Farmhand puts his finger on the oscillating flywheel and says, "Look Ma, just one finger!" Farmhand doesn't do any real work with his finger, it just follows the oscillating flywheel at the resonant frequency. With really good bearings and a really good spring with almost no hysteresis, he will barely have to expend any energy at all. He could keep the flywheel oscillating all day just with his pinky if he wanted to.
What was that question?
"The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !"
Note the instantaneous angular velocity of the flywheel corresponds to the current.
Meanwhile, Magluvin is now stymied about his "get out of jail free" card because he starts his experiment staring at a non-moving flywheel-spring combination. The flywheel is not just going to magically start oscillating so that he can get his "free ride" to get his "instant current flow." You have to put ENERGY into the flywheel-spring combination to get it to start resonating. Note, in Magluvin's example he wants to get the flywheel to start turning without a spring. He doesn't want the flywheel to resonate. But in either case, spring or no spring, you start off with a stone cold dead flywheel that is not moving. The only way to get it to start spinning or start resonating is to push on it and expend energy. Intuitively, everybody knows that the flywheel is going resist any sudden movement.
So Magluvin just wants to get the flywheel instantly spinning - ain't gunna happen. He is making the mistake of equating getting the flywheel spinning with no spring, to the case of the flywheel resonating with a spring where you have already put the energy into the system before the "start" of the experiment.
Note the spring only "appears out of nowhere" when you push the flywheel back and forth at a very high frequency (the self-resonance effects of the coil). So we are talking apples and oranges like I have already stated.
MileHigh
Here Milehigh.. If you want to look at the math and where we went the wrong way then Eric Dollard has a good book that relates all the old math to his current understanding. There he doesn't talk about ideals. There he correctly states E and the relationship it has to everything else.
You can post analogy after analogy and get nothing accomplished, you can post math upon math and get nothing done. But correct the mistakes and you get the aha moment.
Link to lone pine writings: http://aetherforce.com/the-lone-pine-writings-is-now-free/
and a general link to catch you up on aetheric forces: http://aetherforce.com/
There is tons to catch up on and I have but scratched the surface. The only man to truly understand this all would be Dollard. So give this information a good read. It includes a new type of math to fully understand the implications of the relation of these forces of space and counter space. Space is the open form (space between matter, undisplaced Aether) and counterspace is the filled space (Matter, displaced Aether).
The only thing that differs between the two types is the density of Aether since all space including counterspace has Aether in it. The only difference is the density of the aether.
After applying what we have been seeing electronically of our own Galaxy, I am thinking we are modelling our galaxy process with this flat planar coil. I would think that from each side would come two electrical copies of the planar radiations. One energy rich and the other energy deficient. Both can have ripples running through them and where they meet in the middle is a standing wave along the surface of the two energy fields.
Tesla said he could stiffen this surface even if it was flat and spread out. In fact in his High frequency experiments he talked about making sheets of this stiffening. These sheets were homogeneous and seemed to intensify the close it got to the focal point. The intensification he attributed to the multiplication of the intensity the closer it got to the focal point. This was all done in air and with special currents. The currents were impulses, if you look at the type of transformer he used one could see how he accomplished this task. Oil filled bucking field, very high voltage coils around the bucking field electromagnets. No core was used except for a wooden dowel to form the bucking coils onto. A very special type of coil was used and it was the beginning of the bifilar work. Tesla talked about different types of activating devices and one method stuck out for me. The magnetic spark gap is this item. Using the magnetic field could and does polarize the discharges. This is used to make sure all the impulses across the gap are of one sign only. All positive or all negative. Say one impulse is all positive but as it passes through the magnetic field it chops the impulse into a very high density of positive minute Pulses. The edge of the front and back of the packet of pulses is now enhanced in this process as well and gives the impulse packet more punch.
With The current coil under investigation it gave me an idea that he was converting the magnetic field(coils) into a more stronger electric field(increased capacitance) that focused towards the center always. A Pulse starting at the external of the plane of the coil would naturally strengthen the next pulse if it was one Whole cycle in phase difference. With leading and lagging phases being the type of standing wave one wanted to produce and have certain effects.
I think we need to think about this coil with capacitance as our focus. The energy travels easier in this mode and beneficially more power effects can be had as the results. This is just done by a conversion of one form to the other in a passive conversion process of focusing and excitation.
I also think that we can use the magnetic force as a great fulcrum in this process. The magnetic force is very powerful and we see this every day. But the real power comes in conveying further in the medium then this great powerful magnetic field could go. I think we have been approaching our science through the inverted view. We chose to ignore the electric field when it can not be ignored. Both fields must be present when thinking about this process. The magnetic being the inertia of the system. You don't want to tap the magnetic. You want the drive to use the electric as much as possible and use the magnetic in a style that only thinks about it's inertia and not it's ability to have strong physical attractions. Use the electrical side for transmission and the losses drop to near zero. Transform or condense the electrical and it becomes magnetic again to be used as normal. In the process that conversion can be designed to self excite or generate. Yes you need a flow to be established before this process will work but with the advent of crystal batteries one could simply start the process with the value of the battery that displaced the Aether and draw a current as per experiment. Then amplify this current through the bifilar coils and transmit the converted e-field to a receiver for little loss then transform it into real current again by the very same process but in reverse. With the receiver extracting the impulses into mass current.
There might even be a way to further this process by compressing the receiver bifilar coil through magnetic reflectors. This is pure speculation but it does make sense in a way. With spacing be a real way of tuning the process on the fly. With our current technology it isn't hard to feed back a small portion of the reflectors and have a computer run servo system to adjust the distance of both reflectors. It could adjust faster then human control. We have the capability to do these things but we need to start doing these experiments. Otherwise we might as well pack it in. The way electronics and electronic theory is going we will never get anywhere from the direct application of the magnetic field. Yes it does have to be used but if we find ways to negate it's influence then it can become powerful.
Like in my example of the toroid core transformer. The magnetic field is bound but still used to keep the inertia in the system in that binding. This allows the real field that induction is based off of can increase the efficiency of the system.<-This was just an example.
Now there are two types of impulses. Oscillations and polarized. Oscillations go one polarity then the opposite polarity. They oscillate back and forth. Then there are the polarized packets. These only go in one direction. Both types are seen in the exciter one wire experiments. The avramenko plug is a good method to extract non polarized one wire longitudinal energy. But it is only a half wave rectification and actually only see's a DC like action. When fed into a coil it can be converted into an AC wave through the inertia of the coils magnetic field. This can double the energy via reflections into the natural negative potentials response to disturbances of the magnetic field.
All of this process can be looped by phase relationship that must be kept in phase relationship to net anything out of it. The system must be self tuned and resonance is a neat tool for this. A PLL circuit will naturally have to be built to keep the phase relationship in line. But any change must be temporarily paid for then it will come back on the next phase and be augmented as needed. So a battery will need to be used and a filtered battery would be advantageous to this design. The battery should have an external parallel capacitor to help facilitate this process<- More experiments need to be done in this area.
Maybe my ideas on integrating the battery in the bifilar design might prove fruitful in this respect but only experiments will prove this concept. Or even shift the capabilities of such a system into a more safe type of operation by the use of oil filled capacitors and reflective shielded cables with no real ground connection. All of this stuff was tested and reported on by Tesla. He did the early discovery work on how to use this kind of energy to the highest of efficiency. Are we gonna look into these devices and test them for ourselves or are we gonna listen to the people who could or would not replicate this technology.
Tesla believed that the future was his because he found out the real reason energy got conveyed to extreme distances with very little loss. And that this energy can be transformed and used like any other normal system does today. We did not investigate this area because we were afraid of the implications of those investigations. Is this a valid reason for not doing the experiments or even trying to use those concepts? Should we be afraid of the ones who extort our energy from us and give nothing back but the pollution they have made in this process.
In the ideal world they postulate that a stream of income is the only important thing. That this stream must be only in one direction. Theirs.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 20, 2013, 05:08:23 AM
"The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !"
I can do it with my eyes closed.
So you have a horizontal flywheel on a vertical shaft and the shaft is affixed to to a nice solid marble table. Let's say the flywheel is made of granite and roughly the dimensions of a small tire, say 15 inches in diameter.
So you can spin the flywheel and watch it integrate your finger pushes.
Now, you take something that looks like a big watch spring and you mount it under the flywheel and connect one end of the spring to the table and the other end of the spring to the bottom of the flywheel.
Well, lo and behold, you have something that looks like a big watch spring movement. Let's say that it resonates at about one cycle per second.
Sitting at the table with your beers and your spring + flywheel, you start make it oscillate just with a few fingers. Slowly the amplitude of the resonance increases, and since the bearings are so good, the flywheel will happily resonate for five minutes or more before it stops. (We know in the ideal case it will never actually stop.)
So, the boys have their beers and fiddle with the flywheel with their fingers. Then Farmhand puts his finger on the oscillating flywheel and says, "Look Ma, just one finger!" Farmhand doesn't do any real work with his finger, it just follows the oscillating flywheel at the resonant frequency. With really good bearings and a really good spring with almost no hysteresis, he will barely have to expend any energy at all. He could keep the flywheel oscillating all day just with his pinky if he wanted to.
What was that question?
"The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !"
Note the instantaneous angular velocity of the flywheel corresponds to the current.
Meanwhile, Magluvin is now stymied about his "get out of jail free" card because he starts his experiment staring at a non-moving flywheel-spring combination. The flywheel is not just going to magically start oscillating so that he can get his "free ride" to get his "instant current flow." You have to put ENERGY into the flywheel-spring combination to get it to start resonating. Note, in Magluvin's example he wants to get the flywheel to start turning without a spring. He doesn't want the flywheel to resonate. But in either case, spring or no spring, you start off with a stone cold dead flywheel that is not moving. The only way to get it to start spinning or start resonating is to push on it and expend energy. Intuitively, everybody knows that the flywheel is going resist any sudden movement.
So Magluvin just wants to get the flywheel instantly spinning - ain't gunna happen. He is making the mistake of equating getting the flywheel spinning with no spring, to the case of the flywheel resonating with a spring where you have already put the energy into the system before the "start" of the experiment.
Note the spring only "appears out of nowhere" when you push the flywheel back and forth at a very high frequency (the self-resonance effects of the coil). So we are talking apples and oranges like I have already stated.
MileHigh
Your analogy just got me thinking. Tesla talked about the clockworks of the Universe. Some other people talk about the fabric of space being made of little tiny flywheels working against little tiny springs at a tremendously high frequency of repetition. These little wound spring flywheel combinations are everywhere all the time and something is winding the spring up for us. To me what they are saying is that there could be a whole bunch of frequencies coming from everywhere whose wavelength is miniscule but whose intensity is astronomical. This causes us to work with cyrstals as observers. This is where atoms have lost their thermal oscillations and have formed interatomic distances that MAY i repeat May be effective ultra-gamma light detectors. I think Moray identified this frequency-redshifted down to rf and drove loads at the relatively huge wavelengths of kilohertz. This is what our solar collectors do they are just working the wrong bands imho. If you look at the first crystal radio sets they had crystals attached to the antennae. Germainium or selenium or something. Some idiots say that this crystal rectifies the signal from the antennae. How can a crystal rectify something. You have to have back to back crystals with different dopants diffusion layers etc. to rectify something. People are amazed that the crystal radio set runs on low frequency light. Now if the radio stations would start transmitting into the ground where they should be we could get rid of the stupid cellphone antennaes and the combustion engine for that matter.
Everybody is amazed that Tesla ran around in a car with a high frequency motor in it. At that time RCA was developing transatlantic communications using his buried antennae system. He was running around on their dime. I would be too considering the shit they pulled on him. They were transmitting about 50kw or so. Plenty enough to drive a car around on.
What we have in a microwave antennae is basically you heat up a piece of steel until it glows in the band you want. You cause rf currents to stand on the steel. Then when it starts glowing a little light gets spread around. Ridiculous.
Ok MileHigh, That was easy, congrats, mechanical resonance, woopee. Maybe I was leading you. No that couldn't be true I couldn't plan anything. :D
That plays to what I am getting at. The patent is correct and currents can be passed with practically nothing more than the DC resistance.
You can do it with a flywheel and you can do it with the coil for electro-magnets and you can do it with any coil.
My main point is that the patent is correct and valid and you don't like it. :D
A flywheel being like a coil may have something to do with things but I don't care, I only care that the patent is valid and the claims are correct.
Anything for a jolly. hehehe
What would you like to play next ?
What about the applied voltage affecting the resonant frequency ? Does it happen or not. Give it to me straight I can take it.
Mags, it won't work unless the coil is excited at the correct frequency to cancel the reactance or whatever they call it, some motors change frequency a lot. ;D
Cheers
P.S. Oh and MileHigh, I'll let you off on the "seeing it" part, since you only spoke of it, it wasn't really a valid reply, but I'm not pickky and I'm just here for fun. Next ride !
..
MileHigh, I think the thing you don't get is that the same thing can happen with any coil, as is stated in the patent. However most of us are concerned with the difference in the conditions that cause the effects in a normal coil as compared to a coil for electro-magnets. There are differences and the patent outlines them.
Say we take a coil with turns spaced 10 mm by insulation a single layer spiral coil for example. If 1 volt is used the resonant frequency will be different than if 1000 volts was used.
This is simply because the 1 volt won't secure as much self capacitance across the 10 mm space between windings. Makes sense to me.
How would considering an ideal inductor make any difference to the principal of the effect ?
Remember this is all about exciting the coil at frequency No continuous DC applied here. That is not what the patent is about.
.
Hi Arto,
Thanks for showing the workout of the parameters of a coil (they are correct for me) and hopefully other members in this thread also noticed it but they are too busy with some other 'things', albeit those things are also coil related in a way... 8)
Greetings, Gyula
Quote from: Artoj on July 19, 2013, 04:08:57 AM
Hi All, while I was reading this thread, I am also working on my basic coil designs, so I decided to show the readers how easy it is to work out some of the simple coil parameters required before winding. I hope this helps those who need to wind a coil suitable for their experiments. Regards Arto.
Quote from: Farmhand on July 20, 2013, 01:12:00 PM
Mags, it won't work unless the coil is excited at the correct frequency to cancel the reactance or whatever they call it, some motors change frequency a lot. ;D
Cheers
Well, lets say we do apply the correct freq. How does that start? If our correct freq begins at zero amplitude, will that first climb in amplitude to peak 'happen' the way you are describing?
So now lets look at the same if we apply DC initially. Will we not have the same climb to peak when the switch is closed? ;) Im just talking about 1/4 cycle from 0 to peak. Whatever that freq is, applying dc, the the current should peak in the time of 1/4 of the freq cycle, and remain at peak, with dc applied. So what Im talking about is not having a soft initial push of the rotor because when we turned on the switch, we dont have to wait for the inductor to gradually allow the current to initially flow. It does it much faster this way.
So the rotor feels more of a hit than a push, like my bullet analogy in my previous post.
Im talking about when the switch is turned on, there isnt much time spent building the field, of which may never peak once the switching becomes faster.
Impulse. Isnt this what Tesla talked about at one point or another? ;)
Mags
Yeah I know what you mean and I think it could work for a pulse motor at the correct frequency with DC pulses. But for the first initial rise it would be normal like DC, the cancellation of the effects of the self inductance (ridding of the false currents) happens because of the "reflection timing". In my pulse motor I can use it at low frequency and it is in pulse mode so that there is a coil discharge to collect, but when the right frequency is reached the spike goes away and a sine wave happens. My motor has bifilar coils but the windings are in parallel, or else resonance is passed because of too much self inductance, then the current is restricted and the input and output are much less. The very best way would be to put a pulse motor on some kind of dyno so the torque curve can be seen while the current and voltage are scoped. I'm not prepared to go too much further until I can produce some curves from the shaft over rpm ranges fairly easily. Soon I might change to all North out magnets and get a sine wave happening with that. Just to take the south magnets out of the situation.
As with the voltage, with magnet wire I don't think much difference would be seen because of the small spacing between turns.
I think one of the points to the patent is that a lower frequency resonance can be produced with the coil for electro-magnets for the same amount of wire, as long as the voltage is applicable to the situation.
A normal coil with 50 mm spacing will be much the same as a coil for electro-magnets with 50 mm spacing if only 1 volt was used, but if 40 000 volts was used the coil for electro-magnets capacitance would increase by a lot more because the voltage would be enough create a better capacitor between turns.
I do intend to test the voltage thing when I decide how I want to it, (formulate the experiment) and will post my results no matter what if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.
I'll probably use single layer spirals spaced a fair bit and use a big difference in voltage. But to make the experiment valid I'll need to think about it. Later.
..
Jbignes5:
They pulled the docs, so they were free for just a few hours. I only have a feeling for Eric Dollard and it's not good. I read most of the "war" thread on EF. I saw how Eric repeatedly bashed Farmhand. I know Farmhand asks basic straightforward questions, and knowing the "culture" it does not surprise me that he was bashed by Dollard one bit. People like Dollard what to talk the talk, and they get defensive when people ask basic questions. I actually skimmed through the Eric Dollard "Pines" book yesterday when it was free, for all I know the file is in the cache on my other computer. I was too tired and didn't read much. However, if your long posting is kind of an overview of the Dollard writings then I am going to pass. I know that you believe that your "alternative universe of understanding" with its roots in what Eric Dollard has to say is valid. To make any of this real somebody has to demonstrate something.
That ties right back to the question I asked you about how coils discharge their energy. You didn't answer and I will take that as meaning that you didn't know. I would not be surprised if the whole group of Dollard enthusiasts that have been involved in this stuff also don't know, and nobody ever even asked the question. It's an important question and it just serves to illustrate my point. Some people that have worked with coils on the bench for years would also not understand how a coil discharges. They are just playing the "talk the talk" game on the bench.
It's a cynical attitude based on my experiences. I can take the liberty of heaping more cynicism on this whole Dollard war. This is just a war about two factions that are both blind "talk the talk" believers and they also want to "monetize" Eric Dollard. They want to use Eric Dollard as a vehicle for self-promotion or to sell books or to get hits on a website or to raise money for a lab or to pocket some proceeds for themselves somewhere down the line. However, there is a double-cross going on, some people want to use Dollard as a pawn for their own selfish needs, but at the same time Eric Dollard is using them as pawns. Dollard is more than happy to see people promoting him as a guru and working to get him a lab and all that stuff. I mention differential equations and the response is mostly mute silence. Eric mentions differential equations and drops Tesla's name and throws in some folksy "talk the talk" lines and people swoon and run to get him three-phase power for his free lab. The Feds intimidated Bedini several times and forced him to "detune" his spinny pulse motors, just like all of Eric's previous labs met dastardly fates. It's all part of the free energy cottage industry charisma and mystique game, and its all lies - in the final analysis Eric is sitting back and watching his pawns do their thing for him, like a queen bee. The problem is that he's almost certainly got nothing, and he will never produce anything. Between his bushy beard and weathered desert skin and tapping into the Tesla mystique, Eric has competing sets of pawns doing his bidding for him. It's not pretty. It's a drone war and the drones are people.
What's the big clue for me that Eric is a fraud? The fact that he would freak out whenever Farmhand asked a "politically incorrect" technical question, but in fact I have to assume that they were reasonable and sensible questions.
What's a possible outcome to this Dollard cat fight and drama? He will get his lab. They will take $15K out of the $40K and buy a bunch of wire to make the "Cosmic Induction Generator." A couple of kilometers of wire will be strung through the desert and then volunteers will monitor the system. Every now and then they will see some voltage and current in the wires. The problem: That's exactly what's supposed to happen and electrical utilities have to deal with that issue on a regular basis. You may as well take a small coil of wire and move a magnet past the loop. Take the ends of the wire and stick them in your mouth. Notice as you move the magnet that you can feel the electrical tingle in your mouth. There's your home-brew Cosmic Induction Generator and monitoring station for fifteen cents, not $15K. Yes, I am cynical. Let's assume that Eric will get his lab. Assume that two years after he starts working in the lab he will have produced nothing of practical use - zip, nada. The only question will be how many Dollard pawns will still be around doing his bidding and living the life of an "energetic science practitioner."
So TechZombie and Aaron and are 1) trying to monetize Eric, 2) deluded into believing that Eric has something, and 3) pawns of Eric.
All my opinion of course.
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
Going back to your long posting:
Quote
.
.
.
.
Tesla believed that the future was his because he found out the real reason energy got conveyed to extreme distances with very little loss. And that this energy can be transformed and used like any other normal system does today. We did not investigate this area because we were afraid of the implications of those investigations. Is this a valid reason for not doing the experiments or even trying to use those concepts? Should we be afraid of the ones who extort our energy from us and give nothing back but the pollution they have made in this process.
In the ideal world they postulate that a stream of income is the only important thing. That this stream must be only in one direction. Theirs.
I propose that you, on your own schedule, do some Tesla series "bifilar" coil, a.k.a. "cap/coil" experiments and make some YouTube clips. Please show your schematics. Then everybody can discuss them.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 20, 2013, 07:44:36 PM
Jbignes5:
They pulled the docs, so they were free for just a few hours. I only have a feeling for Eric Dollard and it's not good. I read most of the "war" thread on EF. I saw how Eric repeatedly bashed Farmhand. I know Farmhand asks basic straightforward questions, and knowing the "culture" it does not surprise me that he was bashed by Dollard one bit. People like Dollard what to talk the talk, and they get defensive when people ask basic questions. I actually skimmed through the Eric Dollard "Pines" book yesterday when it was free, for all I know the file is in the cache on my other computer. I was too tired and didn't read much. However, if your long posting is kind of an overview of the Dollard writings then I am going to pass. I know that you believe that your "alternative universe of understanding" with its roots in what Eric Dollard has to say is valid. To make any of this real somebody has to demonstrate something.
That ties right back to the question I asked you about how coils discharge their energy. You didn't answer and I will take that as meaning that you didn't know. I would not be surprised if the whole group of Dollard enthusiasts that have been involved in this stuff also don't know, and nobody ever even asked the question. It's an important question and it just serves to illustrate my point. Some people that have worked with coils on the bench for years would also not understand how a coil discharges. They are just playing the "talk the talk" game on the bench.
It's a cynical attitude based on my experiences. I can take the liberty of heaping more cynicism on this whole Dollard war. This is just a war about two factions that are both blind "talk the talk" believers and they also want to "monetize" Eric Dollard. They want to use Eric Dollard as a vehicle for self-promotion or to sell books or to get hits on a website or to raise money for a lab or to pocket some proceeds for themselves somewhere down the line. However, there is a double-cross going on, some people want to use Dollard as a pawn for their own selfish needs, but at the same time Eric Dollard is using them as pawns. Dollard is more than happy to see people promoting him as a guru and working to get him a lab and all that stuff. I mention differential equations and the response is mostly mute silence. Eric mentions differential equations and drops Tesla's name and throws in some folksy "talk the talk" lines and people swoon and run to get him three-phase power for his free lab. The Feds intimidated Bedini several times and forced him to "detune" his spinny pulse motors, just like all of Eric's previous labs met dastardly fates. It's all part of the free energy cottage industry charisma and mystique game, and its all lies - in the final analysis Eric is sitting back and watching his pawns do their thing for him, like a queen bee. The problem is that he's almost certainly got nothing, and he will never produce anything. Between his bushy beard and weathered desert skin and tapping into the Tesla mystique, Eric has competing sets of pawns doing his bidding for him. It's not pretty. It's a drone war and the drones are people.
What's the big clue for me that Eric is a fraud? The fact that he would freak out whenever Farmhand asked a "politically incorrect" technical question, but in fact I have to assume that they were reasonable and sensible questions.
What's a possible outcome to this Dollard cat fight and drama? He will get his lab. They will take $15K out of the $40K and buy a bunch of wire to make the "Cosmic Induction Generator." A couple of kilometers of wire will be strung through the desert and then volunteers will monitor the system. Every now and then they will see some voltage and current in the wires. The problem: That's exactly what's supposed to happen and electrical utilities have to deal with that issue on a regular basis. You may as well take a small coil of wire and move a magnet past the loop. Take the ends of the wire and stick them in your mouth. Notice as you move the magnet that you can feel the electrical tingle in your mouth. There's your home-brew Cosmic Induction Generator and monitoring station for fifteen cents, not $15K. Yes, I am cynical. Let's assume that Eric will get his lab. Assume that two years after he starts working in the lab he will have produced nothing of practical use - zip, nada. The only question will be how many Dollard pawns will still be around doing his bidding and living the life of an "energetic science practitioner."
So TechZombie and Aaron and are 1) trying to monetize Eric, 2) deluded into believing that Eric has something, and 3) pawns of Eric.
All my opinion of course.
MileHigh
It all goes back to the old saying that some people see the glass half empty and some see it half full but what they don't understand is the glass is both. We are forgetting the electric and only concentrating on the magnetic. This is the exact reason they will never find overunity. Overunity has and uses both. Since the magnetic field is never present without the electric and vicea versa.
This is not an new view. There are a great many views that share this concept. The ying and yang being the most esoteric popular. Plus and negative being more familiar to you or how about north and south even.. But there is little investigation of the electric and magnetic fulcrum as I like to call it. Take the ying and yang symbol and tie the magnetic to the black and electric to the white. Now place a single line across the center dot of the circle. Anywhere you stop the line is a balance and percentage of the two colors. This is the way to check the relation between the magnetic and electric fields. This fulcrum can be used in the toroid build. This locks the magnetic in the core of the toroid and also anchors the electric field to the magnetic in the same process. With the magnetic field being the inertia of the system and the electric field spinning around locked to the magnetic field. The voltage of the electric field is the strength factor of the electric field. Plus adding in the focusing of the lines and constricting them into the center of the toroid. When these events happen the strengthened electric lines can move through copper coils better and generate with increased current. Especially if the copper is very thick.
The toroid is the telling concept of this system. It locks away the magnetic field and lets the truly inductive event of the electric field to rotate around the rotor. Tesla found a way to tap this strengthened lines of the electric field. He has several patents that were designed to prove this concept for the ones who saw the real simple process very easily.
Here is an interesting patent by Tesla:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-382,282-electric-converting-distributing
The funny thing is your own theories predict that the magnetic field is indeed held inside of the iron that is not saturated. So what is left to generate the secondary current?
But like I said some people see the glass half full and others see it half empty. I see it for the reality is has. It is both in a self balanced system.
As for doing the experiments. I am going to do it. But please do not knock the method because your method is based off of theory as well. And if we were or are ignoring the other half of this magnetic field then that theory is only half right. The transients that Tesla and other experimented with were of the other half you refuse to see or shunt to ground.
The only reason energy goes anywhere is because there is a medium that has zero losses. Well near zero losses. Light still looses intensity over light years of distance. This isn't due to the speed of light it is due to the .0000000000000000000000000000001 to 1 loss over that distance that the medium has. Well that number is a guess-timation based off of our current understanding of light propagation. Remember light is only a magnetic phenomena by your theory. With ours it is e-field based that causes magnetic waves like a boat cutting through water on a calm lake. The source light from the pulses traveling through the medium is radiative from the potential of the light charge source.
Now lets look at what a medium of silicon oil with drops of the very same oil are vibrated together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw
And this one with two drops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm_6Gi4Jqbg
And bigger amounts of "particles or charges":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyxiIdU-PYw
Now apply this to charges and you can see how this works. Charges are merely the Aether in division and in motion. It is no more particle then this video shows in concept. And the standing wave around the aether in motion is the wake of that charge. Although I have resevations about the memory thing they were talking about. If we look at the container the vibrating oil was in we can see the interaction of the standing wave to the constraints of the container. A fractal pattern emerges that will not change until the container shape is changed by either size or geometry. Any change in any one size or geometric patter including depth of the medium will have an effect of those travel patterns. The most interesting puzzle though is what happens when multiple droplets are used. Matter like stickiness happens and rotation also evolves over time. The standing waves are very telling of the process we want to copy here.
Also think about this for a second. If the medium acts like the above mentioned example but on a 3 D level then whats the density of the medium at it's most smallest scales. Even 1 cubic inch would hold enough Aether to make calculations of it's density nearly impossible even with the super computers of this day. Since fluids like water show the ultimate solvent effect then what would the Aethers ability do in that area? It would literally be inside of everything. Now think about that non-compressible fluid with fluidic laws of displacement and pressure. Now add a vibrating to the Aether medium like the silicon oil example.
As for your issues with Eric thats something you should take up with Eric. Here is what I do know. Eric had all of his work taken or destroyed from his possession. He lost countless labs and he bought a lot of his own stuff or even scrounged it up from the RCA labs. So he has invested more then the likes of you in this field. He has been living out of his car, for god sakes! and for years before people even knew what happened to him. By the way his prior work was free of costs, right? I mean people actually care now and rightly so. Most of what Eric has shown is legitimate experiments and replication of the most basic and advanced Tesla machines and concepts. This led to others that he learned from including the greats like your main theorists Steinmetz,Maxwell, Newton and Heavyside. Although he has shown where we deviated. And he has also worked up a math system to explain the relationships of it all. It's based on versor math or whatever he calls it. This deals with space and counter space.
What was donated to him was not for a lab although it turns out this is what he wants to do with the money it should make no difference as long as he can live off of the donation. Thats what it was given for. It was a community of his supporters that donated the cash, so whats it to you what gets done with it? Also the donations did not come without rewards as well.
Well to tell you the truth Aaron has always been that way. He takes what is in the public domain and claims ownership because itr was in his book. Well now you see where his ideas came from. Eric has more then enough proof and might have a claim of copywrite himself against Aaron. This could bite him in the butt. Only time will tell. This is exactly why I left EF. EF is nothing but an advertising platform designed by the master of advertising Aaron. Check his career out and you will quickly find out he is a trained sales man from college. That was his forte and major. EF is jammed packed with adverts from his products and e-books. None of which are his original ideas. He is just not that bright. I proved that in his 1 joule of energy thread. When faced with the facts he erases posts and bans the truth sayers. He tried and succeeded with blocking the plasma spark guys from patenting the idea and marketing them saying he authored the schematic, when he just changed adding one cap to the circuit. That doesn't even make it for an improvement patent which has to have 15-20% difference I believe in order to be issued. So Aaron is one of those vampire types. He hangs around and changes a few things then claims it as his own. But try to ask him why he thinks it works and you get garbage as an answer because of a lack of understanding about real energy and fields.
Quite impressive is that you have the very same challenges that you issue as he did. When in doubt redirect and throw out something that takes the attention away. When challenged you ignore half of the context and get only laser like focus on the iffy stuff in your opinion.
The new scientist of this age are starting to figure out major connections between the magnetic Plasma and the electric origin of the magnetic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOIlIMdJV5k
This evidence is only seen from the magnetic view in my opinion and is not taking into account the e-field as well. Again they fail to see their own theory but at least they are closer then our current established science group sees about this process. They just went off the path but it is the evidence they are using to base that off of. It is very hard to get a voltage field sensing device to view the e-field like they can with the magnetic. It is only a matter of time before we discover this tool and walla we will see for ourselves the connectivity this system has. It's roots are based in the e-field and the rest is springing forth from that field.
Quote from: jbignes5 on July 20, 2013, 08:46:39 AMThere is tons to catch up on and I have but scratched the surface. The only man to truly understand this all would be Dollard. So give this information a good read. It includes a new type of math to fully understand the implications of the relation of these forces of space and counter space. Space is the open form (space between matter, undisplaced Aether) and counterspace is the filled space (Matter, displaced Aether).
The only thing that differs between the two types is the density of Aether since all space including counterspace has Aether in it. The only difference is the density of the aether.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
Particles of matter are condensations of aether. Particles of matter exist in and displace the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is what is referred to as the curvature of spacetime.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.
Quote from: jbignes5 on July 20, 2013, 09:56:39 PM
It all goes back to the old saying that some people see the glass half empty and some see it half full but what they don't understand is the glass is both.
Hi Jbigness,
I can tell you if the glass is half full or half empty, it is one or the other,
but to know which it is first we need to know what is happening with the water.
Is the water being added or removed ?
If the water was added to make the glass half full from an empty condition, then the glass is Half Full.
If the water was being removed from a full condition the glass is half empty.
It's as plain as day and is pure logic. The glass is always one or the other.
How people "see" the glass's condition is irrelevant to it's actual condition.
Some might say it would be similar to Schrodinger's cat.
Forger about Schrodinger's cat, that is a bogus hippy experiment and conclusion, at no time is the cat both dead and alive,
that is one of the stupidest experiment conclusions I have ever heard. And is what is wrong with much of science, Sillyness.
I know you never mentioned it but I thought I would put that out there.
Cheers
Quote from: MileHigh on July 20, 2013, 07:44:36 PM
Jbignes5:
They pulled the docs, so they were free for just a few hours. I only have a feeling for Eric Dollard and it's not good. I read most of the "war" thread on EF. I saw how Eric repeatedly bashed Farmhand. I know Farmhand asks basic straightforward questions, and knowing the "culture" it does not surprise me that he was bashed by Dollard one bit. People like Dollard what to talk the talk, and they get defensive when people ask basic questions. I actually skimmed through the Eric Dollard "Pines" book yesterday when it was free, for all I know the file is in the cache on my other computer. I was too tired and didn't read much. However, if your long posting is kind of an overview of the Dollard writings then I am going to pass. I know that you believe that your "alternative universe of understanding" with its roots in what Eric Dollard has to say is valid. To make any of this real somebody has to demonstrate something.
That ties right back to the question I asked you about how coils discharge their energy. You didn't answer and I will take that as meaning that you didn't know. I would not be surprised if the whole group of Dollard enthusiasts that have been involved in this stuff also don't know, and nobody ever even asked the question. It's an important question and it just serves to illustrate my point. Some people that have worked with coils on the bench for years would also not understand how a coil discharges. They are just playing the "talk the talk" game on the bench.
It's a cynical attitude based on my experiences. I can take the liberty of heaping more cynicism on this whole Dollard war. This is just a war about two factions that are both blind "talk the talk" believers and they also want to "monetize" Eric Dollard. They want to use Eric Dollard as a vehicle for self-promotion or to sell books or to get hits on a website or to raise money for a lab or to pocket some proceeds for themselves somewhere down the line. However, there is a double-cross going on, some people want to use Dollard as a pawn for their own selfish needs, but at the same time Eric Dollard is using them as pawns. Dollard is more than happy to see people promoting him as a guru and working to get him a lab and all that stuff. I mention differential equations and the response is mostly mute silence. Eric mentions differential equations and drops Tesla's name and throws in some folksy "talk the talk" lines and people swoon and run to get him three-phase power for his free lab. The Feds intimidated Bedini several times and forced him to "detune" his spinny pulse motors, just like all of Eric's previous labs met dastardly fates. It's all part of the free energy cottage industry charisma and mystique game, and its all lies - in the final analysis Eric is sitting back and watching his pawns do their thing for him, like a queen bee. The problem is that he's almost certainly got nothing, and he will never produce anything. Between his bushy beard and weathered desert skin and tapping into the Tesla mystique, Eric has competing sets of pawns doing his bidding for him. It's not pretty. It's a drone war and the drones are people.
What's the big clue for me that Eric is a fraud? The fact that he would freak out whenever Farmhand asked a "politically incorrect" technical question, but in fact I have to assume that they were reasonable and sensible questions.
What's a possible outcome to this Dollard cat fight and drama? He will get his lab. They will take $15K out of the $40K and buy a bunch of wire to make the "Cosmic Induction Generator." A couple of kilometers of wire will be strung through the desert and then volunteers will monitor the system. Every now and then they will see some voltage and current in the wires. The problem: That's exactly what's supposed to happen and electrical utilities have to deal with that issue on a regular basis. You may as well take a small coil of wire and move a magnet past the loop. Take the ends of the wire and stick them in your mouth. Notice as you move the magnet that you can feel the electrical tingle in your mouth. There's your home-brew Cosmic Induction Generator and monitoring station for fifteen cents, not $15K. Yes, I am cynical. Let's assume that Eric will get his lab. Assume that two years after he starts working in the lab he will have produced nothing of practical use - zip, nada. The only question will be how many Dollard pawns will still be around doing his bidding and living the life of an "energetic science practitioner."
So TechZombie and Aaron and are 1) trying to monetize Eric, 2) deluded into believing that Eric has something, and 3) pawns of Eric.
All my opinion of course.
MileHigh
Of course I tend to agree with you on that MileHigh. If you do have the cached pages I would like to read them out of curiosity,
I probably wouldn't understand much but I like to look.
Eric is an electrical Engineer he knows there is no such thing as artificial energy and there is nothing free in synthesizing something.
From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis
QuoteIn general, the noun synthesis (from the ancient Greek σύνθεσις, σύν "with" and θέσις "placing") refers to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new; alternately, it refers to the creating of something by artificial means. The corresponding verb, to synthesize (or synthesise), means to make or form a synthesis.
His free energy fuse box might produce a extra Mw somehow but I don't believe it and he has never shown it so I have no reason to.
To think that Eric denounces Aaron and the "John" then aligns himself with them shows me a man who is either playing others or being played.
If he is still fit and has been living in the desert why can't he get a job and pay for his own stuff. He'll get nothing from me he's better off than I am.
I need up to $200 000 dollars for a neck operation. He is fit and healthy, body wise anyway.
Someone mentioned Eric in relation to this coil the other day on the other forum, so I told them to go ask Eric.
Internet abusers are often weak people. He would not get a chance to abuse me twice like he did on the forum if he tried it in person, he would be sleeping in about 1 second flat. And incapable of abusing anyone for a while. Same goes for UFO they talk tough but can they deliver single knockout punches, that is the question. Do they know the spot to hit ? Once a person knocked out any amount of wrist burns or nipple twisters can be applied to them. ;D Abusing people face to face is a dangerous game. Just as well for them they do it over the net. They are welcome to come to my house and abuse me in person, if they PM me their address and I verify it then I'll send them my address and they can come here and test themselves out. ;D
I have much respect for people who at least try to contain their animal side and i'm not perfect myself, but the levels and nature of the words directed to me are fighting words, and Aaron is piss weak for allowing it to happen because it suited him. The whole bunch are suspicious. Tom Brown included.
Who in their right mind would work with Eric, he is unstable, anything could happen, paranoia can cause murder.
Sorry for the rant. But it riles me up a bit.
Cheers
"I propose that you, on your own schedule, do some Tesla series "bifilar" coil, a.k.a. "cap/coil" experiments and make some YouTube clips. Please show your schematics. Then everybody can discuss them.
MileHigh"
Try following your own advice Mr. Grasshopper and upload some of you own videos! "On your own schedule." That's real big of you Mr. boss guy!!!
Quote from: synchro1 on July 21, 2013, 12:12:37 AM
"I propose that you, on your own schedule, do some Tesla series "bifilar" coil, a.k.a. "cap/coil" experiments and make some YouTube clips. Please show your schematics. Then everybody can discuss them.
MileHigh"
Try following your own advice Mr. Grasshopper and upload some of you own videos! "On your own schedule." That's real big of you Mr. boss guy!!!
Right Synchro...
I was just acknowledging Jbignes5's previously expressed intention to test a "bifilar" coil and make some clips. I was just trying to be polite and defer any discussion to an actual clip and talk about his testing and not talk about theory because talking about theory is a non-starter. And I have admitted that I have no bench and no equipment and no desire to build anything.
Are you trying to tell me that if I do a clip of wobbling magnets or I stare at a spinning thingie then I can avoid your sarcastic comments? What about other people on the forum that don't make clips, do they have to get their wobblers a wobblin' too?
Here Mr. Brainiac guy, I found a very very interesting link for you. Have a read and please let us know what you think:
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/undergraduate/courses.cfm
Farmhand:
For the resonant frequency, ringing a bell loud or soft gives you the same frequency. Granted, in a coil trying to deal with the inter "field" (first and second halves of the coil) capacitance is more complex. So I was being too rigid. It's possible that the inter-field capacitance is a function of voltage also, which would then affect the frequency. It could even be a function of time on top of that. This is the kind of thing that you model on a supercomputer which I have mentioned before. Are you aware that they used a supercomputer to model the shape of the Pringles chip? Without a supercomputer, just play with a Slinky and take notes. ;D That's because our friend the spring is also a model for an inductor. What are the variables I wonder.
An ideal inductor should not make any difference in the resonant frequency, but you risk creating a singularity and destroying the universe. lol Here is the thought experiment: You pulse an SBC coil with a synchronous pulse. So the amplitude of the self resonance keeps on increasing and increasing, there is no resistance to burn off the supplied power anynnore. Eventually the inter-field voltage gets so high that the air breaks down. If the air didn't break down, then you can assume that a very small fraction of the oscillation energy would get transmitted as RF at the resonant frequency. That's a safe conservative assumption. So the amplitude would have to increase to the point that all of the energy supplied by your little synchronous pulser was broadcast as RF. So the whole system would stabilize at a very high AC voltage where the pulse energy in = the RF energy out.
MileHigh
Quote
As with the voltage, with magnet wire I don't think much difference would be seen because of the small spacing between turns.
Just a note about the capacitance. If you look at the formula for the capacitance between two parallel metal plates, the distance between plates is critical. For the coils you have to visualize the distance as being huge. The "huge" distance between wires means there is almost no capacitance. Assume that the insulation on the wire only increases the permittivity a bit. So although your total "plate area" is decent, your distance and dielectric material suck, and your capacitance is minuscule.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/pplate.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/pplate.html)
The numbers will typically be in the picofarads as we know. Take 500 picofarads, as an example, it's nothing. You put a 500 picofarad ceramic cap charged to 15 volts onto your tongue and I doubt that you would feel the near-instant discharge. You might feel the faintest minuscule nip on your tongue. If you guys have never done that you are missing out. Play it safe and start out with 9 volts on larger caps and feel the exponential discharge on your tongue. Work your way down in size and note how the time constant gets shorter and shorter. When you know the cap is super tiny, then charge to 15 volts to give your tongue a stronger "signal." That's real bench work, a reality check for your own understanding.
Now, assume the your coil has 500 picocarads of self-capacitance. The next test you don't do, a pure thought experiment: Take your coil and run one amp through it - put that across your tongue for a discharge test. You never know, it might leave two big burn marks on your tongue. For sure it would scare the s*it out of you and hurt like hell.
So with so much potential energy storage in the inductance and and minuscule capacitance to receive the energy dump from the inductance, that implies that the sell-resonant peak voltage has to go sky high and will indeed cause dielectric breakdown. Or will it?
How can you excite your own bench coil to such high voltage amplitudes? You have to synchronize your pulsing precisely, and also decide what phase to do the pulsing. That would be a challenge because the resonance is way too high in frequency. But, nothing is stopping anybody from the "real" experiment, and get a decent-sized capacitor and set up an LC resonator that runs at a reasonable frequency. Then you could experiment with a synchronous phase-controlled pulse and see what you can get. Chances are the wire resistance will limit your maximum voltage pretty quickly. However, then you could add buss bars instead of wires and push the voltage even higher. Make your cap explode because it gets fried by the sine wave peaks.
Are you creaming your jeans now Magluvin? lol
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
We have to agree to disagree on the theory. But I will respond to some of your points and I think I will even mine that university link I posted.
For starters nobody's forgetting the electric and concentrating on the magnetic in the real world.
You talk about toroidal coils with a core. Think about this: the volume of the core can store a certain amount of energy. When I apply voltage across the two terminals of the coil, I have to do *work* to energize the core. The instant I stop energizing the core, the core is ready to fire that work back at me, or send it out somewhere else through a secondary winding. It's just an exercise in pure electrical brute force. It's much less glamorous than "Plus adding in the focusing of the lines and constricting them into the center...," but it's much closer to the truth. The toroidal core, and the coil, is just a "football" that is used to move energy from point A to point B.
QuoteThe transients that Tesla and other experimented with were of the other half you refuse to see or shunt to ground.
QuoteEE 411: Circuit Theory
Capacitance and inductance; first- and second-order transient circuit response, including operational amplifier circuits; sinusoidal steady state analysis; Bode plots; three-phase circuits; transformers; two-port networks (Z-parameters and Y-parameters); and computer-aided analysis and design.
Prerequisite: Electrical Engineering 302 or 302H with a grade of at least C-; credit with a grade of at least C- or registration for Mathematics 427K; and credit with a grade of at least C- or registration for Physics 303L and 103N.
QuoteEE 362Q: Power Quality and Harmonics
Introduction to and analysis of power quality and harmonic phenomena in electric power systems. Includes characteristics and definitions, voltage sags, electrical transients, harmonics, mitigation techniques, and standards of power quality and harmonics. Electrical Engineering 362Q and 379K (Topic: Power Quality and Harmonics) may not both be counted.
Prerequisite: Electrical Engineering 368L or 369 with a grade of at least C-.
Light is an electro-magnetic phenomenon, not just magnetic. I always think of shaking the end of a long floor carpet and making a wave travel down the length of the carpet. There are two complimentary wave phenomena happening there, just like electric/magnetic. That's the way Mother Nature works!
Putting the conflict aside, Eric has to demonstrate value if he is supposed to have already surpassed Tesla in some areas. Will there ever be anything coming forth? I am not optimistic. I fear that Eric is closer in profile to many recent high-profile fails than most people think.
I don't buy into the Electric Universe but I like astronomy like many around here. There must be hundreds of other great YouTube astronomy channels. I recommend going that route! lol
MileHigh
P.S.: This one is for the street cred crowd. You know what they say, "When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dying day!"
QuoteEE 321K: Mixed Signal and Circuits Laboratory
Digital and analog parametric testing of mixed-signal circuits and systems, including frequency response, harmonic and intermodulation, and noise behavior; use of system-level test equipment, including network analyzers, spectrum analyzers, and probe stations; coherent v. noncoherent measurements; design for testability. Three lecture hours and three laboratory hours a week for one semester. Prerequisite: Electrical Engineering 438 (or 338) with a grade of at least C; and credit with a grade of at least C or registration for Aerospace Engineering 333T, Biomedical Engineering 333T, Chemical Engineering 333T, Civil Engineering 333T, Electrical Engineering 333T, Mechanical Engineering 333T, or Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering 333T.
QuoteEE 438: Electronic Circuits I
Electronic devices in analog and digital circuits. Device physics and modeling; two-port networks; analysis and design of power supply circuits and amplifiers; frequency response; Bode plots. Laboratory work covers generation and acquisition of test signals; current, voltage, and impedance measurements; transfer function measurement; and spectrum measurements and analysis.
Prerequisite: Credit with a grade of at least C- or registration for Electrical Engineering 313 or Biomedical Engineering 343.
In addition to the lecture, students must register for a laboratory/discussion section.
QuoteEE 345L: Microprocessor Applications and Organization
Microprocessor organization and interfacing; memory interfacing; hardware-software design of microprocessor systems; applications, including communication systems. Two lecture hours and six laboratory hours a week for one semester. Prerequisite: Electrical Engineering 319K, 322C, and 438 with a grade of at least C in each; and credit with a grade of at least C or registration for Aerospace Engineering 333T, Biomedical Engineering 333T, Chemical Engineering 333T, Civil Engineering 333T, Electrical Engineering 333T, Mechanical Engineering 333T, or Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering 333T.
;D ;D ;D
What happens if you have an electrically resonate circuit inside a non time variant electric field. Like we all know about the Tacoma Bridge mechanical resonance problem. The bridge never swayed unless the wind was blowing but obviously as soon as it did a little bit of wind resistance turned into a whole bunch of bridge movement.
See Milehigh all of your posts are gobbly gook that gets pushed onto us. We are trying to look at this from both sides and not just one.
Take for example the electrical-magnetics side. Each component have very different effects. Of which most of the current theories fall short of including or taking advantage of. Ignore one half and you miss an important advantage.
You can bash the Theories of the now with theories that have been cherry picked over the last hundred years but these effects are very real non the less.
The bifilar design incorporates both and should amplify the output because both elements are included and taken advantage of in my design. Believe what you will but the simple fact of the matter is that your theories fall short of doing anything but focusing on the magnetic when there are two very distinct events happening in the bifilar design. Voltage and magnetic fields are utilized in the design. Both. Strengthen one and the other amplifies or adjusts.
But no amount of bible thumping will change the fundamental rules. The only thing that does change is the perspective of the observer. Look at it in the half empty way and you are not looking at the half full perspective. But look at it for the whole view and you start to see certain advantages that can be taken advantage of. That there is a relationship of the fulcrum between both effects.
If inductive effects are or can be tied to the e-field then under certain conditions we can use this under certain transformation rules inside of the device excited into real current. But as in my diagram I posted These thing will have to be included and not excluded.
You say that you do not focus on the magnetic and you then focus all your examples on such?
The increased capacitance uses voltage as an operator. Including this higher capacitance must change the output. And since it is in serial mode this has a direct relationship to cause and effect. This isn't a normal capacitance effect because it is intrinsic to the design. Separating the capacitance like it was external to the device does nothing to explain the benefits of incorporating the capacitance within the device. But including this effect within the device has a relationship in phase to the input AC waveform going through the bifilar coil. This can have amplified effects on the output.
Lets look at the delayed lenz effect and how it can be utilized as an advantage. The delay is in phase and using standing wave patterns or methods to get standing waves helps with getting more from the input as output.
As for your balking on even looking into "The electric Universe" Well that is just the proof that most of You bible thumpers ignore, you ignore the wall and always bang your head in the process. The Electric Universe theory, at this point it is just a theory But it is gaining momentum because it is backed with FACTS and observations from the right perspective. Most of the results are irrefutable. Yet you choose to ignore the facts and observations of those facts. There is a great many problems with our views of the Universe and we are part of that Universe, under the Same Rules. Once we start getting more FACTS and Observations of those facts, we must adjust our definitions or explanations to match those Facts and observations or be deluded into thinking way outside of the natural process going on in that Universe.
In the Bifilar design you have an AC waveform flowing through the bifilar coils at resonant conditions while under the effects of External and Self excitation through induction. The simple fact of the matter is that you are ignoring that there are indeed two coils in the bifilar design. Parallel wires but serial opposite connection. Just seeing the design under action we can see one waveform overlapping the other. Both coils energize from the exterior of the coil to the center and both coils have an amplified output and sort of latching loop when the output is compared to the input. Focusing the electric field will also have certain intensifying effects from one coil to the other. So there is a imbalance in the electric field at that point. The outter field will be less concentrated and less energetic. While moving inwards it constricts and raises the intensity of the voltage which gets applied across the increased Capacitance of the bifilar coil. It gets more powerful because the interwind capacitance is increased in this design. That capacitance will hold much more energy then a traditional coil and can augment the fields in the same process through the capacative induction(reactive). This could be compared to a bias type effect. Fill the well and it's pressure increases. Allow the capacitance to fill and it becomes stronger. Augment the inductive field and it becomes stronger. Especially when we time the external field with the second phase or coil or maybe include both in the process.
The bifilar coil must have a certain surface area. The larger that surface the better the effects can be seen. Most of the experiments I see are with small to medium coils. No one hast tested the larger coils to date and I suspect as to why is that they do not want these observations to be made. Most will take your approach and have nothing experimental to say about these coils or methods. They do nothing but use the current dogma and refuse to observe anymore. They turn a blind eye to the facts starring them in the face and nothing will tempt them from the lofty position you now put your theories. Those theories will be challenged and will be brought into the proper relations with themselves, no matter what you pencil pushing engineers say or do. You always say you have no bench or will have no bench. You have tested the bifilar coil from your perspective and naturally found nothing special from your view of things. You thump you bible and proselytize the virtues of your way. One thing I would like you to know is that there are many beliefs in this world, who is right? Maybe it is all of them, key aspects from all of the worlds religions, when looked at the whole, rings many truths.
I just wanted to leave one vision of my daily life.
I have 3 beautiful disabled children. One of the children is labeled mentally retarded and is the second oldest. Everyday he comes in my room in the morning and tells me that he loves me. I tell him to have a wonderful day and he goes out into this world with a different kinda view on things. His disposition, well lets just say, is passive and loving. The perfect human. He loves everything because he is really alive. His real father is a crap stain on society. He is in jail more times then he is out and has little to do with his sons everyday life. I on the other hand is his real father in action and love.
The other day he asked me what I was doing. I was posting one of my long posts and I decided to explain it to him. Low and behold he got the concept very quickly. How? How can he understand this process and you can not. How can he see all of the components and see they are very connected and you can not. How can he see reality and you only see the Ideal? My boy is not retarded, he sees life in the most simplest of terms and values the ones who make his life comfortable. He has taught me tons about science and the proper methods to approach my investigations.
as for doing. Well I will do this. I will get my answers either way.
Why don't you challenge yourself to approach these ideas in the proper method and really see the facts for yourself. We hear you clearly when you say that you don have a bench and that you will never have another bench. So you won't even approach this investigation with self evidence. But you will shout from the rooftops that you have done the proper experiments to prove this to yourself. You would rather use improper approaches to study something because it reinforces your argument. Thats fine but you need to back off the ones trying to do a study of this coil. You can bang your chest and make an ass of yourself but it doesn't change the fact that we will be doing these experiments and we will be looking into these effects.
Say what you will this coil will be fully investigated and explored. There is more here then meets the eye.
Jbignes5:
There is no point in having a theoretical discussion, that's why I am suggesting discussing your bench tests of the cap-coil.
Yes, there will be some interesting electrical dynamics when examining the cap-coil. We know that inductance can amplify voltage but energy is conserved. We know that capacitance can amplify current but energy is conserved. Capacitors and inductors are in some ways very similar, almost the same thing in a way.
You have to remember that a cap-coil is a passive electrical circuit component. It can't possibly amplify energy in any way. From my perspective you are conjuring up imagined fantastical properties about the cap-coil, I don't know where from.
So like I said before, we have to agree to disagree on theory and look at a real example on the bench.
Ultimately there is only one truth about the cap-coil. The observer can impose his or hew own bias on what he or she sees when testing is done on the bench, but Mother Nature does not lie. The thing to do is always question yourself and try to make alternative measurements to confirm or deny your hypotheses. What we are really trying to do is understand what Nature is telling us.
Nature is all about harmony and balance, so the Yin-Yang business is always in play. For example, when you drop a book on the floor, you end up heating up the walls in the room. Some people might not be able to see that or they might even think that you are crazy to say that. For me, it's crystal clear as to how and why the walls of the room get heated up when you drop a book on the floor.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 22, 2013, 12:17:37 PM
Jbignes5:
There is no point in having a theoretical discussion, that's why I am suggesting discussing your bench tests of the cap-coil.
Yes, there will be some interesting electrical dynamics when examining the cap-coil. We know that inductance can amplify voltage but energy is conserved. We know that capacitance can amplify current but energy is conserved. Capacitors and inductors are in some ways very similar, almost the same thing in a way.
You have to remember that a cap-coil is a passive electrical circuit component. It can't possibly amplify energy in any way. From my perspective you are conjuring up imagined fantastical properties about the cap-coil, I don't know where from.
So like I said before, we have to agree to disagree on theory and look at a real example on the bench.
Ultimately there is only one truth about the cap-coil. The observer can impose his or hew own bias on what he or she sees when testing is done on the bench, but Mother Nature does not lie. The thing to do is always question yourself and try to make alternative measurements to confirm or deny your hypotheses. What we are really trying to do is understand what Nature is telling us.
Nature is all about harmony and balance, so the Yin-Yang business is always in play. For example, when you drop a book on the floor, you end up heating up the walls in the room. Some people might not be able to see that or they might even think that you are crazy to say that. For me, it's crystal clear as to how and why the walls of the room get heated up when you drop a book on the floor.
MileHigh
The thing is you are again describing an ideal system or device. No real world system is a closed system. In some way that idea clung to our closed minds. There is no such thing as a closed system. There is no such thing as conservation of energy in our current systems. They all interact with the environment. Everything Radiates into the environment and the environment radiates into our devices. That is a simple fact that has always been overlooked in our science and another reason that electronics is plagued with interference and wide band spurious emissions.
If you get one thing out of Eric's ideas, keep the simple fact that all energy is outside of the devices we make. Every wire and every block of metal is subjected to the environmental conditions around it. And this external movement of whatever you choose to believe in gets moved by these radiations. These local changes in density creates massive flows in the medium around that device. If you are smarter then the rest then applying hydrodynamics, as we do with air devices should net the same benefits.
This should work to our advantage in the energy field. These fields have shown a fluid like property and should act much like fluids do with solids. I suspect there is another relationship to these kinds of energy fields. One is constrictive and the other is expansive just like the phase change that is much like water turning to ice. One is explosively expansive and the other collapses under pressure when active. The degree of it's expansiveness could be gleaned from waters transit to ice and the relation of 32 degrees being the balance point. From a logical point of view that makes sense.
Hopefully this will make more sense from the experiments I plan on doing. We will have to see.
Right now my whole energy is trying to get to a point where I can move around without pain. My health is paramount to my whole being. In time I will get to each experiment. But up to the point of doing the experiments I found it better to explore these areas fully in theory. Not only do we have to isolate these effects we must understand the processes behind them. This can only be done through examination of the current science to see where we went wrong. Why did we go in the direction we did. And the consensus is that money and economics have tied our hands to the ideas currently accepted. If money isn't backing your ideas then how can they effectively get developed. Well they can't. This is why we are here today saying there must be something better for everyone. But the ones in power don't like equality, they like being first in line and don't have a care on how they get there.
It will take time because i have zero budget any more. But I am getting the stuff I need together to do the investigations slowly.
Quote from: Paul-R on July 16, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
But it may be out of production. Patrick's book suggests the A1302. Is this OK?
JLN is using a TL4935L in a new Bedini device.
Here is some Wikidness of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_filter)
>>>>>>>>>>
A mechanical filter is a signal processing filter usually used in place of an electronic filter at radio frequencies. Its purpose is the same as that of a normal electronic filter: to pass a range of signal frequencies, but to block others. The filter acts on mechanical vibrations which are the analogue of the electrical signal. At the input and output of the filter, transducers convert the electrical signal into, and then back from, these mechanical vibrations.
The components of a mechanical filter are all directly analogous to the various elements found in electrical circuits. The mechanical elements obey mathematical functions which are identical to their corresponding electrical elements. This makes it possible to apply electrical network analysis and filter design methods to mechanical filters. Electrical theory has developed a large library of mathematical forms that produce useful filter frequency responses and the mechanical filter designer is able to make direct use of these. It is only necessary to set the mechanical components to appropriate values to produce a filter with an identical response to the electrical counterpart.
Steel and nickel–iron alloys are common materials for mechanical filter components; nickel is sometimes used for the input and output couplings. Resonators in the filter made from these materials need to be machined to precisely adjust their resonance frequency before final assembly.
.
.
The theory of mechanical filters was first applied to improving the mechanical parts of phonographs in the 1920s. By the 1950s mechanical filters were being manufactured as self-contained components for applications in radio transmitters and high-end receivers. The high "quality factor", Q, that mechanical resonators can attain, far higher than that of an all-electrical LC circuit, made possible the construction of mechanical filters with excellent selectivity. Good selectivity, being important in radio receivers, made such filters highly attractive. Contemporary researchers are working on microelectromechanical filters, the mechanical devices corresponding to electronic integrated circuits.
A bunch of cap-coil Muppets waiting for the bus in the wintertime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdwLF0rM-pk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdwLF0rM-pk)
Then go back in the other direction!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6RVrmvh-o
OMG, separated at birth from Eric Dollard!!! ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEJtajaRj_s
QuoteBob Pease discusses an analog computer circuit a simple six-op-amp circuit to make an analog computer that represents the familiar problem of forced, damped harmonic motion. It simulates the motion of a car over its wheel, when stimulated by a "bump."
OMG, I remember doing that lab! You set up the analog computer to model the car's response to the bump in the road but you change the time variable so that the analog computer computes the response slowed down in time. You had to record the variables with a good old fashioned strip chart recorder and then crunch the numbers. Of course the critical variable to play with was the damping factor variable.
To demonstrate the voltage affecting the frequency thing will not really require a series connected bifiar coil,
the same effect is seen in all coils to a degree and I might be able to show it with a function generator at different
amplitude settings of minimum and maximum, the trick will be to find the right coil so that the effect is the most pronounced.
Can't say for sure until I try. Still thinkin
Well milehigh,
your true colors show brightly. It is now about ridicule and taking things way out of context. Even this guy says that the analogue computing stuff was not close at all. In fact he said there were things not modeled in this example and says the ideal is not worth much at all.
Why must you make fun of which you do not understand? Why can't you do the experiments for yourself? Obviously you choose to keep yourself in ignorance about this process including the analogue computing Eric chose to analyse the longitudinal energy transfer as opposed to the traditional transverse wave.
You tend to draw conclusions that are not there and ignore the obvious when it is there. You listen to video's like this from a bunch of salesmen. BUY BUY BUY. There is no value in this mentality. They are trying to sell their products and nothing more.
WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SELL?
Lets look at what happens when people actually replicate the experiments with honesty and with out all the other junk pilled on:
http://pesn.com/2013/07/23/9602345_Defkalion-LENR-Demo_Scientifically-Impressive_Notwithstanding_Glitches/
This is just an example of really replicating something and using real measurements and data collection procedures. No amount of political sabotage or fudging of the math or even ridicule will stop us anymore. We will go on and we will succeed.
Jbignes5:
I don't know what you mean when you talk about ridicule. Because I made a reference to Muppets? Where is your sense of humour?
You would have to be more specific about your negative reference about the analog computing stuff because it's a very real and useful tool. I did not watch the whole Texas Instruments clip so if you are talking about that I can't comment.
You are taking exception to that Texas Instruments clip with Bob Pease and his big bushy beard? Why? Because they dare work for a company that produces goods and services that have made the world a better place?
For what it's worth the person doing the selling and the person that has the burden of proof on his shoulders is you. You are the one making the fantastic claims, not me. As far as Defkalion goes, if LENR eventually gets fully vetted and is real that will be a great thing. However, it's not a "free energy" system as some people might believe.
I posted some good solid information about real stuff and you seem to be up in arms which is strange from my perspective.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 24, 2013, 09:40:12 AM
Jbignes5:
I don't know what you mean when you talk about ridicule. Because I made a reference to Muppets? Where is your sense of humour?
You would have to be more specific about your negative reference about the analog computing stuff because it's a very real and useful tool. I did not watch the whole Texas Instruments clip so if you are talking about that I can't comment.
You are taking exception to that Texas Instruments clip with Bob Pease and his big bushy beard? Why? Because they dare work for a company that produces goods and services that have made the world a better place?
For what it's worth the person doing the selling and the person that has the burden of proof on his shoulders is you. You are the one making the fantastic claims, not me. As far as Defkalion goes, if LENR eventually gets fully vetted and is real that will be a great thing. However, it's not a "free energy" system as some people might believe.
I posted some good solid information about real stuff and you seem to be up in arms which is strange from my perspective.
MileHigh
Everything you say about anything that is not up your alley includes ridicule. Reread your posts from a point of view that you did not write the post. Line after line of ridicule and bashing what you don't understand. It's clear.
Then you post links to videos that you admit you never watched fully. Why? Whats the point?
I don't take exception to their clip if you utilize their system and are in the market for op amps and the likes. But it is a sales tool and nothing much more then that.
As for fantastical claims, prove they are. So far you have done nothing to prove anything about this coil, your problem with us discussing this coil is just that, YOUR problem. That is your perspective and that is your problem, not ours.
As for evidence about the bifilar coil there is clear evidence, both video and experimental, that there is indeed something special about this version of this coil. Even if, in your bench tests had other results. This is solely due to the problem of DC. DC is not a way to test this coil. In fact the patent states AC and if you further take into account the direction Tesla went in after creating this AC system, impulses would be greatly enhanced by the coils design. Impulses of a one way direction are very powerful and would benefit from this type of capacitance increase in it's very design. Plus I am betting the current loop that this design incorporates is self accelerating in some way. I'm leaning towards the compressor type device. One phase drives another phase and wraps around to the next phase. Like trying to get more traction from a rope. Loop the rope just once and now you have more traction. Since the impulses are of a one way character there will be little resistance from self induction. This creates a great movement in one direction only other then ohm losses of the wire. In most cases one can further reduce the losses by paralleling the coils like resistors then. With the addition of oil this would create the perfect setup for the Cap/Coil. Not only does it reduce breakdown by excluding air it allows for a cooling method to boot.
My first experiment will be along these lines.
I have decided to first look at the singular coil in oil. Then start adding layer after layer of coils. Each layer will tell a story I am betting and this process is not gonna be easy to record. I will try my best to show my results and the procedures I am using to keep and analyze the data. I doubt the first coil will be anything special because size does matter. The amount of winding necessary is minimum 500-1000 turns. Thats a lot of coil building. I will have to make up a jig to wind the coil properly. Another aspect will be how do i do this so the coil can be immersed in oil. I'm thinking a backing like Tesla used with the very large coils he would play with. A sort of strut spoke system with double sticky tape to hold the wire to the strut.
Let me give you some clues about researching. One is know your topic. Two is define a way to look at an inventor like Tesla from a time perspective. One invention leads to the other and all of his inventions do this. One leads to another. Why would a man who likes to tinker with lightning bolts work his way through fluidic machines? Then back to a new form of energy like longitudinal pressures? It is all related, like he was trying to prove a fundamental aspect we missed. A fundamental aspect that crosses the divides and unifies all of existence. The key aspect.
***added more to the post***
Jbignes5:
Please take it easy, we are just here to debate. The coil has been discussed here, there is lots of good information. Nobody is disputing anything about AC vs. DC. You state, "impulses would be greatly enhanced by the coils design." It all depends what you mean by "enhanced," that's not a technical term. What do you mean? Yes all coils can generate high voltage impulses, so that can't be what you are referring to. You state, "Impulses of a one way direction are very powerful and would benefit from this type of capacitance increase in it's very design." I notice you have said that before but what do you mean in technical terms?
For this comment, "Plus I am betting the current loop that this design incorporates is self accelerating in some way," is not a technical description. The first thing you have to be thinking about is that if you are in AC self-resonant mode, then the current is a sine wave. If you are in DC mode, the coil by definition resists changes in current.
Check this out, a great clip about the basics of inductance with the basic math made easy, and pay careful attention to the end of the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CPGiK59f8
Does that clip give you a feeling for how a coil works?
The guy's clips are great: http://www.youtube.com/user/lasseviren1/videos
You accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about. I do know what I am talking about. Look at all his clips, that's what you should look at and try to absorb before you do some bench work.
QuoteThe amount of winding necessary is minimum 500-1000 turns. Thats a lot of coil building. I will have to make up a jig to wind the coil properly.
I have some advice for you: Just go to an electronics supply/hobbyist store and buy a nice big spool of wire whatever gauge you want. That's it! Just use the spool as is! You could even buy a giant spool of two-conductor wire and within minutes have a giant Tesla series bifilar cap-coil. Like taking candy from a baby.
I would strongly suggest that you avoid the oil immersion stuff for starters. See what you can do without the oil before you start gooping your coils into buckets of oil or whatever you are going to do. Gross!
MileHigh
Jbignes5:
I have some comments about what you call "impulses."
In my mind I imagine that you imagine that if you hit a cap-coil with a train of short high-voltage impulses something out of the ordinary will happen. That's the big thing that you want to explore with the cap-coil on the bench. Am I close?
If you hit the cap-coil with impulses close or on its self-resonant frequency you can expect to see the sine wave oscillations taking place in the coil.
But if your pulsing is very slow, say 1 kHz, then the coil will not even really respond. Again, coils resist changes in current flow. If you pulse it with a sharp, short pulse of voltage, it won't react, it won't "budge." It will act like an open-circuit.
Now you can run tests like these and you might find a cap-coil and a regular coil respond slightly differently. So the questions are can you explain why and is the difference significant or noteworthy or advantageous in any way?
MileHigh
I just had an original idea for you Tesla series bifilar coil builders.
There are all sorts of multi-strand cables you can buy. I think of the ones used in phone patch panels. They have a grey outer sheath and then there is a wire bundle, perhaps anywhere from eight to 50+ wires in the bundle. The wires are all binary colour-coded and easy to identify. This is solid copper wire with a thin and tough insulation cover. A keener would check the insulating material and look up its relative permittivity to see if it will give them a capacitive boost.
So suppose you get a big spool of this phone wire, the 16-strand version. You strip off a few inches of sheath and carefully note the geometry of the wires in the bundle. So you separate the strands into eight strands for the first half of the SBC coil and eight strands of the second half, such that they are all interleaved one next to the other in the bundle, like a checkerboard arrangement. Note its an arrangement of interleaving conductors that's *tightly machine wound* for optimum capacitive effects. It's just insane! It's sick!
This arrangement looks like a cap-coil but with supercharged capacitance. Each "wire" forming the half-coil has been sliced into eight spaghetti strands and interleaved with the eight spaghetti strands of the other half-coil. So you can see that you have just increased the plate area of your capacitor by a huge amount.
You solder the ends of the strands together and screw your wire into a terminal block. So you end up with a terminal block with the four electrical contacts for your two half-coils for the SBC coil. Then you can wire it up as you please and nothing is stopping you from using the terminal block for wiring in things like loads or current sensing resistors, light bulbs, etc.
There is an important point related to this. Big coils, you figure you want to have big currents. Alligator clips won't work in this setup. Nice bigger-gauge "vice" type terminal blocks making a simple patch field for your experiments would be much better. You can make short lengths of thick wire with tinned ends to do interconnects, etc, and tighten them down with a screwdriver.
If anybody plays with a big coil just remember that it can zap you.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 24, 2013, 04:06:55 PM
Jbignes5:
I have some comments about what you call "impulses."
In my mind I imagine that you imagine that if you hit a cap-coil with a train of short high-voltage impulses something out of the ordinary will happen. That's the big thing that you want to explore with the cap-coil on the bench. Am I close?
If you hit the cap-coil with impulses close or on its self-resonant frequency you can expect to see the sine wave oscillations taking place in the coil.
But if your pulsing is very slow, say 1 kHz, then the coil will not even really respond. Again, coils resist changes in current flow. If you pulse it with a sharp, short pulse of voltage, it won't react, it won't "budge." It will act like an open-circuit.
Now you can run tests like these and you might find a cap-coil and a regular coil respond slightly differently. So the questions are can you explain why and is the difference significant or noteworthy or advantageous in any way?
MileHigh
Ok lets get rid of some things you are getting confused about. Impulses are at the point source. They travel away at better then light speed because most space is not matter dense. In matter there is still the medium just in a finer density but still capable of conducting the potential like it's lower density on the outside of matter. Longitudinal energy can only be used with very high potentials and sudden releases of those very high potentials. If we use matter to form a pathway both within matter and outside of matter the same force is at both those places. Now just think what happens when you try to squeeze a hose that is running a good stream of water. It's pressure goes up and becomes more forceful when freed. Now think about what or how longitudinal energy works. With 1 wire we can convey a swinging pressure wave through matter. In one direction or the other. In the case of that description we should use a Avramenko plug as the converter to DC. But in my description this will be a constant impulse or longitudinal wave running in the coil in one direction only. The faster the pulses the more power this thing will have and yes even beyond the resonant mode. This is due to the excitation field that longitudinal waves produce.
We have all seen the exciter coils exciting huge fields of space. We have all experimented with these fields and many have reported their findings. We must now start experimenting with controlling these fields. Putting them into such relationships that we get an advantage for the energy we have to supply. This process is based off of Tesla's charged particle gun. Material that can be charged without touching the charger is a fundamental process. Induction is the whole reason Tesla could do the AC motor. Induction is not intrinsic to the magnetic phenomena. The electric field is responsible for induction. Any single or multi path transformer will show you that.
So, longitudinal energy works like water flowing through a pipe. It's motion is dictated by pressure and the abruptness of the application of that pressure. The flatter the face of the longitudinal energy the stronger the bang you will get when it gets to it's destination. A 1 directional flow is way more powerful because multiple waves hit in succession.
Now think about this energy flowing in the bifilar coil. The self induction is all but removed at the resonant frequency which means that it does not react from false currents<- reverse currents. This should allow the impulse waves to travel without resistance but from the actual resistance of the wire itself. Like I said parallel coils should take care of the real resistance. Not multi stranded wire. The wire should be solid core or better yet pipe like. The latter suggestion is planned and you guessed it, it will be oil filled.
Now lets look at the design of a single coil of the bifilar design. It should start from the outter rings towards the inner and this is why. What happens to anything that spins and you shorten the connector to the item spinning? Does it not get faster? Does its force change when you try to stop either suddenly?
My ideal understanding of this force is to imagine the face of the water going down the pipe. It has a surface and from that surface radiates the electric field. Even from the inside of matter like the pipe. This is induction working to our advantage. As the impulses travel through the piping they will radiate an electric field at each face of the impulse waves. Now apply this to a many turn coil getting smaller and smaller as it turns down to the center? Would the speed of transition of these waves increase in speed the further you get towards the center? Would these waves of electric field boost the impulses just entering the coils? Now add the other coil and make it so the impulses exiting the first coil now go through another coil along the first coil? What effect do you think this would have on both coils? All flowing towards the center and both speeding up and gaining in voltage from this increase in speed and radiative effects as well get stronger towards the central exit....
It's funny that the Tesla Turbine actually uses the very same concept. Hmmm very funny indeed.
Whats this.. Done with my post and you write more? WTF you think you are me or something? Rofl...
Yeah this thing will need better then average wiring. I'll use appropriate gauge when needed.. A real experiment is not with alligator clips.. I don't like em. Never had good results with them because they have a higher resistance. I usually use a sniffer coil also when hooking coils to the scope. Usually single wind is enough. I have to test a big coil. There is supposed to be a relationship with the length of a single strand in these designs. The frequency of impulses will be a determining factor to this length as well. There is something I didn't contemplate yet and that is the wave propagation in the bifilar coil.
That's quiet something that you said, the gulf is wide. I looked at some of the comments on that guy's clips, and people are saying that he is fantastic. He really is, I can feel it. He does nice white-board style talks using paper and a marker. Did you glance through his set of 200+ clips to see how he covers a lot of ground? Everything he teaches in those clips is covered across a few university physics and electronics courses. You really should look at all of his clips. He is the real thing, and his clips can teach you about real electronics.
You are very "far out" Jbignes5, reading your prose was startling and in a way unsettling. I don't know what else to say. I hope your health permits you to do your bench work and you have some fun doing that.
MileHigh
I highly doubt you are generally interested in my well being at all. Not interested at all.
In fact, most of us guys who do, get crap from both ends of the spectrum. One being from the "learned ones" Isn't that what you call yourself and others. The guru's going along and imparting their wisdom to guys who couldn't care less. We are here to think outside of your box and yes that can take you to the edge of perception.
I mention this because of the Eric Dollard saga now in play. Aaron is not innocent of any of the charges. In fact he admits that he is doing the exact same thing these other guys like TechZombie was or is doing. Both have manipulated poor Eric into a very bad situation and the only loosers are Eric and US. Eric was dragged into the dirt yet again by the same faction. For years Aaron let Dollard flounder and waste away in the desert from the last attack on him. Now Aaron is sitting behind Eric and his addiction and goading him on while that addiction is raging in Eric. This is a travesty and a gross miss use of the dollars donated to get the man standing again. Both sides are involved and Eric is in the middle drinking because he swore he wouldn't let this happen again, yet here he is again.
Aarons only intention is to hook into Dollard, just like he has done with everything he has touched. He hooks on and takes it for a ride as long as it lasts. That is what they teach you in saleman classes. Nothing original has come from Aarons books or anything for that matter. I'm not going to go into detail about my own experiences with Aaron. All I can say is that when the truth stares him in the face he hits the delete key to get rid of the embarrassment of admitting he was wrong. In fact routinely Aaron will even ban the "Disturber" as he puts it. When you bring up the public and open source that these forums must operate under you get met with censorship and a blatant statement that yes the public can look at it but it is the sole possession of his company and can do what he pleases no matter how wrong his actions are.
This is a message to Eric Dollard. "GET OUT! before everything is stripped of you. Run and glom as much as you can. Build your own way and release this stuff in the open world. Do not go down without a fight and do not let them defeat you."
It will be awhile before I get back to this subject. I am taking a break and focussing on my own life. To get myself back into shape and not go down without a fight. My experimenting will of course continue but I think I need a well deserved break from this whole mess.
jbignes5,
Regarding the Dollard fiasco which you've referred
to; I suspect you're right about that. It should be
very interesting to see how the "new management"
for Dollard progresses and what may come to pass.
One can only hope that there will be a positive
outcome but the odds seem stacked in the opposite
direction. Both Dollard and his "new management"
have demonstrated that they are deeply troubled.
Deeply troubled yes but it does not invalidate the work already done.
Just researching more and there is a guy doing experiments like the one I have been talking about using the bifilar coil. Not exactly my experiments but along the lines of Tesla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lF5wsLThbo&list=UUVesA155Der2tRd5vpyYdJw
This is just one of many experiments done by this guy. Give his video list a good look and you'll see the key component is the bifilar coil.
Igor Moroz, a.k.a. Mopozco, is a nice guy that likes building pulse motors. He does it for fun and doesn't make any claims or serious input/output measurements. I once commented to him that he was incorrectly stating that his discharging coil was going back to recharge the source battery and he conceded that point. I have looked at lots of his clips and there really isn't anything special there.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 31, 2013, 01:19:11 PM
Igor Moroz, a.k.a. Mopozco, is a nice guy that likes building pulse motors. He does it for fun and doesn't make any claims or serious input/output measurements. I once commented to him that he was incorrectly stating that his discharging coil was going back to recharge the source battery and he conceded that point. I have looked at lots of his clips and there really isn't anything special there.
So one wire longitudinal energy is nothing special to you? How about the lights being under water or the fact that he reaches right in and grabs the whole lighting device and brings it out of the water? This is nothing special to you? Obviously you couldn't see whats so special about anything. The mere fact that matter stays matter for eons isn't anything special as well. The only thing that I see that isn't anything special is your blindness to any of these facts in fact you suffer from the mind virus Eric talks about.
Watching the videos I posted that the Tesla society hosted and featured Eric is a very clear indication that blindness is a common feature among your kind. Start educating yourself to this method or you will never see anything special. Watch Erics videos and see how he walks you through the entirety of his revelations. Then actually do the experiments that he has done. Then tell me nothing special comes from these Teslian devices.
Jbignes5:
I am going to quote Mark E. from a PESN comment on the subject of Dollard:
QuoteThe best way that I know of to advance a new idea is to set-up an experiment where the observed behavior cannot be explained by existing theory, but can be explained by the new idea. The new idea may still not be correct, as it may run into problems explaining other behaviors that existing theory handles, but at least one discrepancy gets attention. For Eric Dollard and those who support him, I would pick an experiment that defies existing theory that his ideas handle much better. The flip-side is that if such an experiment cannot be identified, or doesn't show the alleged difference, then one should seriously question whether the ideas have merit.
You can't just look at a setup and say, "That's longitudinal energy in action." You would have to prove it and that means you need a fancy lab set up with all sorts of RF measuring instruments and you would have to know what you are doing. Light bulbs under water is a parlor trick I have seen many times. Water is an insulator and the electricity will take the path of least resistance which is through the light bulb element. It's like a magic show taking advantage of the audience's preconceptions and using a bit of misdirection. Can you see clearly? Have a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfTqrmnQuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3iPrBrGSJM
If you can point me to an experiment that shows something special, I'll have a look.
MileHigh
This guy is so good. This is about being trapped in the bubble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGEKnHdKJVc
Who's in the bubble and who's standing outside?
Quote from: jbignes5 on July 31, 2013, 08:43:28 AM
Deeply troubled yes but it does not invalidate the work already done.
Just researching more and there is a guy doing experiments like the one I have been talking about using the bifilar coil. Not exactly my experiments but along the lines of Tesla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lF5wsLThbo&list=UUVesA155Der2tRd5vpyYdJw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lF5wsLThbo&list=UUVesA155Der2tRd5vpyYdJw)
This is just one of many experiments done by this guy. Give his video list a good look and you'll see the key component is the bifilar coil.
I Quoted in my last post without my content. ::)
Hey Bigs
Putting the light socket in the water may not have any affect at all if it is distilled. ;) Also if he has rubber shoes on he should not get shocked. If he is bare footed, maybe if the light bulb wasnt there, sec open ended, he should feel something, depending on which end of the sec he is holding, being the water may not be conductive, and where he is standing in reference to either ground.
I see Mopo has the output of the secondary using the 'ground' as a connection to the load. Is there an advantage to this? Like is there a difference between using the 'earth' vs a wire for that connection?
Mags
In that clip there is that strong ground connection between the pipe in the house and the anchor bolt in the garage. So there are your two wires and your current loop. The transformer ups the voltage to give things a better push. You can see in his schematic that he is using a series bifilar coil. In this case it's doing nothing, this is just a step-up transformer based on turns ratio.
As far as the water goes minuscule current flows through it, because it's in parallel with the filament of the light bulb.
Here some test wich i made
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=huKivwkvpoY
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXVKaHm4mc
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rT0wMYdogVM
I'm not 100% satisfied because the coil are made with litz wire and maybe there is
Some broke wire or i don't cleanup properly the ends , wanna redo the test with magnet wire stay tuned
Ciao Luca
Conradelektro is resuming testing of Tesla's pancake coil. I'm resurrecting this thread and transferring comments from the "Self accelerating Reed switch magnet spinner" thread where they originated.
Here's the latest comment from Milehigh:
Conrad:
For the pancake coils, about 10 cm in diameter should be fine. You can use whatever gauge of wire you want for the pancake coils. I would recommend that you do a regular and a bifilar coil and use the same wire. You may want to use a smaller gauge of wire within reason so that you can get more inter-coil capacitance with the bifilar version. For me that's not really a valid issue because my assumption is that the inter-coil capacitance will be insignificant and will not show any significant effects. The effects of the capacitance will be so small that in many cases they will not even be measurable.
There is a fair amount of magnetic field self-cancellation in a pancake coil so I would expect that the inductance measurement would be quite low.
This is a typical case were visualization in your mind can be used as a tool. It's easy to visualize the field of the spinning rotor magnet. It's easy to imagine how each individual loop of the pancake coil will "see" the changing magnetic flux. Where it gets complicated in this case is what happens when current starts to flow in the pancake coil and how do you visualize that? A loop in the middle of the pancake has a relationship with both the smaller loops and the larger loops. In certain regions there is magnetic field cancellation and in other regions there is magnetic field addition. The net result is that the pancake coil has a certain inductance value and a certain field pattern. Thankfully with the scope you can just look at the resultant waveforms and put the complicated pancake coil geometry inside a "black box."
Whatever tests you do with your regular and pancake coils, it's great that you are willing to do comparative tests. It's really important and it would be good if all experimenters took this approach. Will you find any differences between a regular pancake coil and a bifilar true-Tesla pancake coil? I am assuming that you will not see any differences.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 01, 2013, 06:32:36 PM
This guy is so good. This is about being trapped in the bubble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGEKnHdKJVc
Who's in the bubble and who's standing outside?
I don't have much time for magicians they are liars.
The guy used a trick deck of cards, the Ace of spades is black but the rest of the cards are the wrong color, the clubs are red and the diamonds are black ect.
The best way to deal with magicians is to realize that every thing they do is an illusion and they spend a lot of time and effort to trick people which is pathetic.
I bet if I put in enough time I could trick him in several ways. But to what end, should we really be admiring deceptive people. If he had used a standard set of cards it would not work so well. I'm not impressed at all. Kiddies tricks.
Cheers
P.S. He's an amateur, he needs special props and camera tricks. Busted almost immediately I watched it. ;) People think of say the 7 of diamonds and they will look for a red card and disregard the black cards which is the smart thing to do as it takes out 50% of the cards to look at, Simply put if you think of a red card you do not look at the black cards. It would not work with a standard deck of cards. meaning it not much of a trick.
Look at it this way I visualized a
red 7 of diamonds and that card never existed in the deck, it was never in there so he did not make it disappear, therefore he is flat out lying.
Without the lies there is no trick. The illusion is invalid as it is based on a deliberate lie. If the Ace of spades he shows was red like the other spades, the gig is up before it begins.
..
So MileHigh, would you say I am trapped in a bubble ?
second picture shows the "
Black 7 of diamonds" which is not the card I visualized, he never made the card I visualized disapear because you cannot make something not there disapear.
..
Quote from: MileHigh on August 01, 2013, 06:11:04 PM
Jbignes5:
I am going to quote Mark E. from a PESN comment on the subject of Dollard:
You can't just look at a setup and say, "That's longitudinal energy in action." You would have to prove it and that means you need a fancy lab set up with all sorts of RF measuring instruments and you would have to know what you are doing. Light bulbs under water is a parlor trick I have seen many times. Water is an insulator and the electricity will take the path of least resistance which is through the light bulb element. It's like a magic show taking advantage of the audience's preconceptions and using a bit of misdirection. Can you see clearly? Have a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfTqrmnQuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3iPrBrGSJM
If you can point me to an experiment that shows something special, I'll have a look.
MileHigh
The first trick is explained in the video it is camera angles.
The second trick is likely using trick glasses and/or trick fluid that foams up and increases volume. He begins pouring the liquid in the very side of the trick glass and when nearly "seemingly full" he tips some towards the middle, he never shows the inside of the glass from the top and the trick will no work if anyone asks to see inside the glasses. We can see the fluid becomes more translucent in the bigger glass when it should become more opaque due to the light being less able to penetrate through more liquid, which tells me the liquid is only around the side of the glass in a cylinder and not filling the glass. If he spoke he would be lying. There is nothing admirable about deliberate lying and deception.
..
There is only one type of energy and it results in work done, If work is done it can be measured, those who say the work done by any so called longitudinal energy cannot be seen to be done and measured are mistaken I think or mad. (not saying it cannot be called that just saying), energy is energy. Gee wizz.
Any argument that work can be done and it cannot be observed is non sense.
..
They continue to maintain there is something special about apparent propagation velocities, but the effect is predicted and calculated by the online Tesla coil designing apps, so the effect is already well known and understood. And there is ample proof of that.
..
Farmhand:
I think that you are taking the wrong message from those clips. The clips are about showing you how your conceptions, preconceptions, expectations, and basic human limits in on-the-spot mental gymnastics can affect you and how you percieve the world around you. You can apply that model to what can transpire when a fake free energy clip is seen for the first time by an enthusiast. It's akin to an optical illusion but it's a psychological illusion.
MileHigh
@Farmhand: Richard Wiseman is a perceptual psychologist, a wellknown and respected one, and his "magic" demonstrations are about perceptions and cognitive processing. You seem to be missing that entirely. Were you "fooled" by a stage magician at an early age, and traumatized by it or something? Wiseman is not a liar, as you seem to think. The display of black hearts and diamonds in the trick deck isn't to gain an advantage over you by lying to you, but rather is to make a point about your expectations, beliefs, your perceptions and your processing. Calling his demonstrations "lies" just shows that you somehow have missed the point.
Here's another one of Richard's videos that I really like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv9nleiFogc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv9nleiFogc)
Traumatized by a magician, not likely, ;D I just don't like them as is my right. The man said he would make the card I visualized disappear, he failed and lied. I understand what he does and I don't think it is very useful.
I don't understand why you would feel the need to ask if I must have been traumatized or something.
MileHigh's post was off topic and so I gave an opinion as to how the tricks were done and my opinion on it all.
You're entitled to your opinion as am I.
Cheers
@Farmhand,
Right on! After all that tedious malarky by Milehigh about the missing difference between the monofilar and series bifilar coils, he sneakily seduces a novice experimenter named "Conradelektro" from my "Self acceleration" thread to try and "Demystify" the Tesla coil according to his criteria.
I challenge both Milehigh and Tinselkoala to a no limits bet, that I will board a plane to London England to insure with "Lloyds of London" tomorrow! I am willing to bet any amount of money from my pool, that no monofilar pancake coil can transfer power without heating up like the series bifilar pancake coil does off JLN's commercial hotplate.
Synchro1:
Quoting you:
QuoteRight on! After all that tedious malarky by Milehigh about the missing difference between the monofilar and series bifilar coils, he sneakily seduces a novice experimenter named "Conradelektro" from my "Self acceleration" thread to try and "Demystify" the Tesla coil according to his criteria.
I was reading the Revolution Green web site and I came across a snippet from a long post that is quoted below. You should contemplate the words of the poster Catbauer24 from the "'Clueless Voices for Demons': Sterling Allan" thread:
QuoteI would agree there are way too many ignorant, arrogant comments from people with so little understanding, but so much "faith". I think this may be where I might agree with Atheists to some extent, 'believers' can be very ignorant and closed-minded, ignoring learning and understanding in favor of their arrogance and ignorance.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
What about the bet? Secondly, Sterling Allen was selling plans for the bogus Mylow "Permanent Magnet Motor" when he was assaulted.
QuoteI challenge both Milehigh and Tinselkoala to a no limits bet, that I will board a plane to London England to insure with "Lloyds of London" tomorrow! I am willing to bet any amount of money from my pool, that no monofilar pancake coil can transfer power without heating up like the series bifilar pancake coil does off JLN's commercial hotplate.
This is just noise and tomfoolery.
Because I want to do some comparative testing of coils (bi-filar versus mono-filar) I went through this thread (which costed me many hours).
At the beginning of this thread I found some very helpful posts about measuring coil resonance and other coil parameters by
gyulasun,
MileHigh and
TinselKoala.
I collected the many good references and explanations and will use these techniques (function generator and scope). I have some questions, but I will post them once I started with real measurements (exact circuit layout for testing a coil with a function generator and a scope). It will take some time to go through the material and to understand it.
My understanding is that no tests have been done concerning the difference of bi-filar and mono-filar coils as "pick up coils" or "generator coils". But I might have overlooked it or misunderstood something. The capability to act as a good "pick up or generator coil" might follow from the discussed coil parameters?
Nevertheless I want to do a few tests in this area.
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: I will not create a new thread for my tests, because this thread covered already most of the topic and looks like the right place.
@Conradelektro,
Thanks for following through with the correct format. Consolidation of thread content is essential for practical research. My special interest is to see if you can measure any difference in the magnetic power per unit of input, between the monifilar and series bifilar spiral pancake. I'm looking forward to your results.
I wound two pan cake coils, one monofilar the other bifilar. The physical dimensions are almost identical and I used the same wire and wound the same number of turns (bifilar has half the number of turns but the same length of wire).
See the drawing for the specification of the coils and some measurements. The coils are held between two plexi glass sheets.
I also did a first test with the coils as pick up coils at 15 mm distance from the spinning magnet (1200 rpm). See the drawing for the result.
Astonishing enough, I can not see any difference in the coils (DC resistance, inductance and pick up capability seem to be identical).
I have a question concerning TinselKoala's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwCNBHUh0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwCNBHUh0) (Scoposcopy):
Attached please see a circuit diagram for the "coil resonance measurement", is this correct?
TinselKoala's pan cake coil (from the video with a 14 strand wire) has 0.2 Ohm DC resistance and 102 µH inductance, my pan cake coils have a DC resistance of 0.4 Ohm and 34 µH inductance. This seems to be consistent because TinselKoala's pan cake coil is bigger and has a very conductive wire (14 strand) while my coils have only a one strand wire and are smaller. In my coils the wire turns are farther apart (due to the thick insulation of the wire) which should result in a lower inductance.
Greetings, Conrad
Sorry, I've been distracted and didn't see your question until alerted by your PM.
Yes, it looks like you are going to do just what I showed in the video. I believe your schematic is correct for this method.
Keep up the good work and be sure to post your results!
ETA: Also, be sure to check out the video from "Gestalt Reality" that Mark D. linked in his "Thane debunked" article on revolution-green. It's long but contains highly significant information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfRxsC9yumQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfRxsC9yumQ)
I would be interested to see if you can detect any voltage difference when your two coils are open, rather than feeding a load.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 07, 2014, 01:51:43 PM
I would be interested to see if you can detect any voltage difference when your two coils are open, rather than feeding a load.
TinselKoala: please see the attached drawing. Is this the measurement you wanted? (No difference in Voltage. But I am not sure what "open coil" means for a measurement. The instrument "closes" the coil with its "inner resistance" of about 1 M.)
May be my rather small pan cake coils do not show the differences well enough.
Please specify a "solenoid coil" I could wind (one bifilar the other monofilar, otherwise identical).
I can offer a 10 mm Ferrite core (not sure which Ferrite it is, I bought these cores on ebay) or a 10 mm iron core made from a bundle of iron wire. The 10 mm core would be removable, so that I can test air core, Ferrite core and iron core (bifilar and monofilar).
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
You have made very nice pancakes. I agree with all your measurement results.
One more thing: when you have some time try to "measure and calculate" the two pancakes self capacitance, you can use my earlier links as a guide, or using perhaps the resonant circuit you showed above but with a much lower value tuning capacitor instead of the 1 uF. I mean the resonant frequencies may fall too close to each other to discernate between them by fine tuning the generator when using the 1 uF but you can use it first of course and see how it goes. IF needed, you could use a few nF capacitor too instead of the 1 uF (and remember the scope probe input capacitance is also there all the time as explained in the earlier links). The explanation is that for the bifilar pancake the resonant frequency is lower with the same tuning capacitor you use for the monofilar because the bifilar surely has a higher self capacitance.
Greetings, Gyula
@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 don't know what kind of solenoidal coil to suggest. Nor do I know whether the result obtained in the video depends on the frequency and/or strength of the magnets. The video does show a large, clear and remarkable difference between the two coils when they are not loaded except by the voltmeter. Not only does the bifilar coil produce much higher voltage than the monofilar one, it also takes more shaft power to drive the rotor to the same RPM. (This appears to be the key to the "acceleration under load" effect: electrically loading the bifilar coil with a low-impedance load seems to cancel whatever its effect is and makes it look like a monofilar coil in terms of performance, which reduces the shaft load to turn the rotor and allows acceleration for the same input power.)
The coils he's using have lots of turns on them, and metglas cores; this may also be important. He says in the video that the effect depends on various factors, among them the rotor speed. Even with the bifilar coil his rotor needs to be going fast enough to give that 800-850 Hz AC at the output, in order to see the effect, and with some cores I think he said he wasn't able to see it at all.
It's an interesting phenomenon for sure. I think that "gestalt reality's" video is the most significant thing I've seen concerning the bifilar coil controversy in a long time.
@Gyula: thank you for the hints, I will try the resonance measurement with a 10 nF and with a 220 pF capacitor. And I have to look again at the measurement and calculation hints you gave at the beginning of this thread (which I have collected and stored). My scope probe has 6 pF parasitic capacitance.
@TinselKoala: I am still working on my magnet spinner, and I hope that I can get it to do 10.000 rpm (but I am waiting for parts, coupling between DC motor and axis of the magnet spinner).
What would be a good "solenoid coil" to test? I prefer the 10 mm core, because I have a Ferrite for it. I also have lots of 31 gauge wire. What are the ideal dimensions for a "pick up coil"? I remember that MileHigh mentioned it in one of his posts, I have to find it.
Metglas cores are a bit to steep at the moment, lots of other tests to do before going into that.
To get very high Voltage output I guess one needs very many windings on the pick up coil and a high spin rate of the magnet (I will not be able to do 800 Hz with my spinning magnets. I hope for 160 Hz ~ 10.000 rpm).
The idea is to also wind two "solenoid coils" (bifilar and monofilar, otherwise identical) in order to reproduce in principle the result from the 20-minute long "debunk" video.
But first I do more tests with my two pan cake coils. As always I am not a fast experimenter and the handling of the function generator is still new territory for me http://www.peaktech.de/productdetail/kategorie/dds-funktionsgeneratoren/produkt/peaktech-4060.871.html (http://www.peaktech.de/productdetail/kategorie/dds-funktionsgeneratoren/produkt/peaktech-4060.871.html).
Thank you for the interest. I am already very pleased, I did not expect the two coils to be that identical, a surprise (but I am easy to surprise).
Greetings, Conrad
Same set up as in this post http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382094/#msg382094 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382094/#msg382094)
The coils are put at 9 mm distance from the spinning magnet, the magnet spins at 55 Hz (3300 rpm), the output (no shunt, TinselKoala calls that "open coil") is 128 mV for both coils (still no difference).
The output is over the high impedance of the instruments (which is about 1 Megohm for the scope probe, the Voltmeter has probably a higher impedance than 1 Megohm).
The scope measures 128 mV (true RMS) the digital Voltmeter sees 132 mV (for both coils, no difference at this measurement precision).
Concerning this "debunk video" http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=kfRxsC9yumQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=kfRxsC9yumQ). The experimenter says exactly what always bothered me by this "speed up and input down experiments". What does it help that the speed goes up and the power input goes down as long as the output is way below the input?
Greetings, Conrad
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
TK:
Quote@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
@MileHigh: you mentioned in this reply http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg380888/#msg380888 (http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg380888/#msg380888)
Quote from: MileHigh on December 29, 2013, 01:02:22 PM
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
I could do some resonance tests like TinselKoala did in his video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwCNBHUh0 (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. (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 (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 (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 (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm)
Greetings, Conrad
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 (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
Hi Conrad,
Thanks for showing the measurements on the two pancake coils.
For me, a coil normally has a self capacitance (I prefer using this term instead of the interwire or parasitic capacitance), represented as a parallel capacitance with the coil itself. This is what defines the first parallel resonant frequency for a coil when you do not connect any tuning cap to it, just excite the coil in a circuit which adds no any other capacitor to the coil and look for the parallel resonance like this link shows here:
http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm)
So I find it a bit unusual that the 'parasitic' capacitance values come out as 174pF and 229pF, while the interwire capacitance values come out as 7 and 44pF. I will think this over how it could be explained, unless the measuring method for the parasitic capacitance inherently introduces some additional "error".
Could you measure the capacitance between any two wire ends of the bifilar coil? Just do not couple or connect anything to it, and use your C meter between the two start wires or between the two end wires: possibly these two C values should be the same. Practically you measure the capacitance between the two parallel guided insulated wires A and B. (For all these C measurements you have to remove the jumper wire you use for the series connection of A and B wires/coil.)
Maybe you could check the C value between one start wire of coil A and the end wire of coil B too, (though I am not sure whether this C would be the same C as either the start or the end C value.)
Thanks, Gyula
PS: For you, the interwire capacitance and the parasitic capacitance mean a different capacitance?
Conrad:
There is no true answer to your question about the "ideal" dimensions for a pick-up coil. What I suggest that you do is that you make your two coils about fist-sized (you may have some empty plastic wire spools about that size?) and use a relatively small gauge of wire. The reason that I am suggesting using a relatively small gauge of wire is to get a larger inter-filar capacitance so that you might have a chance of observing the effects of the capacitance in real-world tests (i.e.; not the self-resonance tests).
I will still pitch my "pet" concept: You might get lucky and find some good wire on spools at an electronics hobbyist store. Say you find a nice spool of 32-gauge single strand wire. If you are really lucky you will find a very similar spool of 32-gauge speaker wire (two conductors). So you make the simple connection with the speaker wire to create the bifilar coil. If both spools have insulation that appears to be the same thickness and the same type of plastic then you will have two "instant coils," a regular monofilar coil and a bifilar coil. If you are really really lucky you will be able to insert different core materials into the hollow centers of the plastic spools.
There is an interesting "Plan B." Buy two identical spools of speaker wire. On one of the spools do the bifilar connection. On the other spool just use one of the two wires, or simply short the two parallel wires together at each end of the speaker wire to give you one-half of the resistance for the coil. There is a distinct advantage to using light gauge speaker wire because the two conductors are held firmly next to each other by the plastic insulation. The fact that the bifilar in this setup will have twice as many turns as either variation on the monofilar is irrelevant. All that means is that the voltage output will be lower. You have the choice of load resistor and can compensate. The important thing is that the geometry will be the same.
The whole intention here is to hopefully give you a fighting chance to see _any_ capacitive effects for different types of real world tests. Like I have posted many times before it's very unlikely that you will observe any capacitive effects from the bifilar coil because the inter-filar capacitance will be minuscule compared to the inductance. Also, the capacitance is fleeting and trasient and only exists for perhaps a few microseconds before the "dead short" of the wire in the coil "destroys" it. As far as the "fantastical" claims go for the bifilar coil go, you can expect to see nothing.
So don't worry, there is no "right" or "wrong" configuration for your coils. Just make "sensible" coils that are sized in proportion to your spinning rotor magnet.
Good luck and have fun!
MileHigh
Conrad:
About getting the bifilar coil to self-resonate to the point where the voltage gets so high that the air starts to ionize:
You will not see the air ionizing effects with coils like this with your current setup. You don't have the available power source. However, you could still see similar effects. For example you could have a small "exciter" coil that sits next to and is magnetically coupled to the bifilar coil. Then you run a sine wave and sweep the frequency in the small exciter coil and observe the unloaded output of the bifilar coil in your scope. You may see some peaks in the response of the unloaded bifilar coil.
This all sounds fine but there are problems. The higher the frequency you put into the exciter coil (always use a sine wave on your function generator) the higher the impedance of the exciter coil. So you have less and less "push" from the exciter coil as the frequency increases. One possibility would be to connect your signal generator to an audio amplifier and have the audio amplifier drive the exciter coil. If you are really lucky you might find a frequency that is a sub-harmonic of the self-resonant frequency of the bifilar coil that is below 20 KHz (within the bandwidth of the audio amplifier) and the voltage on the open-circuited bifilar coil will greatly increase and the air will start to ionize. The key here is you need power. The hope is that the audio amplifier has enough power to make the bifilar coil resonate at a very high voltage and you start ionizing the air. You have to keep in mind that in that clip the guy is using a big powerful electric motor though.
Note it would still be a victory if you got the bifilar coil to resonate in sympathy with the small exciter coil to a very high AC voltage. Something like this: You pump 15.35 KHz into the exciter coil and you observe a peak in the response of the open-circuited bifilar coil at 122.8 KHz. (8X the exciter coil frequency). So you have the exciter coil "ringing the bell" at 15.35 KHz and the bell rings at 122.8 KHz. So you know that you are exciting the bifilar coil at one-eighth the natural self-resonance of the bifilar coil.
All of these types of experiments are experiments in the frequency domain. Whenever you do these types of experiments you slowly sweep the exciter frequency from low to high and you observe the response in the device under test. Normally you never see a sub-harmonic induce the device under test to resonate at it's natural frequency. Rather, you will simply observe the same frequency at the output of the device under test but with a different amplitude and phase. So you will have to get really lucky to get a sub-harmonic excitation inducing fundamental resonance in the device under test.
There is an interesting "kluge" for this. Instead of a sine wave excitation try a square wave excitation. With a sine wave you are only putting one frequency into the exciter coil. With a square wave you are putting multiple distinct sine waves into the exciter coil. One of the higher-frequency components in the square wave might "catch" the bifilar coil at the fundamental or at a sub-harmonic and get it to resonate at a very high amplitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Square_wave_frequency_spectrum_animation.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Square_wave_frequency_spectrum_animation.gif)
MileHigh
P.S.: I must stress that you are reading educated guesses from me and some reasonable speculation. I have tons of bench experience but it was a long time ago. Also, these types of things are not discussed in "real life" in the world of electronics. Perhaps they are effects that are considered and observed and dealt with in the realm of very high frequency analog radio circuits (nothing to do with free energy). I am just guessing because I have no experience there. In one job I worked next to a radio engineer and observed him working on his bench and only spoke a bit about what he was doing. So please take my comments about all of these ideas for tests and related stuff with a grain of salt. Most of the bench type testing for "free energy" you see discussed here and on YouTube is only done in the realm of free energy enthusiasts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC36AqL5mw8
Quote from: gyulasun on January 08, 2014, 06:08:38 PM
For me, a coil normally has a self capacitance (I prefer using this term instead of the interwire or parasitic capacitance), represented as a parallel capacitance with the coil itself. This is what defines the first parallel resonant frequency for a coil when you do not connect any tuning cap to it, just excite the coil in a circuit which adds no any other capacitor to the coil and look for the parallel resonance like this link shows here:
http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm)
So I find it a bit unusual that the 'parasitic' capacitance values come out as 174pF and 229pF, while the interwire capacitance values come out as 7 and 44pF. I will think this over how it could be explained, unless the measuring method for the parasitic capacitance inherently introduces some additional "error".
Could you measure the capacitance between any two wire ends of the bifilar coil?
@Gyula:
I though that parasitic, self and interwire capacitance are three different things. After some contemplation and looking around in the internet I agree, this is all the same. The "capacitance inherent to the coil" usually depicted and mathematically treated as a parallel capacitance to the coil (inductor) http://sine.ni.com/np/app/main/p/ap/mi/lang/de/pg/1/sn/n17:mi,n21:37/fmid/2914/.
I measured the capacitance between the two wires of my bifilar pancake coil (after opening the connection between the two wires).
It does not matter which ends of the wires are used for the capacitance measurement, the capacitance is 200 pF to 230 pF (varies if I measure with 100 Hz, 1 KHz or 10 KHz).
So it looks like this method http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html is correct and that method is may be flawed http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm .
I will do some measurements with an "exciter coil" like in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrY6Q4JCjXs (you called it "measuring resonance without any tuning cap"). The coil will resonate with the "self capacitance of my scope probe" (which is 85 pf - 115 pF).
@MileHigh:
Thank you for your explanations, it helps.
There are always more questions. Do you think that the core of the coil I want to wind should have a diameter of 25 mm, because the spinning magnet has a diameter of 25 mm? (I wanted to have a core of 10 mm, because I have a Ferrite which would fit.)
I understood that the diameter of the coil should be about the diameter of a fist, but I am now thinking about the diameter of the
core (of the hole in the middle of the coil). This core could then be an "air core" or an "iron core" (if I put a bundle of iron wire sticks into it) or a "Ferrite core" (if I put my 10 mm Ferrite rod into it).
I could also make a "
rectangular core" of 5 mm x 25 mm, because these are the dimensions of the spinning magnet.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 09, 2014, 05:43:27 AM
...
So it looks like this method http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html (http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html) is correct and that method is may be flawed http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm) .
...
Hi Conrad,
Well, I would think just the opposite... and your measurement results with the "exciter coil" method may confirm that. You could refine the measurement shown in the link you gave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrY6Q4JCjXs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrY6Q4JCjXs) by disconnecting the scope probe from the coil completely and just place the probe near enough to the bifi pancake and using the most sensitive input range (also with 1:1 probe setting) and see the "picked up" EM field then and retune the function generator upwards a little for the new maximum resonance (versus the case when the probe was connected to the bifi pancake). You could even use the monofilar pancake as the exciter coil to inductively drive the bifilar pancake. And you may try to short the pobe pin to the probe's gnd clip to form a "wire loop" from the probe's grnd wire, serving as a kind of pick up coil (or you could also use a second air core coil like the size of the exciter coil and connect the probe to its ends).
I consider the measuring method shown in this link http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm) as one of the most accurate approach to estimate coils self capacitance because it mainly lets the actual self capacitance make its most influence on the parallel resonant frequency with the coils inductance (which you measured as 34uH). This is especially so when you really use a very small CX external capacitor to couple the top end of the coil to the scope (you used 3.4pF) and I know that using say 1pF as suggested the scope sensitivity may not be enough to see a convenient voltage maximum at resonance, still this CX could be reduced as small as practical because it improves the measurement accuracy when 1pF or even less. If you do not have a 1pF cap at hand, you can make one by twisting two enamelled copper wire of say 5 cm long each (wire OD is say 0.2 - 0.5 mm, any size) and using your C meter you could trim the total length to have near 1pF at any one of the twisted ends (the other ends are left floating and open of course).
Thanks for you kind efforts,
Gyula
Quote from: conradelektro on January 09, 2014, 05:43:27 AM
... but I am now thinking about the diameter of the core (of the hole in the middle of the coil...
Hi Conrad.
perhaps, due to the geometry of pancake coils, the core should not be inside the center, but instead, should be a circular plate behind it... Of course, you could have a coil on each face - so the core is between two pancakes...
Just a thought.
Regards, Tim
Quote from: tim123 on January 09, 2014, 03:05:05 PM
Hi Conrad.
perhaps, due to the geometry of pancake coils, the core should not be inside the center, but instead, should be a circular plate behind it... Of course, you could have a coil on each face - so the core is between two pancakes...
Just a thought.
Regards, Tim
@Tim123: Thank you for your interest.
I was thinking about a helical coil as in the attached drawing. (A core for a pan cake coil is of course problematic).
I want to wind two identical helical coils (like a solenoid coil), one monofilar and the other bifilar.
Any ideas about the shape and the diameter of the core? The overal diameter of the coil will be about 60 mm, its length also about 60 mm.
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
I think to answer the question - "what would be a good pick up coil" - could be quite complicated... It would depend a lot on the rest of the circuit... There are far more knowledgeable folk than me around...
In my experience of ferrite-core coils, the core is usually about half the diameter of the coil...
I'm interested in how your experiments proceed... It think that the 'extra energy' stored in a tesla bifilar pancake coil is electrostatic (i.e. capacitance)- rather than magnetic (inductance) - but I have not done the experiments myself - perhaps it's both.
I'll read the whole thread when I get a chance...
Regards, Tim
I published a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doJcDxpCvCo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doJcDxpCvCo) about measuring the "self resonance" of my two pan cake coils.
Please watch and let me know what I could do better?
At the end of the video I also try to calculate the "self capacitance" with the calculator from this web site http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm). May be it can not be done like that?
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
Thanks for your message, I just answered it.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 09, 2014, 05:38:23 PM
At the end of the video I also try to calculate the "self capacitance" with the calculator from this web site http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm). May be it can not be done like that?
IT can be done like that, no problem with that. As I wrote, use a series coupling cap of 1-2 pF between the scope probe and one of the outputs of the pancake so that the 115 pF input cap of the probe should not detune the pancake coil.
Greetings, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on January 09, 2014, 06:15:33 PM
Hi Conrad,
Thanks for your message, I just answered it.
IT can be done like that, no problem with that. As I wrote, use a series coupling cap of 1-2 pF between the scope probe and one of the outputs of the pancake so that the 115 pF input cap of the probe should not detune the pancake coil.
Greetings, Gyula
@Gyula: Thank you for the many hints and for your help.
I will try the decoupling of the scope probe with a hand made 1 pF capacitor tomorrow.
I will also keep a greater distance between the exciter coil and the pan cake coil.
Might have to redo the video with this improvement. The video needs zooming to the scope screen and function generator display anyway.
With all the help I get here I might be able to finally do some decent measurements.
Good night, Conrad
Hi Conrad:
QuoteDo you think that the core of the coil I want to wind should have a diameter of 25 mm, because the spinning magnet has a diameter of 25 mm? (I wanted to have a core of 10 mm, because I have a Ferrite which would fit.)
Keep in mind that your radially magnetized disk still generates a magnetic field that is quite similar to a bar magnet of similar dimensions. Of course you can make an inner diameter of 10 mm for the core of the coil if you want to. By the same token, you don't need to have a rectangular core for your pick-up coils. Nothing is stopping you from doing that, whatever is your preference should be fine. It's very hard to go wrong when you make a pick-up coil.
Note that the individual inner turns of wire that might have a very small diameter will cut proportionally less changing magnetic flux at a given distance as compared to the larger turns of wire at the same distance, and therefore pick up less energy. If you make a regular set of coils (bifilar and regular) with a "satisfactory" inner core diameter (so that you can easily insert different things into the core) that you are happy with then you should be fine.
You can always experiment to see what the magnetic field pattern of the spinning disk magnet looks like with a simple sensor coil. Say 20 turns of fine wire that are say 2 cm in diameter for a sensor coil. Just turn on the motor and get the magnet disk spinning and scope the waveform from the sensor coil as you move it around.
MileHigh
Conrad and Gyula!
I watched the clip! Conrad tried the exciter coil concept and it worked! I am flattered and relieved that it actually worked! lol
I have some comments for your consideration. Hard core analog designers will tell you that just lightly touching a component on a PCB with the tip of your finger will add about 10 picofarads of capacitance to the component. The message being that when you are dealing with very small capacitances in the tens or hundreds of picofarads range many things can affect your measurements, simply because the "stray" or "parasitic" capacitances in the immediate environment are comparable in size.
Gyula mentioned that the "classic" model for a coil is the inductor in parallel with the intrinsic capacitance. That is a parallel LC circuit and that means at the resonant frequency the impedance of the parallel LC circuit is infinity.
Let's look at the classic test setup: signal generator -> series resistor -> coil under test -> ground.
The scope probe is placed across the coil and you tune for maximum amplitude to find the self-resonant frequency. Interestingly enough, many beginners might think that means that the coils is "outputting a high signal at resonance" but in fact it's just the opposite. The coil is *blocking* the signal at resonance and the "high output" is actually just the fact that since no current is flowing, there is no voltage drop across the series resistance. So you are simply measuring the signal generator voltage at resonance, and not any kind of "output" from the coil.
And here is my main point: You are loading down the coil with the scope probe and it's associated capacitance and "disturbing" the measurement because of the extra capacitance.
However, you may see the possibilities for an interesting measurement trick that takes the scope probe load off of the coil completely.
The trick is to just measure the voltage across the series resistor, and leave the coil untouched and open-circuited. When you do the test you look for the *minimum* voltage across the series resistor. That is telling you that no current is flowing and the unloaded coil is being excited at its self-resonant frequency.
My first thought is that you need to do one final "small trick." You put the series resistor in line with the signal generator ground and not the signal generator "hot." Then monitor the voltage across the series resistor and when it is at a minimum, you know that the voltage across the coil is at a maximum. And just to emphasize - the coil is *unloaded*!
I hope that you are still having fun. I apologize because I can't follow 100% of the discussion because sometimes I have insomnia and I am too tired when I get home.
Conrad, you are doing a great series of experiments, my compliments.
MileHigh
A small addendum:
In my previous posting where I discuss moving the scope probe across the resistor and off of the coil under test, I realize with a second look that that's not exactly "unloaded." You still have the "hot" or signal output from the function generator directly connected to one side of the coil, and the resistor to the signal generator ground connected to the other side of the coil. So although the signal generator is driving the coil, at the same time that also represents a load on the coil.
Here is a compromise, it might be worth investigating: You put a 50 kohm resistor in series with the "hot" from the function generator. You also put a 50 kohm resistor in series with the ground return to the function generator. Then sweep the frequency of the generator and monitor the voltage across the low-side 50 kohm resistor.
It's not perfect, but perhaps the coil is "quite undisturbed" when you do this test and you will be able to find the near-true self-resonant frequency of the coil like this.
Life is a compromise.
MileHigh
"Exciter coil concept"..... the way I determine resonance frequency of big aircore inductors (Tesla coil secondaries) is to use a single turn "exciter coil" in series with a 50 ohm resistor, hooked to the FG output. This is simply wrapped loosely around the big inductor. The FG is not hooked to the secondary at all, just to the single turn exciter. The scope probe is then hooked to the top of the big coil thru 1 megohm or even 10 megs, with the scope probe ground at the base of the big coil. Then one tunes the FG for peak response in the scope, as usual. I've used this technique for years.
@Gyula
@MileHigh
@TinselKoala
Gyula made me aware of the "decoupling" of the scope probe with a self made 1 pF cap. (My scope probe has an input capacitance of about 100 pF.)
See the attached measurement circuit where I put a 1 pF cap before the scope probe. The rest is as in the video.
Now, with this 1 pF in the measurement circuit the self resonance frequencies have gone up. It should be like that because the ~100 pF of the scope probe are now hidden behind the 1 pF cap. (Two caps in series results in a little bit less capacitance than the smaller cap.)
Self resonance frequency of the monofilar pan cake coil 9.6 MHz --> self capacitance ~ 8 pF (calculator http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm) )
Self resonance frequency of the bifilar pan cake coil 4.04 MHz --> self capacitance ~ 45 pF (calculator http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm) )It is difficult for the scope to register the signal through the 1 pF cap, but after some fiddling it always works. The exciter coil has to be as close as possible to the centre of the pan cake coil to make it work (otherwise the induced signal is to weak to be picked up by my scope).
If you look at this post http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382210/#msg382210 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382210/#msg382210) and the measurement I did then with the circuit proposed at http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm) you will see a great agreement of the measurement I did just now (with the improve exciter coil circuit) and then:
Monofilar pan cake coil: self resonace 8.5 MHz and self capacitance 7 pF
Bifilar pan cake coil; self resonance 3.8 MHz and self capacitance 44 pF
So Gyula was quite right to believe in the web page http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm) . It did not matter much that I used a ~3 pF decoupling cap then.
Since the self capacitance of the coil is ~7 pF (monofilar coil) and ~45 pF (bifilar coil) the input capacitance of ~100 pF of my probe falsifies the results if not hidden behind a 1 pF decoupling cap. Gyula, you did a great job of teaching me that, I did not catch on at first but now I learned a very important lesson.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 09, 2014, 09:51:23 PM
And here is my main point: You are loading down the coil with the scope probe and it's associated capacitance and "disturbing" the measurement because of the extra capacitance.
However, you may see the possibilities for an interesting measurement trick that takes the scope probe load off of the coil completely.
The trick is to just measure the voltage across the series resistor, and leave the coil untouched and open-circuited. When you do the test you look for the *minimum* voltage across the series resistor. That is telling you that no current is flowing and the unloaded coil is being excited at its self-resonant frequency.
My first thought is that you need to do one final "small trick." You put the series resistor in line with the signal generator ground and not the signal generator "hot." Then monitor the voltage across the series resistor and when it is at a minimum, you know that the voltage across the coil is at a maximum. And just to emphasize - the coil is *unloaded*!
MileHigh
@MileHigh: thank you for the explanation, I will try this "resistor trick". Also, thank you for the helpful explanations concerning the pick up coil dimensions which will help me to build the next pair of test coils (helical coils, monofilar and bifilar).
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 09, 2014, 11:21:53 PM
"Exciter coil concept"..... the way I determine resonance frequency of big aircore inductors (Tesla coil secondaries) is to use a single turn "exciter coil" in series with a 50 ohm resistor, hooked to the FG output. This is simply wrapped loosely around the big inductor. The FG is not hooked to the secondary at all, just to the single turn exciter. The scope probe is then hooked to the top of the big coil thru 1 megohm or even 10 megs, with the scope probe ground at the base of the big coil. Then one tunes the FG for peak response in the scope, as usual. I've used this technique for years.
@TinselKoala: I will try that as well.
After these initial tests I want to draw a first conclusion:
A measurable difference between a monofilar and a bifilar pan cake coil seems to be its self capacitance (monofilar has lower self capacitance than bifilar) which then results in different self resonance frequencies (monofilar has higher self resonance frequency than bifilar).I will now try a few more measurments ("resistor trick" from MileHigh and "single turn Exciter coil" from TinselKoala) and then I will write up a little "document" with the measurement circuits that worked for me. May be I make a new video with the correct measurements. Also the tank circuit measurements have to be redone with the 1 pF decoupling cap (to hide the scope probe capacitance).
I regard the attached measurement circuit as one of the good ones. Also the circuit from http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm) seems to be good. And the results (self capacitance) agree very much.
It means that my progress will slow down, please be patient.
Greetings, Conrad
I just understood that the approach from http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm) is indeed the classical approach (function generator - resistor - coil to be tested - GND; scope over "coil to be tested") with the "Gyula improvement" in the circuit (namely the 1 pF cap to shade the 100 pF of my scope probe).
See the attached circuit diagram. And it worked just fine.
Monofilar pan cake coil, self resonance around 9 MHz.
Bifilar pan cake coil, self resonance around 4 MHz.
So, my mistake, I thought that the approach from http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm) was something new, but it is the classical approach with a 1 pF cap to shade the scope probe. Might be nothing new for the experts, but it took a while till I got it.
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: Working on MileHigh "resistor trick" in the classical approach.
Very strange effect with the MileHigh "resistor" trick:
The resistor trick works with the bifilar pan cake coil (Voltage over resistor is lowest at about 4 MHz) but it does not work with the monofilar pan cake coil.
May be the "resistor trick" only works with a certain self capacitance of the coil. The self capacitance of the monofilar coil is only 7 pF (self capacitance of bifilar coil 44 pF).
With the monofilar coil the Voltage over the resistor is higher at lower frequencies and continuously goes lower up to 20 MHz (the limit of my function generator).
May be someone has an idea what is going on. See the attached circuit diagram. The resistor has to be between coil and GND (in the classical set up it does not work even with the bifilar coil).
Greetings, Conrad
@Conradelektro,
This thread is entitled Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS". When do you you plan to test and compare the coils as electro-magnets?
I made some more tests.
So far I get the impression that the classical circuit and a 1 pF decoupling capacitor for the scope probe works best, see my post http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382419/#msg382419
The attached simplified "exciter coil" circuit also works well. It helps to put the second scope probe away to avoid clutter. Note that there is also the 1 pF decoupling capacitor for the scope probe. (This is TinselKoalas preferred way, may be with a smaller exciter coil of only two turns and a 50 Ohm resistor in series with the exciter coil. For lower frequencies, which means a coil with a higher self capacitance the 1 pF decoupling capacitor might not be necessary.)
I changed my video (because the one I posted yesterday did not feature the 1 pF decoupling capacitor and showed wrong measurements).
New video: http://youtu.be/fC84W0PIZoE (might take some time till it is completely uploaded)
I would say that since I use the 1 pF decoupling capacitor for the scope probe all measurements started to match to a high degree:
Self resonance frequency of monofilar coil is about 9 MHz, self resonance frequency of bifilar coil is about 4 MHz.
Self capacitance of the monofilar coil is about 8 pF, self capacitance of the bifilar coil is about 45 pF.
My question to all bifilar coil magicians: how can the higher self capacitance of a bifilar coil do magic?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 09, 2014, 11:21:53 PM
"Exciter coil concept"..... the way I determine resonance frequency of big aircore inductors (Tesla coil secondaries) is to use a single turn "exciter coil" in series with a 50 ohm resistor, hooked to the FG output. This is simply wrapped loosely around the big inductor. The FG is not hooked to the secondary at all, just to the single turn exciter. The scope probe is then hooked to the top of the big coil thru 1 megohm or even 10 megs, with the scope probe ground at the base of the big coil. Then one tunes the FG for peak response in the scope, as usual. I've used this technique for years.
@TinselKoala: I tried that and it worked (bifilar coil self resonance frequency 3.9 MHz, monofilar self resonance 8.7 MHz). I had the feeling hat the method from my last post above worked better ( 1 pF cap instead of 1 M resistor). But that might have to do with my strange exciter coil.
After many tests, my favourite method has become the one from my video http://youtu.be/fC84W0PIZoE (http://youtu.be/fC84W0PIZoE) (also discussed in my post http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382419/#msg382419 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382419/#msg382419) )
This is the classical method with a 1 pF decoupling capacitor in series with the scope probe over the "coil to be measured".
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 10, 2014, 09:50:41 AM
Very strange effect with the MileHigh "resistor" trick:
The resistor trick works with the bifilar pan cake coil (Voltage over resistor is lowest at about 4 MHz) but it does not work with the monofilar pan cake coil.
May be the "resistor trick" only works with a certain self capacitance of the coil. The self capacitance of the monofilar coil is only 7 pF (self capacitance of bifilar coil 44 pF).
With the monofilar coil the Voltage over the resistor is higher at lower frequencies and continuously goes lower up to 20 MHz (the limit of my function generator).
May be someone has an idea what is going on. See the attached circuit diagram. The resistor has to be between coil and GND (in the classical set up it does not work even with the bifilar coil).
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
I edited your circuit drawing to include and show the scope probes' and the pancake coil's 'parasitic' capacitances and also included the generator's inner resistance, assuming 50 Ohm. So this is a kind of RLC network driven with the generator and possibly a Spice circuit simulator could surely show the frequency response, (the good old Bode diagram if you like), taking the output across the 51 kOhm resistor.
The shunting effect of the 100pF or so probe capacitances (across the generator output and across the 51 kOhm) could explain that the output voltage continuously reduces as the frequency increases up to 20 MHz, shadowing the possible resonance of the monofilar coil around 9 MHz. (A 100 pF capacitor has a reactance of cca 397 Ohm at 4 MHz and cca 176 Ohm at 9 MHz.)
A possible remedy to use MileHigh's suggested setup is to 'decouple' the scope input capacitances with a series low value coupling capacitor of 1-2 pF (the smaller the better). Using the probe as a 10:1 divider (and not as 1:1) the probe's input capacitance can become as low as 10 to 16 pF, this could also help in this setup.
Nice and good work, thanks for all your efforts, pleased you have done it.
Greetings, Gyula
Quote from: conradelektro on January 10, 2014, 08:56:04 AM
....
Monofilar pan cake coil, self resonance around 9 MHz.
Bifilar pan cake coil, self resonance around 4 MHz.
So, my mistake, I thought that the approach from http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm (http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm) was something new, but it is the classical approach with a 1 pF cap to shade the scope probe. Might be nothing new for the experts, but it took a while till I got it.
...
Hi Conrad,
You can of course call or refer to this measuring method as a 'classical' one but the use of the 1 pF coupling capacitor can only be useful up to the some MHz frequency range, it becomes a decreasing reactance value as you go towards the some 10 MHz range and higher (at 10 MHz a 1 pF cap has 15.9 kOhm and at 20 MHz it has about 7.9 kOhm reactance).
The small difference between the results of using 1 MOhm and using 1 pF is explained by the fact that in the MHz frequency range resistors are not able to keep their original resistor value (measured at DC) because there is an equivalent shunting capacitor of a few pF (or maybe less) across their legs, (their equivalent circuit includes a parallel capacitor too) coming from their material and physical structure. Perhaps you could check your 1 MOhm resisor with your C meter to measure it, probably you would have to force the meter to measure C and not let it choose automatically the resistor range by itself.
Even a few kOHm resistor shows less resistance when you start increasing the working frequency towards the some hundred kHz and higher. A possible solution to minimize this unwanted effect is to use several such resistors in series to reduce the resulting equivalent capacitance or using a parallel air core coil across one such resistor to form a parallel resonant LC circuit with the parasitic resistor capacitance i.e. to tune it out but this works at a single frequency of course.
The so called carbon resistors are the best frequency independent resistors, then the metal and the film resistors come.
Greetings, Gyula
Conrad:
Another great clip! You are in good hands with Gyula and TK for sure! The home-made 1 pF capacitor solution really works well. The "resistor trick" has it's limitations and the "improved classical" method seems to be the best. More importantly, you are understanding the issues and the reasoning behind the different techniques.
Since we are dealing with such small capacitances, it's somewhat analogous to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle because you are affecting the system when you try to make a measurement on the system:
QuoteIn quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, in 1927, Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.
TK: Hey! I "discovered" something that is actually a well-known technique. So now I am officially part of the OU.com club! lol
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
Quote from Milehigh:
"So now I am officially part of the OU.com club! lol"
Here you are caught fashioning more spit curls on your forehead!
That's quite a claim coming from someone who's been discrediting my ou claims on the "Self acceleration thread". How come you're dodging my recent comments over there?
Another thing; I never claimed the Tesla series bifilar Pancake outperformed the monofilar Pancake as an induction coil as you inferred. Neither coil has the correct dimension for an output coil, the face is too big, and the coil has no depth to capture rotor flux. I would never dream of using one for that purpose.
I maintained and proved by nail and paper clip test that the Tesla series bifilar worked twice as good as an electromagnet, which it was patented as. This is the coil's overunity characteristic. Conradelektro spun off the "Self acceleration thread" to test the bifilar Pancake coil's magnetic strength. You have turned his original aim into an exercise in personal esoteric fetish, with no practical application.
You broke the circuit in my "Magnet Pump Coil" and redirected Conradelektro's talent and expertise toward a narcissistic venture of your own design, and away from a genuinely fruitful experiment. I want an apology for ruining the "Synchro Coil" test, and a Conradelektro test of the Pancake coil's magnetic strength.
"In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, in 1927, Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa".
HEISENBERG??? This is just more "Quack Malarky" out of you to sound like some kind of "Savant". Let's do the electromagnet test and find out once and for all who the fraud is! Does half the resonant frequency in the series bifilar pancake coil result in in twice the magnetic strength? Let's try it now with iron filings and find out after two solid years of chicanery and legerdemain out of you.
Here's something of broader interest; "Pancake Coils In Oscillation" by Skycollection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey7EXh8CsCo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey7EXh8CsCo)
Here's another pretty cool video by Slider2732, on "Simple Wireless Electricity System".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSUGXCWIVoI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSUGXCWIVoI)
Slider2732's number II; Much more incredible with two electrodes in water acting as a transistor, and mains bulb lit through bifilar to ground:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaXRKLIrc8c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaXRKLIrc8c)
Wise guy quote from Milehigh:
"My question to all bifilar coil magicians: how can the higher self capacitance of a bifilar coil do magic"?
This is how the series bifilar pancake does magic:
Imagine a large series bifilar Tesla pancake coil set upright on a jack palate. The palate locks to a saw tooth and runs up an inclined hill like an elevator. Take a locomotive with an induction motor on one wheel. We energize the Pancake coil close to an iron plate on the front of the locomotive, and inch the locomotive up the hill, then reposition the jack palate. When we reach the top, we release the locomotive and generate power to charge a battery on board with the induction motor turning backwards as a generator. A comparison between the input to the electromagnet series bifilar pancake and the battery charge on board the locomotive should be COP>1, or closer to 2 X OU.
Take a look at the equation below from Tesla's patent: The Tesla series bifilar generates 250,000 times the hi-voltage potential between the windings!
Imagine a tube magnet inside a solenoid coil with two circular iron plates attached to each end by dowels. Add two Tesla serial pancake coils working as electromagnets in attraction facing the iron plates. The magnet tube oscillation from the alternating pancake coil pulses would generate a COP>1 closer to 2 x OU. This is why it's "FORBIDDEN SCIENCE" and targeted by "Petrophiles" like Milehigh!
This is the magnitude of my nail and paper clip test ramifications. I challenge Conradelektro to either substantiate or refute them with the iron filings test I've been clamoring for! Conradelektro is charged with the unique mission and requirements to scientifically confirm the feasibility of this kind of overunity generator. Does Conradelektro have the right stuff to rise to this historical assignment?
The generator might need a bundle of eight large one inch diametric magnet stacks one meter in length, with thick solenoid windings, with an axle on roller bearings because the pancake electromagnets may only be able to attract the circular iron plates a few millimeters in each direction! This would generate kilowatts with a few hertz frequency.
Quote from: synchro1 on January 11, 2014, 10:19:54 PM
Imagine a tube magnet inside a solenoid coil with two circular iron plates attached to each end by dowels. Add two Tesla serial pancake coils working as electromagnets in attraction facing the iron plates. The magnet tube oscillation from the alternating pancake coil pulses would generate a COP>1 closer to 2 x OU. This is why it's "FORBIDDEN SCIENCE" and targeted by "Petro Nazi's" like Milehigh!
This is the magnitude of my nail and paper clip test ramifications. I challenge Conradelektro to either substantiate or refute them with the iron filings test I've been clamoring for! Conradelektro is charged with the unique mission and requirements to scientifically confirm the feasibility of this kind of overunity generator. Does Conradelektro have the right stuff to rise to this historical assignment?
The generator might need a bundle of eight large one inch diametric magnet stacks one meter in length, with thick solenoid windings, with an axle on roller bearings because the magnets may only be able to attract the iron plates a few millimeters in each direction! This would generate kilowatts with a few hertz frequency.
Synchro, the comment about MileHigh being a "Petro Nazi" is totally inappropriate, I am personally offended that such language be used. Please remove that comment and discontinue all personal insults, I know we all get uppity at times but getting personal is unnecessary and should not be tolerated. That in particular is overly offensive and must be rectified.
There is no magic in a series connected bifilar coil. It is what it is and the patent describes what it is and does. Case closed. Feel free to do experiments and present findings but also be prepared to back up what you say with more than insults.
By the same token I ask all that personal insults and opinions about peoples persons be refrained from without some history to back it up and some relation to the issues at hand.
Fair is fair we are all people.
Cheers
@Farmhand,
I modified the insult for you! The patent says it's an electromagnet, and my nail and paperclip test proved it has twice the power of the monofilar! Case reopened!
The other thing is, it develops twice the power as a pulse coil running a diametric in attraction unlike a monofilar that produces a pole, and only attracts or repels one side of the diametric rotor! It's no better then a monofilar as an output coil, but it develops a total of "Four Times the Power" attracting both poles of a diametric and doubling the magnetic force! Understand?
Here's a video where I'm charging the source battery with a twin series bifilar Bedini, one for trigger the other for power, attracting both sides of the diametric sphere with a series bifilar for maximized power. I have a third spriral coil for output. I'm overunity with this setup!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTs_iuUbuM&list=TL8Ml4KeDh0Pb8ie-4Fw09XSxAc6ltC6dH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTs_iuUbuM&list=TL8Ml4KeDh0Pb8ie-4Fw09XSxAc6ltC6dH)
So now I've termed the chronic cynics that haunt this web site as "Petrophiles". You apparently number among them.
Quote from: synchro1 on January 11, 2014, 11:30:56 PM
@Farmhand,
I modified the insult for you! The patent says it's an electromagnet, and my nail and paperclip test proved it has twice the power of the monofilar! Case reopened!
The other thing is, it develops twice the power as a pulse coil running a diametric in attraction unlike a monofilar that produces a pole, and only attracts or repels one side of the diametric rotor! It's no better then a monofilar as an output coil, but it develops a total of "Four Times the Power" attracting both poles of a diametric and doubling the magnetic force! Understand?
Here's a video where I'm charging the source battery with a twin series bifilar Bedini, one for trigger the other for power, attracting both sides of the diametric sphere with a series bifilar for maximized power. I have a third spriral coil for output. I'm overunity with this setup!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTs_iuUbuM&list=TL8Ml4KeDh0Pb8ie-4Fw09XSxAc6ltC6dH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTs_iuUbuM&list=TL8Ml4KeDh0Pb8ie-4Fw09XSxAc6ltC6dH)
So now I've termed the chronic cynics that haunt this web site as "Petrophiles". You apparently number among them.
Listen here Synchro, and any other folks who want to insult others, if you guys want to turn this into an insult fest then lets get it on. I'm tired of it and I think it is high time the moderators banned the offenders. But since it is allowed to go on then everyone may as well join in and lets all forget about the technical side of things altogether.
Lets just insult each other based on our own perceptions of others motives or opinions.
By all means present the info you think is relevant, and those who disagree should present info to the counter if they wish, what I do not get is why people feel the need to get personal.
So let Chaos reign shall we ? Lets just all let loose and abuse the heck out of each other. It might serve as a well needed release valve for some.
I say we should at least get a bit inventive about it and try to hit as many nerves as we can, so as to damage each others psyche's as much as possible. We should also use trickery to try to confuse people as much as possible.
OK sounds like fun. Lets ruin another thread completely and fill it with BS and personal insults.
I tried.
..
@Farmhand,
Quote from Farmhand:
"There is no magic in a series connected bifilar coil".
Do you have any idea how sick and tired people are of reading this kind of redundant and tedious nonsense? The coil charges a cell phone battery from ambient RF background radiation. Take a look at Slider2732's video where he lights a mains bulb between a Tesla series bifilar pancake coil and a ground off a "D" cell battery. What's behind your sort of pejorating bias if not an odious affinity for oil profits?
I asked why no could get Tesla-Coil-Builders series bifilar nail and paperclip test to work on the "Self acceleration" thread. Conradelektro offered to try it. I talked him into trying it with the coreless spiral pancake. This is a ten minute test. I believe now that this test was probably already performed by Conradelektro in secret. He probably got the same results I did, and the results were concealed by him, because he's unwilling or afraid to unseat the trendy and prejudiced false view that annoys the rest of us. Why else would Conradelektro be hiding out?
Here's the "Old Scientist" tuning a bifilar coil LC tank with a variable air capacitor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CcxJogghxY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CcxJogghxY)
He concludes that a bifilar coil has strong harmonics but is not influenced in the same way a standard or parallel LC tank circuit would be, due to the "resonance between the capacitor and the self capacitance of the coil".
In other words, the virtual LCC tank resonance of the bifilar tank is not as easily influenced by interference like a standard LC tank, and more stable!
I made new tests with the monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils.
A new video http://youtu.be/spQ9yLdb7v4 (http://youtu.be/spQ9yLdb7v4) (measuring self resonance frequency with a "two turn exciter coil", about the same results as in the first video, see the attached circuit diagram of the measurement)
Then I made a "pick up coil test" with my vertical magnet spinner (see the attached photo). I showed the vertical spinner here
http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg379520/#msg379520 (http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg379520/#msg379520)
http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg379723/#msg379723 (http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg379723/#msg379723)
http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg379943/#msg379943 (http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg379943/#msg379943) (final drive circuit)
Remember the vertical magnet spinner has very little torque (strength) and therefore can be slowed down quite easily with a "pick up coil".
Both pan cake coils were put at exactly 18 mm distance from the spinning magnet (always only one coil in place) and the output over a 1 Ohm resistor was measured with the oscilloscope (true RMS) and the slow down of the magnet spinner was noted.
Both coils gave the same results (vertical magnet spinner was run with 15V from the lab power supply and always drew the same Amperage):
- Output over 1 Ohm resistor (at 18 mm distance from spinning magnet) was 34,4 mV (true RMS)
- Slowdown of spinning magnet: from about ~30 Hz to ~25 Hz (~1800 rpm to ~1500 rpm).
The magnet spinner was always run for several minutes to let it settle at the final speed.
Concerning the magnetic field produced by the two pancake coils:
Both coils did not produce a measurable magnetic field at 1 Watt or 10 Watt (compass and hall sensor A1101 http://www.allegromicro.com/Products/Magnetic-Digital-Position-Sensor-ICs/Hall-Effect-Unipolar-Switches/A1101-2-3-4-6.aspx (http://www.allegromicro.com/Products/Magnetic-Digital-Position-Sensor-ICs/Hall-Effect-Unipolar-Switches/A1101-2-3-4-6.aspx)). The coils soon became hot. Therefore, any meaningful "magnetic field test" has to wait till I move on to solenoid type coils with many turns of wire.
Concerning synchro1: it would be best if synchro1 stops posting in this thread, I certainly will not react to any of his posts. He has outdone himself and he annoys me very much.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: synchro1 on January 12, 2014, 12:26:43 PM
Here's the "Old Scientist" tuning a bifilar coil LC tank with a variable air capacitor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CcxJogghxY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CcxJogghxY)
He concludes that a bifilar coil has strong harmonics but is not influenced in the same way a standard or parallel LC tank circuit would be, due to the "resonance between the capacitor and the self capacitance of the coil".
In other words, the virtual LCC tank resonance of the bifilar tank is not as easily influenced by interference like a standard LC tank, and more stable!
Yes, isn't this why the swbf coil is part of Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter? ie., there won't be reactive losses with a secondary.
Following your thread with interest, Synchro.
Bob
@Conradelektro,
Quote from Conradelelktro:
"Concerning synchro1: it would be best if synchro1 stops posting in this thread, I certainly will not react to any of his posts. He has outdone himself and he annoys me very much".
Response from Synchro1:
Tut-Tut! Hurrrumph!
Hi Conrad,
I looked at your new clip. There is one cautionary note I want to mention. The axis of your exciter coil and the axis of your main coil are at 90 degrees to each other. We know that with this coil-to-coil geometry you are minimizing the interaction between the two coils because the magnetic lines of force from one coil will not interact with the wire turns of the other coil. Of course the reality is that there will still be a weak interaction, and this weak interaction is still enough to excite the coil under test to observe the resonance frequency. I don't want to prejudge you, you may have done this intentionally. If you did not do this intentionally then note that you always have to try to visualize how the magnetic field from one coil interacts with the magnetic field from another coil when you are planning to do a test or build something. Geometry is of prime importance and it can never be overlooked when you work with coils that are magnetically coupled to each other.
This issue is one of my pet peeves. I have seen people that have been experimenting for years that are seemingly oblivious or ignorant of this issue. This is a basic concept that must be understood by all experimenters working with coils and magnetic fields. Skycollection is one of the experimenters that comes to mind for this issue. I have seen several clips made by him with coils in physical arrangements that don't make any sense. I don't care about being the "bad guy" when it comes to stating this. If you don't speak up and correct each other and encourage each other to learn, then there is no progress and ongoing collective ignorance. This issue is very similar to people adding magnets to magnetically bias some kind of transformer circuit. In the vast majority of cases it makes no sense at all and actually degrades the performance of the transformer circuit.
MileHigh
@Conradelektro,
You have to place the bifilar coil over an iron plate to get it to work as an electromagnet.
Conrad:
I note that your new pick-up coil test showed no difference between the two pancake coils. These are the expected results so all is good.
For the the test to measure the magnetic fields generated by the two types of pancake coils, I have a simple, easy, and definitive test to propose to you. This test can naturally be done for the solenoid coils also.
Before we even start the test, logic is telling us that the two types of coils that you built (monofilar and bifilar) will produce approximately the same strength and pattern of magnetic field.Before I start the discussion of the test, here is another important issue:
QuoteBoth coils did not produce a measurable magnetic field at 1 Watt or 10 Watt
Although in theory there is a measure of logic in what you are saying because the power dissipated in the coil is related to the current passing through coil, it is an incorrect statement.
When you look at the magnetic field generated by a coil, the magnetic field produced and the power dissipated in the coil itself are two measurements that in the strict sense have nothing to do with each other. The power dissipated in the coil is proportional to the electrical resistance of the coil. The resistance of the coil has nothing to do with the ability of the coil to generate a magnetic field. You must decouple these two concepts in your mind, they are unrelated. The ability of the coil to generate a magnetic field is determined by the number of turns and the geometry of the coil and the amount of
current flowing through the coil. You can have two coils that are physically identical except one will have a resistance of one ohm and the other will have a resistance of five ohms. If you put one ampere of current through coil A and one ampere of current through coil B the two coils will generate identical magnetic fields. However, one coil will dissipate one watt and the other coil will dissipate five watts.
I hope that all understand this. In the next posting I will discuss the simple test.
MileHigh
@Conradelektro,
Here's how to do the test: Place the coil on an iron plate, place the iron plate on a pile of iron filings, then pulse the pancake coil. Then pick up the plate, filings and coil and put them on a scale. Then repeat the experiment with the monofilar and a different iron plate. This pancake coil is an "Impulse magnetizer" coil. Don't listen to Milehigh, he's just an imposter.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 12, 2014, 03:50:17 PM
Hi Conrad,
I looked at your new clip. There is one cautionary note I want to mention. The axis of your exciter coil and the axis of your main coil are at 90 degrees to each other. We know that with this coil-to-coil geometry you are minimizing the interaction between the two coils because the magnetic lines of force from one coil will not interact with wire turns of the other coil. Of course the reality is that there will still be a weak interaction, and this weak interaction is still enough to excite the coil under test to observe the resonance frequency. I don't want to prejudge you, you may have done this intentionally. If you did not do this intentionally then note that you always have to try to visualize how the magnetic field from one coil interacts with the magnetic field from another coil when you are planning to do a test or build something. Geometry is of prime importance and it can never be overlooked when you work with coils that are magnetically coupled to each other.
MileHigh
@MileHigh: Very good point, I overlooked this issue completely. Thank you for taking the time to look at the video.
The reason why I wound the "two turns exciter" coil like that over the pan cake coil was, because it was the most practical and fast way to do it. Doing it in parallel would have needed some tape or other "fixtures".
I will glue little plastic posts on the back side of the pan cake coils so that I can wind two or three turns in parallel with the pan cake coil. I am sure it will work much better.
I am here to learn, please keep up the corrections, it is the only way forward for me.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: MileHigh on January 12, 2014, 04:11:46 PM
When you look at the magnetic field generated by a coil, the magnetic field produced and the power dissipated in the coil itself are two measurements that in the strict sense have nothing to do with each other. The power dissipated in the coil is proportional to the electrical resistance of the coil. The resistance of the coil has nothing to do with the ability of the coil to generate a magnetic field. You must decouple these two concepts in your mind, they are unrelated. The ability of the coil to generate a magnetic field is determined by the number of turns and the geometry of the coil and the amount of current flowing through the coil. You can have two coils that are physically identical except one will have a resistance of one ohm and the other will have a resistance of five ohms. If you put one ampere of current through coil A and one ampere of current through coil B the two coils will generate identical magnetic fields. However, one coil will dissipate one watt and the other coil will dissipate five watts.
I hope that all understand this. In the next posting I will discuss the simple test.
MileHigh
@MileHigh: thank you for the explanation.
I want to state a simple example just to check that I really understood this:
- We use DC current.
- Lets say, I build two identical coils (dimensions, wire diameter, number of turns and core are the same).
- But the wire of one coil has a slightly higher resistance. So after the coils are wound, I measure the DC resistance and see that one coil has 60 Ohm and the other 80 Ohm DC resistance (just hypothetically, let's say the copper used for one wire had more impurities).
- So I put 60 Volt over one coil (the one with 60 Ohm DC resistance) and 80 Volt over the other coil (the one with 80 Ohm DC resistance).
- Through both coils 1 Ampere will flow (U = R*I , 80 = 80 *1, 60 = 60 * 1) , therefore the two coils will produce the same magnetic field.
Greetings, Conrad
Synchro1:
QuoteDon't listen to Milehigh, he's just an imposter.
This is getting really tiring, so here is my breakdown on you:
1. You are a fully-grown rational man and you are just playing the ass like some immature 14-year-old. You get a charge (no pun intended) out of being disruptive and being a clown. The "MIB backdrop" is just the framework that you use to keep up your shtick. Why you as a fifty-something-year-old still do this is something I can't explain.
- alternatively -
2. You have psychological problems. You may be obsessive-compulsive or you may have some diagnosed psychological disorder. You may have some form of borderline personality disorder. So in layman's terms you are slightly nuts.
- alternatively -
3. Some people around here might actually believe that you are a plant from the National Security Agency or from the energy cartels. Your mission here is to discredit all research into free energy by intentionally acting like an irrational and annoying buffoon that has almost no understanding of energy and electronics and magnetics. You are here by design so that your nut-case behaviour and your murky, incoherent, and amateurish video clips will negatively reflect on all other researchers on this forum, and by extension on all of the other forums.
- beyond that -
4. You clearly have almost no understanding of energy, electronics, and magnetics and you clearly have shown no desire to learn and improve yourself. You are satisfied with your kindergarten-level of (mis)understanding and you have no mastery of the concepts and proper units to use when you discuss these things but that doesn't bother you at all. You are basically akin to a Rosemary Ainslie when it comes to this type of research and experimentation and I don't get any sense that that's going going to change over time. You can make a few coherent statements from time to time but they are the exception not the norm.
That's the reality as I see it and you are clearly doing nothing more then disrupting this forum and you seem to think that I am a good target for your ongoing inanity.
It's not a happy picture. Perhaps you should just crack open a beer and watch the game on TV instead?
MileHigh
@Conradelektro,
You need to discharge a nice size capacitor through the coil to permanently "Impulse magnetize" the iron plate along with the filings. Understand DUMBKOPF. You two knaves are just taking another shortcut around me!
Conrad:
QuoteWe use DC current.
- Lets say, I build two identical coils (dimensions, wire diameter, number of turns and core are the same).
- But the wire of one coil has a slightly higher resistance. So after the coils are wound, I measure the DC resistance and see that one coil has 60 Ohm and the other 80 Ohm DC resistance (just hypothetically, let's say the copper used for one wire had more impurities).
- So I put 60 Volt over one coil (the one with 60 Ohm DEC resistance) and 80 Volt over the other coil (the one with 80 Ohm DC resistance).
- Through both coils 1 Ampere will flow (U = R*I , 80 = 80 *1, 60 = 60 * 1) , therefore the two coils will produce the same magnetic field.
I am confirming for you that you are correct.
MileHigh
The Tesla series bifilar has 250,000 times the hi-voltage potential between the wraps. This is the power the impulse couples with in the pancake to transmute the iron into a higher isotope! The two of you meatheads are just proving yourselves to be nothing more then a couple of nitwits in front of everybody again!
Myself, impersonating "Cyrano de Bergerac", finest swordsman in all of France, once again challenges you pedantic knaves to insure another wager with LLoyds of London! I knew you chumps would fall flat on your faces again like a couple of suckers!
Conrad:
Okay, I have a very simple and effective test for you that will allow you to make a quite accurate comparison of the relative generated field strengths of the two types of coils when you pass current through them.
Here is the basic idea for the test: You know that the coil will deflect a compass needle by a certain angle at some predefined distance and geometry for a certain amount of current flowing through the coil. So all that you have to do is an A-B comparison between the two coils where you have the same physical setup (geometry) and the same current running through the two coils. You can make the test for the compass needle deflection at one of more predefined distance and geometry configurations, it's up to you. Will the two coils deflect the compass needle by the same amount for the same current? That is the question. If they do, then they are producing the same magnetic field.
Sound simple enough? With the properly chosen setup(s) (distance and geometry) you will be able to make a very good A-B comparison test for magnetic field strength and direction between the two coils. This will be a quite definitive test and should be quite easy to do. We know that your two coils (monofilar and bifilar, pancake or solenoid) will have the same number of turns and the same geometry, which is exactly what we need for this test.
Okay, that was the preamble, let me do a separate posting with the actual test.
MileHigh
I could do the first magnetic field test with my compass.
- The compass is place in front of the pab cake coil (always in the same position and height) for both coils.
- When there is no current through the coil, the compass needle points true North (black number 270, red number 48).
- When there is current through the coil, the compass needle is deviated East (black number 315, red number 56)
- The compass needle moves in the opposite direction if the current flows through the coil in the reverse direction (plus and minus switched).
And of course, it is the same for both coils. Again there is no difference between bifilar and monofilar coil.
The laboratory power supply is set to 13.5 Volt, there is a 100 Ohm resistor between the coil and the the power supply (to limit the current to 135 mA, DC resistance of both coils is 0.4 Ohm). The current is the same through both coils.
I set the power supply to 13.5 Volt because the compass needle then moves to a number (not somewhere in between the numbers on the compass scale)
So far, the only difference detected between the bifilar and the monofilar coil is the self resonance frequency (and consequently the self capacitance).
Bifilar coil: self resonance at 3.9 MHz to 4 MHZ (self capacitance 45 pF to 49 pF)
Monofilar coil: self resonance at 8,5 MHz to 9 MHz (self capacitance (8 pF to 10 pF)
More magnetic field tests tomorrow.
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad:
Okay, let's assume that a vertical orientation on your monitor for purposes of this posting is equivalent to magnetic north-south. Up is north and down is south. Left is west and right is east.
I will simply use "(C)" for the compass.
I am going to use arbitrary simplified vales for the variables to illustrate the example. The actual values for the variables (current level, distance between coil under test and the compass, the angles of deflection of the compass) will be up to you.
We are going state the following:
1. It is very important to align the test setup along the magnetic north-south of the Earth.
2. Zero amperes through the coil will deflect the compass by zero degrees from magnetic north.
3. One ampere through the coil will deflect the compass by roughly 80 degrees from magnetic north.
4. The distance between the pancake coil and the compass will be 30 cm.
5. The fist thing you do is find a convenient table to put the compass on where it is magnetically undisturbed and points towards magnetic north. You want to keep the compass away from other potential sources of magnetic field.
6. Optionally, you can place the compass on a small block of wood or something similar so the compass is at the same height as the axis of your pancake coil.
Here is the top-view of the test configuration.
-----------------------------------------------------------
North
[]
[]
[] <----- 30 cm ------> (C)
[]
[]
South
-----------------------------------------------------------
The test:
When you put the same current through each coil for the same setup you should see the same amount of compass deflection for the two coils. If you try a few different current levels and a few different distances/geometries and get the same results then you will have definitively proven that the two coil configurations generate the same strength of magnetic field.
Understanding the compass deflection:
The compass will be aligned with the ambient magnetic field. The two sources for the ambient magnetic field are the Earth (north-south) and the coil under test (east-west). Magnetic fields add like vectors so the compass will simply be showing you the vector addition between the two sources of magnetic field.
The addition of the two magnetic field vectors produces a diagonal field vector so the compass will be at some diagonal offset from magnetic north. If you have graticule markings on the compass you will be able to make very accurate readings of the compass deflection.
Note that it would take "infinite current" flowing trough the coil to make the compass needle deflect by 90 degrees because of the vector addition. That's why I arbitrarily stated that the compass would deflect by "80 degrees for one ampere of current flow."
The closer the deflection of the compass needle to 90 degrees the more "coarse" the measurement is because you are losing your "differential measurement sensitivity" and hence there is less information there. I would suggest that you keep your compass deflection measurements between zero and 80 degrees or less.
There is nothing stopping you from putting high current through the coils for a perhaps 10 seconds so the compass reading can stabilize. Naturally you can decide how far the distance will be between the coil under test and the compass and that will allow you to use lower current levels if you want to.
If you do choose to do the test have fun!
MileHigh
Conrad:
I can see that you already did a basic test. I just tried to formalize the test in my long description to make it (hopefully) clear for anyone that wants to make some relative magnetic field strength tests between two or more coils.
MileHigh
P.S.: You have a beautiful compass!
@MileHigh:
Thank for outlining a test in such a precise way. I will do this test tomorrow in exactly the way you designed.
You will see my post about a magnetic field test I did just now. I hope it was executed in the right way. (I am tired right now and have not yet carefully studied your test proposal, but I will tomorrow.)
And I will make a video about the magnetic field test. This will help all interested forum members to see what I did. Hopefully I will get many suggestions and constructive criticism.
MileHigh has now become the official educator of the OU forum. All his predictions came true and all his suggestions and improvements worked like a charm. I personally made a great leap forward in my understanding of basic concepts.
Good night, Conrad
I'm ready to clean both you clowns out on a gram of iron filings per joule of capacitor discharge magnetic attraction comparison between the two coils. I'm willing to bet any amount of money that I get a higher weight to power ratio with the Tesla series bifilar pancake. Come on now and try and pretend the coil has no magic! All those test results are completely inane and have nothing whatsoever to do with the coils true purpose as an "Impulse Magnetizer".
Quote from: synchro1 on January 12, 2014, 07:01:47 PM
I'm ready to clean both you clowns out on a gram of iron filings per joule of capacitor discharge magnetic attraction comparison between the two coils. I'm willing to bet any amount of money that I get a higher weight to power ratio with the Tesla series bifilar pancake. Come on now and try and pretend the coil has no magic! All those test results are completely inane and have nothing whatsoever to do with the coils true purpose as an "Impulse Magnetizer".
Your right. Just applying dc, especially low voltage, if your not looking for it, you wont see it. ;)
45pf, you better be looking for very high freq initial spike at the time of applying the dc, not just looking at the DC magnetic field after the spike.
Oh well. Cheap tests. Cheap results. ::) Testing pancakes such as shown, the motor better be running somewhere below FM radio freq of rotation. Doing low freq or dc tests on a coil that is designed for radio freq doesnt make any sense to me. ??? ::) And then to say the results are conclusive when it comes to the difference between bifi and normal coils is only half baked. ???
Just made a second bobbin to match a coil I have(normal 1 strand, 42awg, 5kohm, 1.6h 2 1/4 dia, 1/8 in thick) to make an equal bifi for comparison. The normal coil lights an led with a slow pass of a mag.
Will be using a primary pulse coil of 2 turns on the outer diameter for testing.
Mags
Mags is right.
An electro-magnet is not defined only as something that is used to pick stuff up. (like with a magnet on a crane). An generator can have electro-magnets and they can be excited at a frequency, it's not restricted to Continuous Direct Current. Nor is the patent about spiral coils only, all coils are included.
The patent to me looks to be about using frequency. There are several references to it. But I don't see any reference to the field strength when excited by Continuous DC.
The patent is about negating the self inductance of the coil by exciting it at or around it's self resonant frequency, and that by winding it in the way described the self resonant frequency is lower and so easier to achieve.
In the very second post of this thread I showed the Coil For Electro-Magnets has a much lower self resonant frequency. As the patent says it would have a lower self resonant frequency for the same length, of the same wire, on the same core, I believe that is the object of the patent. If self resonance was wanted in a field magnet then we would simply use a capacitor nowadays. But it could maybe be done without the capacitor by using a Coil For Electro-Magnets, if the field was to be excited at a constant frequency it could be viable.
Everything outside of the scope of the patent is irrelevant to this topic as far as I see it. But please continue off topic what do I care.
..
Here's a thought. In a motor or generator with the field magnet coils self inductance negated by either a conventional modern external capacitor or by using a Coil For Electro-Magnets then I would imagine there would be an improvement to the Power Factor. Would there not ? Which would equate to an improvement in efficiency I guess.
..
Regular Field Magnet coil tuned with external capacitor = Coil For Electro-Magnets field magnet coil wound to order for the intended frequency (no capacitor).
More real power less reactive power. :) The way to better efficiency.
..
I've got a transformer with eight primaries, four sets wound as double windings that can be configured as series connected bifilar coils, one each quarter. When one coil from two opposite quarters are connected in series (they are not bifilar like that) they measure 1.34 mH. I'll make some measurements and formulate an experiment in line with the patent to determine what external capacitor I would need to get self resonance at the same frequency as when the coils are connected as in the patent with no external capacitor.
..
Was thinking of the Leedskalnin magnet holder. If we have a U core with a bar core to close the end, a normal coil will produce a certain amount of field in the core to hold the bar core to the U core. So if the bifi produces a higher initial field, the cores should lock in more than the normal coil. To find out, there would have to be a very specific and exact way of repeatedly being able to break the bar from the U, to measure the amount of output a pickup coil produces, or use weight to break the magnetic bond. Then there should be a difference in how much weight it takes to break the bond.
Mags
Quote from: Farmhand on January 12, 2014, 09:55:14 PM
Here's a thought. In a motor or generator with the field magnet coils self inductance negated by either a conventional modern external capacitor or by using a Coil For Electro-Magnets then I would imagine there would be an improvement to the Power Factor. Would there not ? Which would equate to an improvement in efficiency I guess.
If the car Tesla made had an AC induction motor, its possible that it was wound bifi, and its possible the coils in the motor were a large component of oscillation. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on January 12, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Your right. Just applying dc, especially low voltage, if your not looking for it, you wont see it. ;)
45pf, you better be looking for very high freq initial spike at the time of applying the dc, not just looking at the DC magnetic field after the spike.
@Mags:
What do you mean by "very high freq initial spike". Please look at the drawing, I think you meant a "pulse of short duration"? Do you mean that one should send a short pulse through the pan cake coil? If you mean that, what should be the "astonishing effect"?
Again, I am not criticising, just trying to understand and later on trying to reproduce the alleged effect.
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: A measurement can not be cheap, it can only be correct or incorrect. Why the insults? I am not attacking, I am measuring and then I am being attacked.
Quote from: Farmhand on January 12, 2014, 09:55:14 PM
The patent to me looks to be about using frequency. There are several references to it. But I don't see any reference to the field strength when excited by Continuous DC.
The patent is about negating the self inductance of the coil by exciting it at or around it's self resonant frequency, and that by winding it in the way described the self resonant frequency is lower and so easier to achieve.
@Farmhand:
I showed that my bifilar pan cake coil has a lower
self resonance frequency than my monofilar pan cake coil (bifilar ~ 4 MHz, monofilar ~ 9 MHz).
From this follows that the bifilar pan cake coil has a higher
self capacitance than the monofilar pan cake coil (bifilar ~45 pF, monofilar ~ 9 pF).
The
inductance of both my pan cake coils is ~34 µH.
What do you mean by "negating the self inductance of the coil by exciting it at or around it's self resonant frequency"? What is "self inductance"?
I excited both coils around their self resonance frequency and they behave like all coils. (The reactance increases which can be seen as a rise of the Voltage over the coil.)
What should happen in a bifilar pan cake coil when it is excited at its resonance frequency?
What should happen in a monofilar pan cake coil when it is excited at its resonance frequency?Again, I am not criticising, just trying to understand so that I can measure an alleged effect.
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: I am not off topic, I just measure systematically to separate the known from the unknown.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 13, 2014, 06:06:22 AM
What is "self inductance"?
It's just inductance. Old terminology perhaps.
I've read the start of the thread. Gyula did a good job of answering the questions I think.
When Tesla's patent was issued - there was no 'standard' - no 50/60Hz grid. It was all new. The generators to drive the electromagnets would have been specially made - and presumably geared to run at the resonant frequency of the coil.
I think a parallel-tank is the best way to run an AC electromagnet - because it minimises power usage when there's no load. Just like an induction heater only draws current when the metal is inserted into the coil... So Tesla's coils make a parallel tank - without needing extra capacitors. It's a clever solution...
New video about the magnetic field measurement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCEqnX1JsGw&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCEqnX1JsGw&feature=youtu.be)
What I can do: pulses, pulse trains
What I can not do: Terahertz diodes, spinning a rotor at radio frequency
So, the magnetic field in normal circumstances (a DC current flows through coil) seems to be identical.
Is there an other magnetic field which is not caused by a DC current?
If an AC current flows through the coil the magnetic field will have one polarity and then the opposite, but it will always be the "normal magnetic field" (just varying in intensity and direction)?
But I give everything the benefit of doubt, but please specify what has to be done to cause the magic? It must be clear and possible!
To certain people: Stop the insults, they do not produce magic in a bifilar coil.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: Magluvin on January 12, 2014, 10:16:55 PM
Was thinking of the Leedskalnin magnet holder. If we have a U core with a bar core to close the end, a normal coil will produce a certain amount of field in the core to hold the bar core to the U core. So if the bifi produces a higher initial field, the cores should lock in more than the normal coil. To find out, there would have to be a very specific and exact way of repeatedly being able to break the bar from the U, to measure the amount of output a pickup coil produces, or use weight to break the magnetic bond. Then there should be a difference in how much weight it takes to break the bond.
Mags
The bond break generates a pulse. RWG demonstrated his Leedskalnin PMH conserving then releasing the
"lock pulse" after two years. The precise measurement of the return power and comparison to original
"Lock pulse" input would be very interesting to explore.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 13, 2014, 10:40:11 AM
New video about the magnetic field measurement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCEqnX1JsGw&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCEqnX1JsGw&feature=youtu.be)
What I can do: pulses, pulse trains
What I can not do: Terahertz diodes, spinning a rotor at radio frequency
So, the magnetic field in normal circumstances (a DC current flows through coil) seems to be identical.
Is there an other magnetic field which is not caused by a DC current?
If an AC current flows through the coil the magnetic field will have one polarity and then the opposite, but it will always be the "normal magnetic field" (just varying in intensity and direction)?
But I give everything the benefit of doubt, but please specify what has to be done to cause the magic? It must be clear and possible!
To certain people: Stop the insults, they do not produce magic in a bifilar coil.
Greetings, Conrad
Look Conrad, I am an experimenter like you. I need a theory to help explain observed effects. One of those effects is the spontaneous charge in the magnet core bifilar LC tank while standing still. I used the hypothetical
"Bloch wall teraherz frequency" theory as a stepping stone towards better understanding of an overunity effect. The series bifilar has power transfer characteristics that make it a better choice in my view for the kind of power recovery I get from the "Synchro coil". I really can't be sure why it works the way it does. What I do know is that you spent time fashioning a fine prototype to test, and no one is insulting your expert technical skill and craftsmanship. I truly hope we can return to that experiment, fashion a resonant bifilar LC tank with an electrolytic capacitor, perhaps with a pico-farad cap in tandem to, fine tune the bifilar's self capacitance with the tank capacitor, and continue on with the positioning portion of the experiment which started out to be pretty exciting. We're trying to
"Pump the core magnets".
Hi Conrad,
I think Tesla found that the 'magic' of the bifilar pancake coil was it's ability as an antenna...
The fact that the coil is both the inductor and capacitor in the tank means that the electrostatic component isn't hidden inside a capacitor shell - so the antenna is both electromagnetic and electrostatic. (Not sure if you're aware, but there are such things as capacitive/es antennas...)
I think he found that you can drive them as purely capacitive / electrostatic - using very high voltage. And perhaps that's how he got the superluminal longitudinal waves... Assuming that he did...
I hear they also have high directivity. Also they can be manufactured and paired quite easily - simply by using the same length of wire...
Quote from: Magluvin on January 12, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Your right. Just applying dc, especially low voltage, if your not looking for it, you wont see it. ;)
45pf, you better be looking for very high freq initial spike at the time of applying the dc, not just looking at the DC magnetic field after the spike.
Oh well. Cheap tests. Cheap results. ::) Testing pancakes such as shown, the motor better be running somewhere below FM radio freq of rotation. Doing low freq or dc tests on a coil that is designed for radio freq doesnt make any sense to me. ??? ::) And then to say the results are conclusive when it comes to the difference between bifi and normal coils is only half baked. ???
Just made a second bobbin to match a coil I have(normal 1 strand, 42awg, 5kohm, 1.6h 2 1/4 dia, 1/8 in thick) to make an equal bifi for comparison. The normal coil lights an led with a slow pass of a mag.
Will be using a primary pulse coil of 2 turns on the outer diameter for testing.
Mags
gain 4 to 1:
http://alexfrolov.narod.ru/frolov_transformator.html
Quote from: tim123 on January 13, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
I think Tesla found that the 'magic' of the bifilar pancake coil was it's ability as an antenna...
Do you mean, the bifilar coil is a better antenna than the monofilar coil?
When doing the "self resonance measurements" with an exciter coil ( see http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382408/#msg382408 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382408/#msg382408) ) I saw that the exciter coil can be very far away from the pan cake coil (100 mm tp 150 mm). Is this an indication that a pan cake coil is a good antenna? What kind of experiment could one do in respect of "being a better antenna"? (Again comparing the monofilar and bifilar coil. Magic should be in the one and not in the other?)
Is this the claim: a bifilar pan cake coil is a better antenna than an equivalent monofilar coil?
Quote from: tim123 on January 13, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
The fact that the coil is both the inductor and capacitor in the tank means that the electrostatic component isn't hidden inside a capacitor shell - so the antenna is both electromagnetic and electrostatic. (Not sure if you're aware, but there are such things as capacitive/es antennas...)
When I do the "self resonance measurements" the bifilar coil is "inductor and capacitor" (no separate capacitor). The self capacitance which defines the self resonance frequency is the "hidden capacitor". But this is true for all coils? A coil is always an inductor and a capacitor (I mean its self capacitance).
Yes, the bifilar pan cake coil has a bigger "self capacitance" than an equivalent monofilar pan cake coil, but that is not magic, it might even be a flaw if you want higher frequencies. (A monofilar pan cake coil can be used at higher frequencies than an equivalent bifilar pan cake coil because it is not burdened with such a high "hidden capacitor".)
Yes, my bifilar pan cake coil can swing at 4 MHz without an external capacitor because it has a "hidden 45 pF internal capacitor". But my monofilar pan cake coil can swing at 9 MHz without an external capacitor because because it has a "hidden 9 pF internal capacitor". Where is the magic, only the "hidden capacitor" has a different value which causes the known consequences (like a certain self resonance frequency).
I am not criticising or ridiculing, I am asking "what is the magic"? The higher self capacitance is there, yes, but I see no consequences than the known ones. Every coil has a self capacitance, does the amount of self capacitance matter? Self capacitance matters in a known way (defines self resonance frequency), but does higher self capacitance bring in a principally new feature or effect?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 13, 2014, 06:06:22 AM
@Farmhand:
I showed that my bifilar pan cake coil has a lower self resonance frequency than my monofilar pan cake coil (bifilar ~ 4 MHz, monofilar ~ 9 MHz).
From this follows that the bifilar pan cake coil has a higher self capacitance than the monofilar pan cake coil (bifilar ~45 pF, monofilar ~ 9 pF).
The inductance of both my pan cake coils is ~34 µH.
What do you mean by "negating the self inductance of the coil by exciting it at or around it's self resonant frequency"? What is "self inductance"?
I excited both coils around their self resonance frequency and they behave like all coils. (The reactance increases which can be seen as a rise of the Voltage over the coil.)
What should happen in a bifilar pan cake coil when it is excited at its resonance frequency?
What should happen in a monofilar pan cake coil when it is excited at its resonance frequency?
Again, I am not criticising, just trying to understand so that I can measure an alleged effect.
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: I am not off topic, I just measure systematically to separate the known from the unknown.
Same thing will happen with both except with the bifilar it will happen at a lower frequency. As you've shown.
Negating the self inductance means that the current will flow with nothing more than the DC resistance of the wire.
It's all explained in the patent. And it's pretty much all the patent is about.
I think a distinction needs to made between exciting a coil
at or about it's resonant frequency, and
exciting a coil to resonance.
Self inductance as seen by the supply. When we power factor correct an inductance we add a capacitance to stop the
false currents or reactive power. Basically we tune the inductance/capacitance so its resonance under load is at about the applied frequency.
No magic, just a use. If you want a higher frequency you would not do it, same as you would not use a capacitor if it caused the frequency to be too low, that is also in the patent.
Saying it isn't so is calling Tesla a liar. And saying the patent examiner was wrong to grant the patent.
QuoteIn electric apparatus or systems in which alternating currents are employed the self induction of the coils or conductors may, and, in fact, in many cases does operate disadvantageously by giving rise to false currents which often reduce what is known as the commercial efficiency of the apparatus' composing the system or operate detrimentally in other respects. The effects of self-induction, above referred to, are known to be neutralized by proportioning to a proper degree the capacity of the circuit with relation to the self induction and frequency of the currents. This has been accomplished heretofore by the use of condensers constructed and applied as separate instruments.
My present invention has for its object to avoid the employment of condensers which are expensive, cumbersome and difficult to maintain in perfect condition, and to so construct the coils themselves as to accomplish the same ultimate object.
I would here state that by the term coils I desire to include generally helices, solenoids, or, in fact, any conductor the different parts of which by the requirements of its application or use are brought into such relations with each other as to materially increase the self-induction.
l have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that frequency. It is wellknown that the higher the frequency or potential diierence of the current the smaller the capacity required to counteract the selfinduction; hence, in any coil, however small the capacity', it may be sufficient for the purpose stated if the proper conditions in other respects be secured. In the ordinary coils the difference of potential between adjacent turns ror spires is ,very small, so that while they are in a sense condensers, they possess but very small capacity and the relations between the two quantities, self-induction and capacity, are not such as under any ordinary conditions satisfy the requirements herein contemplated, because the capacity relatively to the self-induction is very small.
Cheers
@Farmhand: thank you for taking the time to explain. I think you read the patent correctly, it says just that. But one has to read attentively and with some background knowledge to get it.
Just to check that I understood correctly I make up a hypothetical example.
Let's take my two pan cake coils (the monofilar has a self capacitance of 9 pF and the bifilar has a self capacitance of 45 pF):
- the supplied or applied frequency is 4 MHz (I just make that up to have an example)
- in order to "power factor" correctly we have two possibilities:
A) we take the monofilar pan cake coil and add a 36 pF capacitor (9 + 36 = 45 pF) so that it resonates at 4 MHz
B) we take the bifilar pan cake coil which is in resonance with 4 Megahertz without adding any capacitor because its self capacitance happens to be 45 pF
- Alternative B) is cheaper because we do not need to buy a capacitor.
- if the supplied or applied frequency were 2 MHz we would need a capacitor for both of my pan cake coils in order to "power factor" correctly (from my many experiments with my pan cake coils I happen to know that we need a 100 pF cap for the monofilar and a 74 pF cap for the bifilar pan cake coil to make them resonate at 2 MHz)
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 13, 2014, 01:34:28 PM
Is this the claim: a bifilar pan cake coil is a better antenna than an equivalent monofilar coil?
No claim as such, just a thought... If it's acting as a capacitive antenna - then the increased capacitance would probably help by making a bigger electrostatic field.
I think it's interesting that he did use this coil config for power transmitting & communications experiments too. He obviously developed it for the application described, and then found it useful for other things...
I made a new exciter coil with 4 turns (see the attached photo) which is now in the right orientation in respect to the pan cake coil. Because it is fixed to a central plastic bolt of the pan cake coils it can be mounted at exactly the same position at both pan cake coils.
Measurements gave about the same results as in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spQ9yLdb7v4&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spQ9yLdb7v4&feature=youtu.be)
In addition I tried the "Inductor Capacitance and Inductance Estimation with the two frequencies method" according to this web site http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html (http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html) (with the new exciter coil and two different tank capacitors).
This method needs two measurements with two different tank capacitors (see the attached drawing). The estimate for the inductance is pretty good, also for the self capacitance of the bifilar coil. The self capacitance of the monofilar is estimated a bit low (2 pF instead of 7 pF to 9 pF).
The 1 pF decoupling capacitor (for the scope probe) is very important, the "two frequencies method or estimation" gives very bad results without it. All measurement methods need the 1 pF decoupling cap to work well. The involved frequencies are high enough (about 1 MHz to 9 MHz) to be disturbed by the scope probes input capacitance of about 100 pF.
This concludes the measurement of
- induction ~34 µH for both pan cake coils (with a LCR-meter and the "two frequencies estimate")
- self resonance (bifilar coil ~4 MHz, monofilar ~ 9 MHz) and the resulting self capacitance (bifilar ~45 pF, monofilar ~7 pF) with two methods:
* the classical method (resistor in series with the pan cake coil see video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC84W0PIZoE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC84W0PIZoE)
* the exciter coil method (see video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spQ9yLdb7v4&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spQ9yLdb7v4&feature=youtu.be) and attached drawing and photo)
Together with the spin tests (pick up coil quality) and the magnetic field measurement (video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCEqnX1JsGw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCEqnX1JsGw)) we now have already some tangible facts about pan cake coils (bifilar and monofilar).
The magic difference is still elusive. What is the magic difference or the magic effect (in understandable terms, I know about the Voltage between neighbouring wires and the difference in self capacitance)? How can the magic be measured (without exotic equipment)?
I will work a bit on my 12 V motor spinner (new coupling between motor and axis carrying the ring magnet, should then do 10.000 rpm) and will prepare forms for helical coils (one bifilar the other monofilar, otherwise identical).
Does it make sense to start with "one layer helical coils" or should I go directly to helical coils with many layers of windings? The core will be 10 mm and can then be in a changeable way an air core, a Ferrite core and a soft iron core (bundle of iron wire sticks).
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 13, 2014, 05:57:34 AM
@Mags:
What do you mean by "very high freq initial spike". Please look at the drawing, I think you meant a "pulse of short duration"? Do you mean that one should send a short pulse through the pan cake coil? If you mean that, what should be the "astonishing effect"?
Again, I am not criticising, just trying to understand and later on trying to reproduce the alleged effect.
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: A measurement can not be cheap, it can only be correct or incorrect. Why the insults? I am not attacking, I am measuring and then I am being attacked.
"What do you mean by "very high freq initial spike"
With the capacitance of the coil, the initial current is high, even with DC input. The coils capacitance takes on initial current regardless of inductance, and only lasts for 1 half of the resonant cycle. So at 4mhz, the scope would have to be set up to see it. ;) If the source is a batt, then a cap across the batt should show a bit higher spike than batt alone, giving a more immediate input as batts cant discharge as much immediate current as a cap.
Say if we have a cap and coil in series and apply dc, the inductance of the coil will impede charging the cap. ;) So having the capacitance in the coil is a bit special. ;D
"P.S.: A measurement can not be cheap, it can only be correct or incorrect. Why the insults? I am not attacking, I am measuring and then I am being attacked."
The measurement advice you followed was concocted to show nothing special. ;) Especially with coils that would be impossible to get into resonance using a pulse motor and way out of range for seeing anything with DC testing without really looking. The tests were what they were. You were just 'following' instructions that were not from the person who gave you the coil designs to test. ;) And you found nothing special. ;)
There is no 'magic'. It all can be defined. The bifi gives us options that are not exactly the same as separate components.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on January 13, 2014, 06:36:37 PM
With the capacitance of the coil, the initial current is high, even with DC input. The coils capacitance takes on initial current regardless of inductance, and only lasts for 1 half of the resonant cycle.
................ So at 4mhz, the scope would have to be set up to see it. ..................
If the source is a batt, then a cap across the batt should show a bit higher spike than batt alone, giving a more immediate input as batts cant discharge as much immediate current as a cap.
Say if we have a cap and coil in series and apply dc, the inductance of the coil will impede charging the cap. ;) So having the capacitance in the coil is a bit special. ;D
What exactly should be seen by the scope and how should it be set? (I am talking about the difference between my monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils. The "synchro coil" is no longer on my agenda and not part of this thread, it needs a different type of person than me. You could do a "synchro coil", you seem to believe in it.)
Quote from: Magluvin on January 13, 2014, 06:36:37 PM
The measurement advice you followed was concocted to show nothing special. ;) Especially with coils that would be impossible to get into resonance using a pulse motor and way out of range for seeing anything with DC testing without really looking. The tests were what they were. You were just 'following' instructions that were not from the person who gave you the coil designs to test. ;) And you found nothing special. ;)
So, give measurement instructions! What should be measured and how? (I am talking about the difference between my monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils.)
What wrong instructions have been given in connection with my monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils and their measurement?
Greetings, Conrad
Was putting some thoughts together today.
Below, once more, Im posting the pdf that explains how flux propagates through a closed transformer core(toroid). Helps to understand the second pdf.
The next pdf shows how to add a second magnetic circuit with the secondary that when you load the secondary, the input currents actually go down. No magic here. And no extra power out as the pdf states. But, what the pdf does claim is that loading the secondary wont kill off the 'resonance' of the primary. ??? ;D
I have tested the dual core and yes it does decrease the input of the primary when the sec is loaded due to 'increasing' inductance of the primary instead of the standard which decreases primary inductance when the sec is loaded, but output power is no more than the input. I still have to test a bifi primary here to see if resonance of the primary is not killed off by a loaded sec.
In my experience, when we apply an input to a resonant circuit, we see higher voltages than the input itself at resonance. But direct loading kills of the resonance.
But here with the dual core setup in the second pdf, we may be able to take advantage of that resonant rise without killing it off with loading of the sec. ;)
Mags
Quote from: conradelektro on January 13, 2014, 06:54:25 PM
What exactly should be seen by the scope and how should it be set? (I am talking about the difference between my monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils. The "synchro coil" is no longer on my agenda and not part of this thread, it needs a different type of person than me. You could do a "synchro coil", you seem to believe in it.)
So, give measurement instructions! What should be measured and how? (I am talking about the difference between my monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils.)
What wrong instructions have been given in connection with my monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils and their measurement?
Greetings, Conrad
"What exactly should be seen by the scope and how should it be set? (I am talking about the difference between my monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils."
With a straight DC application to the coil, the scope would have to trigger and show the initial current flow. This would be a 1 shot scope shot. Cuz after that, its just a DC trace.
Me personally, I have no use for coils that work in the radio range. Not that someone might be able to use them for something, but I tend to like below 100khz. And if we are interested in using bifi in a motor, the coil needs lots of turns. Im surprised you were able to measure actual capacitance of the normal coil. My 'meters' tend to show quite high capacitance of a regular coil, of which is not accurate. The only way I know of is to calculate using freq of resonance and inductance to get accurate capacitance. Maybe some meters can measure it. Of the 3 I have, I cannot.
The more turns of a regular coil, the more the capacitance between the 2 leads of the coil is just a bunch of series capacitances between turns. In a bifi coil, the more turns is directly related to an increase in parallel capacitance between the bifi turns.
So the differences between your coils(in the uh and pf) seem like nothing special. But the more turns, the more of a difference you should see.
Say we have a 2 turn coil. It can be considered a normal coil. But it is also the exact definition of Teslas bifi. Example, if we apply 10v across the 2 turn coil, at any point on the 2 turn coil we can measure 5v difference from 1 turn to the next. 1/2 the input.
So now say we have a 10 turn coil, normal and bifi coils. The normal coil, 10 turns, with 10v across the coil, we can measure any adjacent turns and we will see 1v, but the bifi will see 5v.
100 turns, normal coil .1v between adjacent turns, bifi still 5v between adjacent turns.
So the more turns, the more the difference. 1000 turns, .01v between adjacent turns, bifi 1000 turns, still 5v between adjacent turns. That 5v between turns(capacitive) is a heck of a lot more energy than .01v between the yet smaller capacitance of the normal coil.
So, though they are very nice coils you have made, they will show minimal differences compared to many turn coils. In the pat, I and some others believe the illustration of pancakes was to easily describe that actual wiring differences. Simple to see. And the pat states that the bifi can be configured to any style of coil.
"So, give measurement instructions! What should be measured and how? (I am talking about the difference between my monofilar and bifilar pan cake coils.)"
Explained above. What we are interested in is working the coils at resonance. Not below, nor above freq of resonance.
"The "synchro coil" is no longer on my agenda and not part of this thread, it needs a different type of person than me. You could do a "synchro coil", you seem to believe in it.)"
I dont believe in the Syncro coil 'yet'. Have I stated that somewhere? I have not tried it. But if I did, I would make sure I replicated it to spec to try to get the most accurate comparable results as possible. Any difference could throw things way off and may not work at all. I would like to see more before I delve into it. I asked you earlier about Syncros accusation that you didnt test the Synchrocoil properly, but no response. He claims you didnt use the diode. I can see why you got nothing into the cap. Did you use the cap or just a resistor load? If it is very high freq ac, even very low voltage, the cap alone would need to be very tiny and equipment to have the ability to read such AC ghz on the cap. With the diode, the coil would charge the cap with dc, which would make it easier to 'see' what is in the cap without special equipment. From what I understand.
Mags
Quote from: conradelektro on January 13, 2014, 06:15:10 PM
The magic difference is still elusive. What is the magic difference or the magic effect (in understandable terms, I know about the Voltage between neighbouring wires and the difference in self capacitance)? How can the magic be measured (without exotic equipment)?
Who in this thread is claiming 'magic'? I didnt post the word magic. Did synchro state the word 'magic'?
Hmm, who else here used the word 'magic' in this thread? hmmm
Mags
@Magluvin,
Here's the "Synchro Coil" Conradelektro tested, modified by Milehigh. They wonder why I'm furious with them!
Quote from: synchro1 on January 13, 2014, 09:12:08 PM
@Magluvin,
Here's the "Synchro Coil" Conradelektro tested, modified by Milehigh. They wonder why I'm furious with them!
Hey Sync
Where is the diode and cap? You have 2 resistors in parallel across the coil. Or is that the way they tested it?
Mags
Conrad:
Note that the patent was written in the 19th century. It's possible that the word "electromagnet" was used in the title of the patent just so people, the patent examiners, could relate to it and have some frame of reference. Think if in 1975 you wanted to patent the concept of the "smartphone." People would not understand, the cell phone network did not exist and nobody imagined that you could have a computer in you pocket with a "Jetson's" display. (A children's cartoon about a family living in the distant future where everything is automated and there are domestic robots and flying cars.) So chances are your patent application in 1975 for a "smartphone" would be rejected because the patent examiners would have no frame of reference. If you called it a "miniature walkie talkie with a miniature cathode ray TV tube" your patent might be granted.
People in the 19th century understood that there were "electromagnets" in telegraph machines and phone bell ringers but that's about it. They had no concept or understanding of the term "inductance" and therefore had no frame of reference. That's my theory.
The Tesla patent is akin to the patent for the transistor. It's a piece of technology that all alone does not do much. We know that you can do countless applications with transistors working in tandem with other components. The question is can something analogous be said about the Tesla bifilar coil? That's a key question.
With respect to the patent. It says when the coil is excited at the resonance frequency, the self-inductance (i.e.; inductance) goes away and it simply will conduct the AC like the coil has "disappeared" and the only impedance that you see is the pure wire resistance.
If you look up "parallel LC circuit" and "series LC circuit" you will see that the parallel LC circuit has infinite impedance at the resonance frequency and the series LC circuit has zero impedance at the resonance frequency.
What that means is the assumption that we have been working with is that the capacitance inherent in the series bifilar coil is acting like a parallel LC circuit. That's what your test shows when you see the maximum voltage across the coil in series with a resistor.
The interesting thing is that Tesla's patent models the coil as a series LC circuit. i.e.; when you make the measurement of the voltage across the coil in series with a resistor you should measure zero.
So it's interesting that apparently nobody (that I am aware of around here) has been able to actually confirm what the patent says by testing an inductor. That doesn't mean it can't be done. I think that it's fair to say that discovering a frequency where the inductor acts like a series LC circuit is possible, but elusive and difficult.
So possibly right now on this forum nobody has successfully replicated the patent! People have replicated and observed parallel LC resonant behaviour in their series bifilar coils but they haven't replicated and observed series LC resonant behaviour in their series bifilar coils.
MileHigh
Conrad:
I just watched your clip. So the strength of the magnetic field generated by both types of coils is the same.
Now we all recall Synchro1 stating that the electromagnet test where he picks up paperclips would show that the bifilar coil would outperform the regular coil. There were a lot of big boasts and grandiose claims. That test was also a DC test. The test you did in your clip was essentially the same test.
The idea of starting with learning and verifying basic concepts and then building up from there is a fundamental technique for learning, and it applies to electronics also.
Congratulations on a great test. This was a test with fine granularity in measuring the strength of the magnetic field. That's in contrast to the paperclip test that was very rough in granularity, too rough to generate any serious data.
MileHigh
P.S.: It looks like you have a real bench power supply. You have two knobs, one for current and one for voltage. That means that the power supply can act as a voltage source, or also as a current source.
To configure the power supply as a current source, turn the current knob all the way counter-clockwise to zero. Connect the coil to the power supply, and also put a multimeter in series set to display current measurement. You do not need a series resistor. Then turn the voltage knob all the way clockwise to the maximum.
Then slowly turn up the current knob and observe how you can control the amount of current that flows through the coil. It's as simple as that. Careful if you open the circuit the power supply in current mode the voltage will jump to the maximum. Note that means in theory to turn a current source power supply "off" you put a short circuit across the terminals.
Conrad:
When you add more turns to a series bifilar coil, you get more inter-coil voltage and more capacitance. However, you are also getting more inductance. It's the relative proportions between the inductance and capacitance that define a characteristic of the coil. The coil gets bigger and the resonance frequency goes down.
In terms of relative proportions, the inductance remains the elephant, and the capacitance remains the fly on the back of the elephant. The elephant and the fly get larger and smaller in tandem, and their relative proportions remain about the same. It's the same thing in real life. A small stiff metal spring self-resonates at a high frequency. A larger much much stiffer metal spring also self-resonates, but at a lower frequency. There is an (electrical <-> mechanical) analogy that goes both ways.
Looking forward to see what you do next.
MileHigh
Normal coil 100 turns 100v 1v between adjacent turns
Bifi coil 100 turns 100v 50v between adjacent turns
Normal coil 1000 turns 100v .1v between adjacent turns
Bifi coil 1000 turns 100v 50v between adjacent turns
Normal coil 2 turns 100v 50v between adjacent turns
Bifi coil 2 turns 100v 50v between adjacent turns
The more turns a normal coil is, the less significant its capacitance becomes as the potential difference becomes less and less between the adjacent turns, and between these adjacent turns is where the capacitance is.
Normal coil 5000 turns, 1kv .2v between adjacent turns
Bifi coil 5000 turns 1kv 500v between adjacent turns.
How many people reading here can realize the difference? ;) Charge a small cap with .2v and charge a larger cap with 500v. We all should know the difference between what .2v and what 500v can do into the same resistance, or even an inductance. 2 coils, same turns, same dimensions, same wire. Just wired differently.
Mags
Quote from: conradelektro on January 13, 2014, 03:49:34 PM
@Farmhand: thank you for taking the time to explain. I think you read the patent correctly, it says just that. But one has to read attentively and with some background knowledge to get it.
Just to check that I understood correctly I make up a hypothetical example.
Let's take my two pan cake coils (the monofilar has a self capacitance of 9 pF and the bifilar has a self capacitance of 45 pF):
- the supplied or applied frequency is 4 MHz (I just make that up to have an example)
- in order to "power factor" correctly we have two possibilities:
A) we take the monofilar pan cake coil and add a 36 pF capacitor (9 + 36 = 45 pF) so that it resonates at 4 MHz
B) we take the bifilar pan cake coil which is in resonance with 4 Megahertz without adding any capacitor because its self capacitance happens to be 45 pF
- Alternative B) is cheaper because we do not need to buy a capacitor.
- if the supplied or applied frequency were 2 MHz we would need a capacitor for both of my pan cake coils in order to "power factor" correctly (from my many experiments with my pan cake coils I happen to know that we need a 100 pF cap for the monofilar and a 74 pF cap for the bifilar pan cake coil to make them resonate at 2 MHz)
Greetings, Conrad
That's how I'm seeing it. I think as MileHigh says
a coil excited to parallel resonance unloaded and without losses will have an infinite impedance, however A coil excited at it's frequency where the Capacitance cancels the Inductance effects when under load would not actually be excited to resonance, just excited at the frequency of resonance,
not into resonance.
I think there is a miscommunication on that. As long as the reactive power is taken into the capacitor, turned into activity and does not return to the supply there is an advantage. This is well known.
Also if the coil is at resonance with it's own L/C then no currents should go back, only the losses are replaced with real power and so the false currents are mostly removed.
Yes going by the text it says the getting rid of false currents and efficiency is the object. And any coil will do the same thing.
An electromagnet is any conductor with a current flowing through it. No kidding. Tesla includes all coils in the patent as an example of the effect of the capacitance to the inductance.
So all coils which see current are electromagnets, and the patent is about winding the coils so that when the coils are excited at the correct frequency
the "effects" of self induction are cancelled, not the self induction itself, that is not cancelled only the unwanted effects of it.
..
A simple explanation of the two resonances.
In parallel LC resonance the impedance is infinity and no current flows. So that means as the source AC voltage varies and wants to put current through the circuit, the capacitor is "pushing back" with exactly the same voltage and no current can flow. As the source voltage drops, the capacitor voltage drops in tandem and is an equal and opposite mirror to the source voltage.
The capacitor "knows" that when the AC voltage drops below zero, it still has to "fight back" and resist the application of negative voltage from the source. So where does the capacitor get the means to generate the equal and opposite voltage? The answer is that the capacitor stored some energy in the inductor. As the source voltage drops below zero the capacitor starts to "drain" the inductor of energy and accumulate the required voltage to fight back. Or more accurately, the inductor is pumping up the voltage in the capacitor so that it has the means to fight back.
So you can look at the parallel LC circuit in resonance like a small amount of energy that cycles back and forth between the capacitor and the inductor that effectively blocks the circuit. It fights back with the equal and opposite voltage and no current flows as a result.
Too tired for the explanation for series LS circuit in resonance.
MileHigh
Well that pre-supposes that the energy remained in the L/C and there is no load. Does it not ?
If the energy is dissipated then the supply should see an empty capacitor not the Inductance.
We are talking about when the current flows not when it does not flow.
Similar to the "resonance" per se as in an Induction cooker I think.
OK then can you draw us a test circuit to excite the coil to series resonance then please ?
I'll guess the capacitor is just in series with the input, simple I'll try to find my original small coil set and do that.
..
OK so there is only really one way I can see to directly excite the "Coil For Electro-Magnets" without an external capacitor. Same goes for the regular coil, so I will have to use a series capacitor to try to excite the regular coil to the same frequency as the series connected bifilar coil.
How to excite a regular coil to series resonance without an external capacitance of some kind, just using the coil itself ?
Series capacitors also can help with power factor I think.
When I tune a resonant output transformer/Tesla coil to a load I adjust the L/C so as to get more current to flow, the systems use parallel resonance, but when fully loaded there is no "real resonance", some loads with enough capacitance can bring the output coil into better "resonance" both increasing the voltage in the tank and the current through the load. Sooooo. They can be tuned to high idle input power and lower loaded input power or tuned to low idle input power and higher loaded input power. Both I've shown elsewhere. Not exactly on topic as the "Coil For Electro-Magnets" is just a magnet/coil, not a transformer.
..
OK so I drew these drawings, the first one shows how I think the "Coil For Electro-Magnets" can only be excited directly in one way without an external capacitor and how I think one is needed to excite the regular coil to series resonance.
The second drawing with the Tesla coils I think shows both series and parallel resonance and how to me one is the other to look at in a drawing.
The output coil if there is no load in place has the capacitor in series and in parallel with the coil. Similar with the larger coils when looked at with the terminal capacitance considered.
.. Six of one, half a dozen of the other ? Looks like.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on January 14, 2014, 01:52:44 AM
An electromagnet is any conductor with a current flowing through it. No kidding. Tesla includes all coils in the patent as an example of the effect of the capacitance to the inductance.
So all coils which see current are electromagnets, and the patent is about winding the coils so that when the coils are excited at the correct frequency the "effects" of self induction are cancelled, not the self induction itself, that is not cancelled only the unwanted effects of it.
..
Okay i understand this, but then what is a coil, which does
not see a current ?
It is off topic, but I got accused of not testing synchro1's claim that a "synchro coil" produces electricity by just sitting there (and being connected to a capacitor via a fast diode).
Please see these posts (on the photo of both posts you see the diode and the capacitor on the breed board):
http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg381853/#msg381853
http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg381897/#msg381897
Greetings, Conrad
Why do people keep doing that?
And why do people keep injecting it into other topics?
Why do people want to believe?
It's better to find out.
Quote from: Turbo on January 14, 2014, 04:26:03 AM
Okay i understand this, but then what is a coil, which does not see a current ?
No one said the coil will not see a current.. Or did they, who is the post in response to. ?
Cheers
Quote from: conradelektro on January 14, 2014, 04:47:41 AM
It is off topic, but I got accused of not testing synchro1's claim that a "synchro coil" produces electricity by just sitting there (and being connected to a capacitor via a fast diode).
Please see these posts (on the photo of both posts you see the diode and the capacitor on the breed board):
http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg381853/#msg381853
http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg381897/#msg381897
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad, it's ok, you have every right to respond, it's actually my bad, I did say I was interested in discussing other uses. Feel free to continue, as long as there is some link there is relevance.
I apologize for the prior outburst about off topic and so on. I am not really one to talk about that as I go off topic regularly.
I do appreciate your input and you have shown similar experimental results to myself and others.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on January 14, 2014, 05:13:31 AM
No one said the coil will not see a current.. Or did they, who is the post in response to. ?
Cheers
It was in response to your quote:
QuoteAn electromagnet is any conductor with a current flowing through it.
Say you separate the voltage from the current, and you remove the current from the conductor or coil,
What is then a conductor or coil, that does not have a current flowing through it?
Quote from: Turbo on January 14, 2014, 05:29:03 AM
It was in response to your quote:
Say you separate the voltage from the current, and you remove the current from the conductor or coil,
What is then a conductor or coil, that does not have a current flowing through it?
A funny shaped piece of wire. Depends what you use it for. ??? I don't get it, no current no power, no current no magnetic field = no magnet.
Voltage causes current, no voltage no current.
.
IF MileHigh, Gyula, or TK would set out a testing scheme or direct me to where there is a testing scheme to show series resonance with the two different coil types, I'll follow it if I can. Until then I'll go ahead with my planned test.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on January 14, 2014, 05:34:56 AM
A funny shaped piece of wire. Depends what you use it for. ??? I don't get it, no current no power, no current no magnetic field = no magnet.
Voltage causes current, no voltage no current.
.
No current, no loss.
Maybe this is not the correct thread for me to respond either.
I just scanned the Patent and there is no mention of "resonance or resonant frequency ect." in the patent, so we can forget those "terms" in their strictest sense when talking of the patent.
Those are terms I used to describe the tuning of the capacitance to the Inductance, and is how I describe tuning a resonant system to a load. I would describe right or wrong that Power Factor correcting is tuning the system to resonance on load. Maybe it's wrong to say that but that is what I mean.
Actually I guess tuning a resonant system to a load to get the most power dissipated as possible is more like "Impedance matching".
I don't see anywhere in the patent itself where Tesla himself mentions resonance or resonant frequency ect., someone should have mentioned that. Better late than never I suppose.
..
From experiment with resonant setups like the one in the picture previous page, I can say that when at resonance if I add certain loads the input drops, the tank voltage drops, and the activity drops, but with a simple tuning of the output parallel tank the activity, the tank voltage and the output power can be controlled right up to max and the more activity and output the more input power it takes from the battery. If the setup is finely tuned that is.
..
How about placing a piece of flat steel in close proximity to the coil to simulate a load for testing ? Induction heater.
..
New video about the magnetic field strength of my two pan cake coil. Nothing new, I just used my power supply as a variable current source (as MileHigh taught me). So far I only used this "current feature" of my laboratory power supply to limit the current when testing new circuits (so that I did not fry too many transistors).
http://youtu.be/tvDUAcC1hbk (http://youtu.be/tvDUAcC1hbk)
@Farmhand, MileHigh and Turbo:
I really like the discussion of this Tesla patent and the related "resonance and capacitor issues" (series or parallel LC circuits; impedance) because I only have a very muddled understanding of it. I will take some time till I understand the many posts, but then I will be back with questions.
@Magluvin and all:
I think we all are aware of the "high Voltage between adjacent wire turn" issue when talking and thinking about bifilar coils. The crucial problem is to describe the actual consequences.
- The known consequence of the "higher Voltage between adjacent wire turns" in a bifilar coil is the higher self capacitance (and the resulting lower self resonance frequency of a bifilar coil compared to a similar monofilar coil). This is nothing new in principle and no other effects are described in accepted science.
- Now there is a lot of esoteric and hype (or magic as I cynically like to call it) about alleged effects. I would like that someone describes at least one of these "magical effects" in clear and measurable terms. What is this "additional feature" of a bifilar coil (in comparison to monofilar coils). (Please do not say it is the high Voltage between adjacent turns).
- I have the suspicion that many people talk and write about "additional features" but can not really say more about it than the tiring "high Voltage between adjacent wire turns". Yes, there is "high Voltage between adjacent wires", but what does it cause (besides higher self capacitance)?
- I want to measure "unique features" (magic) of bifilar coils (besides the tiring "high Voltage between adjacent turns" which results in a higher self capacitance), but I do not know what to measure and nobody could tell me so far? (Some say there is nothing special, which is o.k. But the ones who believe in something special in bifilar coils should describe the effect more clearly.)
Greetings, Conrad
Well, the way I measured the coils in the second post gave me a different result altogether than this time. I remeasured the two coils and got a much higher frequency this time for both because I used the 10 K resistor on the ground leg of the function generator this time. I'll take time as soon as possible to update that first post to add the second set of measurements and explain there.
Anyway this time using a sine wave signal at full amplitude on the signal generator I get a frequency showing maximum wave amplitude at about 2000 kHz for the bifilar coil and about 2300 kHz for the monofilar coil as is, both have an Inductance of about 400 uH. If I put 115 pF in series with the positive lead of the Function generator on the monofilar coil it changes to about the same as the bifilar coil at around 2000 kHz. A difference of about 300 kHz.
This is a bit odd because going by the calculator online here - http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/LC-Calculator.htm it would suggest a difference of only a few of pF between 12 pF and 16 pF along with the 400 uH to get those frequencies.
If I put the 115 pF in series with the bifilar coil it seems to increase the frequency required for maximum amplitude a bit if anything, maybe by as much as 100 kHz.
My Function Generator is very dodgy, it drifts a bit and is not so accurate, I need to get a digital one or something that will hold frequency with fine resolution.
The test setup I used tonight was the same as in the second post of this thread except that the 10 K Ohm resistor this time was in series with the Signal generator ground lead.
Cheers
AHAH, I read back and i will try with the 1 pF decoupling capacitor. And I can try an exciter coil as well. Will take some more time. The 115 pF of the scope is significant for these coils..
Quote from: Farmhand on January 14, 2014, 08:33:41 AM
Well, the way I measured the coils in the second post gave me a different result altogether than this time. I remeasured the two coils and got a much higher frequency this time for both because I used the 10 K resistor on the ground leg of the function generator this time. I'll take time as soon as possible to update that first post to add the second set of measurements and explain there.
Anyway this time using a sine wave signal at full amplitude on the signal generator I get a frequency showing maximum wave amplitude at about 2000 kHz for the bifilar coil and about 2300 kHz for the monofilar coil as is, both have an Inductance of about 400 uH. If I put 115 pF in series with the positive lead of the Function generator on the monofilar coil it changes to about the same as the bifilar coil at around 2000 kHz. A difference of about 300 kHz.
@Farmhand:
Just to make sure we use the same measurement method I attach two circuit diagrams depicting the "classical method for self resonance frequency measurement" and the "self resonance frequency mesurement with an exciter coil".
I agree that for 2.3 and 2 MHz a 1 pF decoupling capacitor to hide the ~100 pF of the probe is essential. I had great trouble to do consistent measurements between 1 MHz and 9 MHz without the 1 pF decoupling cap.
Greetings, Conrad
@Farmhand:
Just to make everything absolutely clear I also attach a circuit diagram for testing a "loaded coil" (coil with a parallel capacitor to enforce a particular resonance frequency).
I know that you have much more experience than me, I just want to match our measurement methods to be able to compare results.
I have no clue how to measure the resonance frequency of a series LC tank?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: Magluvin on January 13, 2014, 09:18:54 PM
Hey Sync
Where is the diode and cap? You have 2 resistors in parallel across the coil. Or is that the way they tested it?
Mags
@Farmhand,
First of all the "Synchro coil" is a series bifilar coil and is on topic for this thread!
@Magluvin,
That's just the way they tested it. Conradelektro goes on to point out a further test for spontaneous charge with a capacitor and diode, but he failed to use an
electrolytic capacitor. These deletions and substitutions were radical departures from my original design.
@Conradelektro,
You ask what the hi-voltage potential does between the bifilar wraps. What does Ohms law tell you about high voltage? Ohmic resistance is inversely proportional to voltage. Radio waves encounter practically no resistance whatsoever. A spark can be detected in the far reaches of outerspace.
Milehigh calls my nail and paperclip test a grandiose claim. The Tesla series bifilar pancake coil was a bulwark of the scrap yard industry for nearly a hundred years. There were tens of thousands of these of these kinds of electromagnets all throughout America. The thick wire coil sat over an iron plate. There was a liter size capacitor and a six volt battery inside. The cab controls consisted of a double throw blade switch and a volt meter for the capacitor, with a DPDT to reverse for deposit. The magnet was suspended from a crane. Now the balde switch would charge the capacitor one way from the battery then discharge the capacitor over the scrap and permanently magnetize it to the iron plate for movement. A second reversed impulse from the capacitor released the scrap!
Milehigh calls my results
Grandiose! It's no no wonder why he attracts a plethora of abuse from me!The Ed Leedskalnin PMH works by the same principle. It needs an "Impulse" to align the magnetic domains of the iron. The high potential between the bifilar wraps amplifies and transports this impulse to the iron ferrite to transmute the material to a permanent magnet.
This video demonstrates the permanent magnet effect of
BIFILAR COILS CONNECTED IN OPPOSITION:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRdVlWSLt_Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRdVlWSLt_Y)
Pay special attention to 1:20 in this video. You can clearly see the
SPARK jump!
Testing the Tesla series bifilar pancake coil with pure D.C. power yields totally bogus results! Milehigh has seduced Conradelektro into conspiring with him to totally pervert the real attributes of Tesla's valuable invention, along with my "Synchro coil".
I currently have two no limit open bet challenges to these pretenders, both have been shied from by them.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 14, 2014, 09:43:58 AM
...
how to measure the resonance frequency of a series LC tank?
...
Hi Conrad,
Would like to show you a drawing how you could measure the resonant frequency of a series LC tank, see attachment. (I used some of the drawing symbols you also used in your own drawings.)
At resonance, as you surely know, a series LC circuit has the lowest impedance which is equal mainly to the coil's DC resistance (usually out of all the L and C losses the coil wire resistance causes the highest loss). This way, at resonance the AC voltage amplitude appears to be the maximum across the 50 Ohm non-inductive resistance, R, and if you sweep the generator above or below this frequency, the amplitude gradually reduces, how quickly it depends mainly on the Q factor of the coil.
I watched all your recent videos, they are good, thanks for showing them.
Greetings, Gyula
EDIT: perhaps the scope probe of CH1 as shown across the output of the function generator is not needed at all or if you wish to use it, then I suggest using also a series 1 pF coupling capacitor because the 100 pF cap of the probe can also influence the resonance of the series LC tank.
A question: do your probes include the 10:1 division ratio or they are only 1:1 probes?
Quote from: gyulasun on January 14, 2014, 11:56:32 AM
Hi Conrad,
Would like to show you a drawing how you could measure the resonant frequency of a series LC tank, see attachment. (I used some of the drawing symbols you also used in your own drawings.)
At resonance, as you surely know, a series LC circuit has the lowest impedance which is equal mainly to the coil's DC resistance (usually out of all the L and C losses the coil wire resistance causes the highest loss). This way, at resonance the AC voltage amplitude appears to be the maximum across the 50 Ohm non-inductive resistance, R, and if you sweep the generator above or below this frequency, the amplitude gradually reduces, how quickly it depends mainly on the Q factor of the coil.
I watched all your recent videos, they are good, thanks for showing them.
Greetings, Gyula
EDIT: perhaps the scope probe of CH1 as shown across the output of the function generator is not needed at all or if you wish to use it, then I suggest using also a series 1 pF coupling capacitor because the 100 pF cap of the probe can also influence the resonance of the series LC tank.
A question: do your probes include the 10:1 division ratio or they are only 1:1 probes?
@Gyula: thank you, as always you are helping very much.
Yes, my scope probes also have a 1:10 setting and should have a lower input capacitance of 15 pF at 1:10. I also have a 1:100 probe with an input capacitance of about 7 pF.
I just did the measurement you suggested in your post (the series LC circuit). I was just trying to do that but I put a 1 K resistor instead of the 50 Ohm resistor and went now where till I saw your post.
I was measuring a 10 nF cap as a tank capacitor for my monofilar pan cake coil.
The "parallel LC tank" (10 nF in parallel to the monofilar coil) showed a resonance frequency of 270 Kilohertz (measured with an exciter coil and "classical", also the calculator at this web site http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm confirms the consistency of this measurement).
Now, according to this web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC_circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC_circuit) the "series LC tank" should have a resonance frequency of 270 Kilohertz as well.
And it does!But the measurement of the "series LC tank" (probe over 50 Ohm resistor) is much less indicative than the measurement of the "prallel LC tank" (probe over coil). There is a maximum at 270 KHz, but it is difficult to see. The Voltage peaks from 150 KHz to 350 KHz. If I had not known the resonance frequency from the "parallel LC tank", it would have been a less precise result.
Also interesting,
with a 10 nF tank cap (and a resonance at 270 KHz) the probe capacitance of 100 pF does not matter at all. Also the higher self capacitance of the bifilar pan cake coil does not matter any more. I tried it with the bifilar coil as well.
This gives me the idea to wind helical coils with many turns (a bifilar and a similar monofilar) for further tests in order to be in 100 KHz range (rather than in the Megahertz rang like with my frugal pan cake coils).
Greetings, Conrad
I just did something for training:
The "1/2 Voltage, impedance comparison to a known resistor" to determine inductance of a coil, according to http://daycounter.com/Articles/How-To-Measure-Inductance.phtml (http://daycounter.com/Articles/How-To-Measure-Inductance.phtml).
And, the impedance of the pan cake coils comes out as 34 µH (as it should).
See the attached drawings and scope shots.
I used Voltage "peak to peak" instead of RMS because it is easier to see on the scope. Is that good?
Greetings, Conrad
"In this study, we combined an array of giant magnetoresistive (GMR) sensors with an array of Hall sensors to measure all three components of magnetic vectors with a high spatial resolution and visualize the magnetic field distribution on a 2-D plane. The sensors were arrayed in a matrix arrangement such that the limitation to the number of sensors could be overcome. To test the device, "we generated a magnetic field using a pancake-type magnetizer" and a cracked magnetized ferromagnetic specimen and imaged the vectors. We obtained a spatial resolution of 0.78 mm in the z-direction with 1024 Hall sensors and 2.34 mm in the x-direction with 100 GMR sensors. Moreover, the x and z components could be imaged at 6 fps. The proposed device is promising for application in magnetic flux leakage detection".
Additional fact about the Pancake Magnetizer coil:
"It is well known that the inductance of a pancake type coil put on the metallic specimen changes according to the electromagnetic properties of the metallic specimen"
It's possible to run DC current through Leedskalnin's PMH and get zero magnetic effect!
Hi Conrad,
Okay on your probes, then you have choices on their input capacitance 'selection' but then the 1:10 or 1:100 choices influence the amplitude sensitivity of the measurements of course what you should compensate either by increasing the generator output or choosing the most sensitive scope input range and both of these have limits.
Regarding your observation on the low indication sensitivity of the series LC measuring setup, it happens because the two 50 Ohm resistances in the circuit reduces very much the natural quality factor, Q of the LC circuit (50 Ohm from the generator and another 50 Ohm from the R resistance (where you also used 1 kOhm), alltogether a 100 Ohm shunts the series LC tank, ok?
Because in this measuring setup, the output resistance (impedance) of the generator adds in series with the series LC circuit, effectively increasing the loss resistance of the series LC tank, ideally a generator resistance (impedance) of much less than 50 Ohm would be needed, preferably near to 1 Ohm or leven less but such a low generator output impedance can be had for instance from amplifiers designed for low output impedance.
OF course, alternative solutions do exist, see this link http://www.circuitstoday.com/q-meter (http://www.circuitstoday.com/q-meter) where a 0.02 Ohm is connected in series with the coil to measure its natural Q and in that circuit a function generator can substitute the oscillator, no need for the thermocouple voltmeter either and at the output your probe with a series 1 pF would serve as the resonance voltage indicator and the C resonating capacitor would be your 10 nF or any other even some 10 pF capacitor value. You would terminate the gen output with a 50 Ohm resistor and connect say a 0.1 Ohm non-wire-wound resistor in series with it to drive the coil, that is all. You may wonder whether this is a series or a parallel LC? from the generator output point of view it is a series LC where you check voltage maximum across the tank capacitor.
By your choosing a tank capacitor of 10 nF i.e. in the some nanoFarad range, this simply masks any detuning effect of
any probe capacitance or coil self capacitance they would otherwise manifest, as you found such manifestation earlier in the lack of the 1 pF coupling capacitor.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 14, 2014, 01:55:37 PM
...
I used Voltage "peak to peak" instead of RMS because it is easier to see on the scope. Is that good?
...
In this case it is good because their ratio is the same as it comes out from their rms value ratio, ok?
Greetings, Gyula
Conrad, can you please give us a break down of the results of the series test as compared to the parallel test, what is the difference if any ? Is the series resonant frequency of the bifilar coil lower than the series resonant frequency of the monofilar coil ? Is it the same as the parallel resonant frequency ?
I must say Conrad with the very good assistance you are getting you have gained some impressive results, I'm not sure I need to continue with such small coils.
Here is a thought Conrad, to test my theory that the applied voltage can vary the extra capacitance secured by the bifilar coil or any coil I guess, I intend to make a bifilar coil with the turns spaced so that with only a few volts or the meter used shows the capacitance secured between the two open windings is less than when they are wound closer together, thicker insulation more plate gap in the capacitor.
That will allow me to attempt to get a resonant frequency with only the few volts with the increased "plate gap", then also to get a resonant frequency with a higher voltage that should secure a higher capacitance between turns and therefore a lower resonant frequency of the coil for a higher applied voltage, within limits. If the gap that makes the capacitor is too wide for the applied voltage the capacitance secured should be less, just like if the plates of a capacitor are brought closer the capacitance reading increases. A parallel plate capacitor with a plate gap of 10 mm will give less capacitance secured in practice when only charged with 1 volt than when charged with 1000 volts, is what I am imagining to describe an extreme. If I'm right or wrong is another matter.
It might help if I learn how the meter works.
Cheers
Decided to go a different route with winding the 2in bifi. I have a few bobbins of the same wire 42awg that the wire broke before finishing the wind on my Lasersaber ez spin motor . Sooo, I can use those to wind a bifi ez spin coil. This way Im already set up to test comparable coils with the motor also. Been wanting to do this anyways. For some reason I feel a bit inspired. ;D And it wont take as long to wind and should work as a good comparison test of normal vs bifi.
The coils are just over 3000 turns, 650ohm, 81mh single strand. About 450 ft of wire, of which should give me decent capacitance. Compared to some other coils I have made, I guestimate near 50nf. Which is around 2500hz. My ez motor running near 400rpm can feed a bifi with just over 4kz with all coils in series using the least amount of current. 24 NSNS mags on the rotor, 12 full cycles per rotation. The motor is a torque'y lil monster with all coils in parallel at 27ohms. I have to remake the rotor to run it like that so the magnets dont become projectiles. Havnt let it go to full speed. Was scared. ;D
For me, it pays to think before I do. To test the 2in coil with a motor, I would have to make a rotor that has mag spacing according to the coil width. But the ez is set up so that a N mag is approaching the coil while the S mag is departing. So output is a nice sinewave where the coils are always being induced by the mags while the rotor turns. Perfect to operate the bifi, I can get the rotor to go much faster running just one of the drive coils. More current, as compared to 24 coils in series, 15kohm vs 1 coil 650ohm. So no doubts the motor will be able to hit the bifi resonance even if my capacitance doesnt reach my estimate. And other comparison tests can be done.
Mags
Mags that will get the frequency down no doubt, I'm considering winding some spirals, I've never wound a spiral for a particular reason, I'm thinking I will make them physically as large as is practical for me, and able to take fairly high voltages. Looking forward to all results, it is interesting stuff.
If it wasn't for the high frequencies of the Tesla coil setups and the large inductive field around the coils I would try to measure the voltages and currents in the setup at different states of tune.
I have no choice but to keep my experiments to bench sized arrangements for a while yet.
..
The description of the operation of the series LC circut.
So the setup is: function generator -> capacitor -> coil -> load resistor -> ground. The function generator is outputting a sine wave at the resonance frequency.
We will just look a few "pieces" or datum points of the circuit, enough information so that if you wanted you could connect the dots and draw out a timing diagram. If you draw out the timing diagram you will see all the pieces fit together and it should all make sense. All that you need to know are a few basic facts about circuit analysis and how coils and capacitors work.
The first point to consider is deceptively simple: If there is no resistance then the voltage output by the function generator must also be seen by the load resistor. It simply has to be the case.
You can reword that like this: The voltage output by the function generator plus the voltage across the capacitor plus the voltage across the coil is also the voltage that is seen at the load resistor. It's almost like the voltage across the capacitor plus the voltage across the coil is always equal to zero. Like those two components almost disappear.
Likewise, the current through the circuit is directly proportional to the function generator voltage. It has to be the case, there is no other choice.
I am assuming that people understand how the voltages and currents work for capacitors and coils.
Now for some datum points:
What's happening when the function generator voltage is at it's peak? We know that current must be the maximum. Just as importantly we know that at the voltage peak the current is unchanging. There is "micro spot" at the top of the sine wave peak where the voltage is constant and unchanging, therefore the current has to be unchanging.
Continued in part 2....
Part 2:
For coils we know that if the current is unchanging, then the voltage has to be zero, there is no other choice.
For capacitors we know that if the current flow is at maximum, the the voltage must be zero, there is no other choice.
So you can see that we have generated two datum points:
1 and 2: At the top (and bottom) of the function generator sine wave, the voltage on the coil is zero, and the voltage on the capacitor is zero, there is no other choice. (Note that this all works out, no voltage drops so the function generator voltage is seen at the load resistor, no other choice.)
Now let's consider when the output of the function generator is zero and rising. We also know that the voltage is rising at the fastest rate of change here. That means the current is also changing at it's fastest rate of change.
One more datum point:
With the fastest rate of change of increasing current, we know that the voltage across the inductor has to be at a maximum. No choice, the coil puts a constraint on the voltage and fixes it at the maximum.
So look at this unique situation: The voltage output from the function generator is zero. But there is a maximum voltage across the coil, but we know that the voltage at the load resistor must also be zero. There is only one solution to resolve this: The voltage on the capacitor must be at an equal and opposite voltage as compared to the coil. So there is the other datum point.
Then of course we know that if the capacitor is at a maximum voltage, that means it's fully charged to its maximum charge.
So what you end up with is this: As the function generator outputs a sine wave at the resonant frequency, the coil and capacitor are in a kind of "voltage tug of war" that is a pair of pure and opposite sine waves, because when coils resonate with capacitors by definition you get sine waves for the current and voltage. Note that the function generator output is also a perfect sine wave. So you have a double resonating sine wave interaction with a sine wave from the function generator. It's like the resonant part of the circuit and the function generator are two people that are perfect dance partners that dance together very closely in harmony but they never touch or disturb each other. The male makes a move and the female moves perfectly in tandem and they never actually touch.
Sorry that was too long. But there is enough information there to construct a full timing diagram:
Function generator voltage and current (identical waveforms for the load resistor)
Coil voltage
Inductor voltage
Coil Energy
Inductor Energy
Coil + Inductor energy
Now if you are crazy enough to take the plunge, and you build a timing diagram starting from the few data points given, you should find that the waveform for the (Coil + inductor energy) is a flat line. The flat line is telling you that the coil and capacitor are acting like an LC resonator with a fixed amount of stored energy.
So what that means is that when you first power up your series LC resonator circuit, the LC resonator portion of the circuit quickly fills up with energy drawn from the function generator. Once the LC resonator is full, it becomes a kind of "pumping station" that is synchronous with the function generator waveform such that it effectively disappears.
MileHigh
Quote from: Farmhand on January 14, 2014, 09:16:33 PM
Mags that will get the frequency down no doubt, I'm considering winding some spirals, I've never wound a spiral for a particular reason, I'm thinking I will make them physically as large as is practical for me, and able to take fairly high voltages. Looking forward to all results, it is interesting stuff.
If it wasn't for the high frequencies of the Tesla coil setups and the large inductive field around the coils I would try to measure the voltages and currents in the setup at different states of tune.
I have no choice but to keep my experiments to bench sized arrangements for a while yet.
..
Hey farmhand
Yes. Bench size for me too. ;) I try to maintain things to desktop sizes.
This 3000 turn bifi is about the dimensions of 2 nickles. Wire only. Got 55000 ft for 35 bucks a while back. I cracked open a RS reed relay, 1000 some ohm, and the coil popped out like a can of snakes. Scared me. lol But that wire must be like in the 50awg compared to the 42. My hair is just a bit thicker than the 42 under a microscope. But man you can produce some strong mag fields with all that resistance and very low currents. ;D Neat to work with.
Mags
About lowering the resonating frequency:
That's a good strategy because if you work on the bench your "comfort zone" might be between say DC and less than one megahertz. With those frequencies stray capacitive effects and the low-pass filtering inherent in everything doesn't come into play. By low "low-pass filtering" I mean your square waves start to get all rounded and mushy. Likewise at lower frequencies even touching a component with your fingertip will only marginally disturb the circuit so you won't really notice it. Perhaps for a finger tip touch having no significant effects lower the upper frequency limit to 100 KHz. You can experiment and check those things for yourselves.
Also, try to sick to capacitor values of one microfarard or larger. Picofarad caps store pico amounts of energy. Note a picofarad is one millionth of a microfarad.
You can see when Conrad just brought his hand near the bifilar coil things started changing on his scope display. That's akin to doing circuit investigations in a kind of mushy and spongy environment. Most or all of the effects you might be interested in investigating will still take place at lower, more manageable frequencies.
Where of course you do make a change is you use a real capacitor that is always there as opposed to the inter-filar capacitance. However, just in looking at self-resonance of a coil, there is the voltage sine wave. So the current sine wave has to be there also. For a monofilar coil you could envision each end of the floating coil at the voltage peak. There will be an electric field outside the coil that goes from the top to the bottom almost looking like magnetic field lines. The monofilar will reach higher absolute voltages at each end relative to the bifilar because the measured capacitance is lower. For the the bifilar you assume that much more electric field energy is stored in the spaces between adjacent windings.
The extra energy storage capacity in the bifilar and the high voltage capability sound interesting at first glance. However, you have to remember for both cases, regular and bifilar, the source of the energy to charge the capacitance comes from the inductive energy. Both the regular and bifilar coil store the same amount of inductive energy. The source for putting energy into the monofilar or bifilar capacitance is identical. So what's the high voltage between windings getting you if the source of the energy is the same?
In that sense, the regular and the bifilar self-capacitance act as the "catcher's mitt" to receive the energy thrown at it from the inductance, or inductive energy to be more precise.
In both cases, the capacitive "catcher's mitt" is so tiny that the energy is caught, and the "pressure" in the mitt goes super high for a tiny tiny fraction of a second before the energy is spat back at the inductor.
To mix analogies, you have a humongous elephant hurling a ton of energy. On receiving end to catch the energy you have too tiny tiny catcher's mitts. If one mitt is eight picofarads and the other mitt is 37 picofarads, they really look pretty much the same from the perspective of the elephant. The two capacitances are of the same order of magnitude and the inductive elephant might be five to seven orders of magnitude larger. So that just about puts the differences in capacitance values in the "don't care" file. If you are a millionaire, you don't care if you are worth $1,000,008 or $1,000,037.
Beyond that, here is a way to look at the whole situation: You experiment with real series and parallel LC circuits on your bench using real capacitors at lower frequencies. Then you know that as the capacitance gets smaller and smaller the LC resonator resonates at a higher and higher frequency. At the extreme limit you actually remove the capacitor completely and the coil self-resonates. You intuitively can picture in your mind roughly what would be happening in the coil. You also know that the frequencies are so high that you are in that mushy and spongy territory where the scope probe capacitance affects the circuit and just waving your hand affects the circuit. It's kind of the "Twilight Zone" unused region for the operation of the coil. Sometimes just visualizing it in your head is good enough.
MileHigh
A bifilar coil is a parallel LC and a normal coil is a series LC
If we have a cap and charge it to 5v, the cap reads 5v. 2 caps in series, charge with 5v and each cap will have 2.5v. And the capacity goes down as you put more in series. 100 caps in series, charge with 5v and each cap will have .05v. Same reduction as a normal coil when you add turns. A series LC. ;)
Now put 2 caps in parallel and charge with 5v. Each cap will have 5v. 100 caps, 5v each. That is a bifi coil. More turns, same voltage in each cap as less turns. A parallel LC. ;)
Just in case someone posted otherwise. ;)
Mags
Bifi Trivia!!
A bifi coil takes less time to wind than a normal coil because 3000 total turns only takes 1500 revolutions of the bobbin. ;) ;D
Mags
Quote from: Farmhand on January 14, 2014, 04:33:17 PM
Conrad, can you please give us a break down of the results of the series test as compared to the parallel test, what is the difference if any ? Is the series resonant frequency of the bifilar coil lower than the series resonant frequency of the monofilar coil ? Is it the same as the parallel resonant frequency ?
I measured the resonance frequency of a series LC circuit (C = 10 nF), see http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383070/#msg383070 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383070/#msg383070)
The measurement circuit for a series LC tank is from Gyula, see http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383065/#msg383065 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383065/#msg383065), see also Gyula's explication http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383103/#msg383103 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383103/#msg383103) The measurement in a series LC tank is less "indicative". (I want to note that Gyula posts good explanations and is often providing expert help, not only in this thread.)
Theory says that
parallel and series LC circuit have the same resonance frequency.
The resonance frequency is defined by L = inductance of the coil and C = "external capacitance plus self capacitance". If the "external capacitance" = 0, we have "self resonance" and if the "external capacitance" = large, "self capacitance" becomes negligible.
Also for parallel and series LC circuit: The
resonance effect occurs when inductive and capacitive reactances are equal in magnitude.
See http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/2.html (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/2.html) and http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html) (the formula for f = frequency is the same in parallel and series LC circuit).
Important facts about parallel LC circuits:
In the parallel configuration, resonance occurs when the
complex electrical impedance of the circuit approaches infinity, meaning that the circuit draws no current from the AC power source.
A prallel resonant circuit provides voltage magnification. Important facts about series LC circuits:
In the series configuration, resonance occurs when the
complex electrical impedance of the circuit approaches zero, the result is a short circuit across the AC power source at resonance.
A series resonant circuit provides current magnification.
(I restated in very short form what MileHigh explained in detail, read his posts, he is a good teacher.)
Quote from: Farmhand on January 14, 2014, 04:33:17 PM
Here is a thought Conrad, to test my theory that the applied voltage can vary the extra capacitance secured by the bifilar coil or any coil I guess, I intend to make a bifilar coil with the turns spaced so that with only a few volts or the meter used shows the capacitance secured between the two open windings is less than when they are wound closer together, thicker insulation more plate gap in the capacitor.
That will allow me to attempt to get a resonant frequency with only the few volts with the increased "plate gap", then also to get a resonant frequency with a higher voltage that should secure a higher capacitance between turns and therefore a lower resonant frequency of the coil for a higher applied voltage, within limits. If the gap that makes the capacitor is too wide for the applied voltage the capacitance secured should be less, just like if the plates of a capacitor are brought closer the capacitance reading increases. A parallel plate capacitor with a plate gap of 10 mm will give less capacitance secured in practice when only charged with 1 volt than when charged with 1000 volts, is what I am imagining to describe an extreme. If I'm right or wrong is another matter.
I am a beginner, but I would say that C = capacitance (the ability to store a charge) is a constant for a given capacitor or between two wires in a coil (independent of Voltage)? But the higher V = Voltage the more Q = charge can be stored in a capacitor. Formula C = Q/V or V*C = Q. So, the
resonance frequency will not change with Voltage, but the charges pushed back and forth will be higher if Voltage is higher. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor#Overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor#Overview).
Greetings, Conrad
Some great clips from Itsu:
Pick-up coil for a pulse motor configured in parallel resonance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtnLAVk9Og
Pick-up coil for a pulse motor configured in serial resonance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-avee5Z1oU
@MileHigh: Again, great explanations, thank you. The nebula in front of my eyes when looking at LC circuits and coils is lifting.
So, I will wind two helical coils with "many turns and many layers of turns" (one bifilar the other monofilar) to bring my tests into the 100 KHz region.
The planned coil parameters:
- core diameter 10 mm (interchangeable: air core, fitting Ferrite core and bundle of soft wire sticks)
- length of coil 30 mm
- outer diameter of coil 40 mm
- 31 AWG wire (wire diameter 0.22 mm)
I would also say to Farmhand and all other pan cake coil builders to wind a big pan cake coil with many turns for the same reason.
My two pan cake coils are a bit small and have too few wires and therefore introduced problems when testing caused by the MHz frequencies involved (the 1 pF decoupling capacitor for my scope probe became an important issue which was expertly solved by Gyula).
It is much easier to wind a pan cake coil with thick wire, but it will then have relatively few turns. It takes some craftsmanship to wind a pan cake coil and it needs a support plate (may be Plexiglass or some other plastic sheet, may be a very dry wood board).
For measurements please see my posts:
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383043/#msg383043
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383045/#msg383045
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383070/#msg383070
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383084/#msg383084
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg382906/#msg382906
and videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/conradelektro/videos
Good calculators:
http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm
http://daycounter.com/Articles/How-To-Measure-Inductance.phtml
http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html
This kind of concludes my measurements with my two pan cake coils. For the time being I move on to helical coils. But if some tangible and understandable claim concerning pan cake coils materialises I am ready to go back.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: MileHigh on January 15, 2014, 03:52:05 AM
Some great clips from Itsu:
Pick-up coil for a pulse motor configured in parallel resonance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtnLAVk9Og (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtnLAVk9Og)
Pick-up coil for a pulse motor configured in serial resonance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-avee5Z1oU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-avee5Z1oU)
@MileHigh:
Would it make sense if I wind the bifilar coil with 6 wires like itsu (see the attached drawing)?
Itsu video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg) minute 03:02
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
You don't need to use 6 wires.
MileHigh
Youtube quote from Dr. Steven Jones:
"Note that I replace the conducting disk with a bifilar pancake coil (BPC) wound with coax. Charge from the coil is collected through a Schottky diode on a 47 uF capacitor which held at zero mV for an extended time prior to the experiment"
Look at the identical "Synchro Coil" circuit Dr. Steven Jones is using, Schottky diode and capacitor in series with a bifilar coil! Take special note of the "ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITOR" with the testing probes attached! Ask yourselves what kind of results one could expect if someone rudely barged in and replaced his diode and capacitor with a couple of resistors? This experiment is practically identical to the "Synchro coil" except that the "Synchro coil" works from rotor excited magnet core flux, instead of the bipolar disk agitation!
Check out his video on the FARADAY'S PARADOX REVISITED BPC (Bifilar Pancake Coil):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3hXYSKxsX0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3hXYSKxsX0)
It should be clear that positioning the "Synchro Coil" in the flutter zone would cause exactly the same kind of magnetic fluctuation Dr. Jones induces in his BPC with his spinning disk! Dr. Steven Jones defies Faraday's paradox with this experiment, just like the "Synchro Coil" does. Take note of the importance Dr. Steven Jones attributes to the positioning of the magnetized disk in his video!
Milehigh and Conradelektro blatently kiboshed my "Synchro coil" test, went on to run DC current through a PMH coil then "curled their chimp lips back" with a "no locking effect" magic claim grin!
My worst paranoia is that those two staged that "Synchro Coil" failure to develop the coil in secret for commercial profit!
Quote from: Farmhand on January 14, 2014, 09:16:33 PM
I'm considering winding some spirals, I've never wound a spiral for a particular reason, I'm thinking I will make them physically as large as is practical for me, and able to take fairly high voltages. Looking forward to all results, it is interesting stuff.
When i was studying car audio, and audio in general, an interesting thing I found along the way may apply here.
When you input a freq into a speaker, that has an audio wavelength that is shorter than the diameter of the speaker will tend to 'beam' from the cone surface. Now the wave length Im talking about is the distance in air that a single cycle of the wave is. Like if you have 2 tweeters in front of you at a distance, then start to bring one of the tweeters closer to you say at about 10khz there will be a distance as the tweeter gets closer where the 2 waves from the tweeters will be 180 out of phase and you wont here it any longer. Then move the tweeter closer to you, just double the first distance and you are back in phase. Like 3khz is around 3in or 6in to be out of phase if I remember correctly.
So I wonder if a beaming effect could be produced with a pancake coil. Or even if it would be useful. I suppose greater distance to a receiver would be an advantage. Would probably have to be huge in diameter for even very high freq. Would have to look that up.
Just a thought I had at work before lunch. Dont know if it has any relevance.
Mags
Quote from: synchro1 on January 15, 2014, 11:10:04 AM
Check out his video on the FARADAY'S PARADOX REVISITED BPC (Bifilar Pancake Coil):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3hXYSKxsX0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3hXYSKxsX0)
...
My worst paranoia is that those two staged that "Synchro Coil" failure to develop the coil in secret for commercial profit!
Synchro, mate...
1) That vid above by Stephen Jones, has to be one of the worst conducted experiments I've ever seen... It's terrible.
2) The experiments you keep ranting about are *so easy to do yourself* - that your ranting is ridiculous.
3) Your attitude towards Conrad & MH is out-of-order!
Just do the damn experiment yourself. For goodness sake!
I'm beginning to be quite irked by people who are not prepared to do their own !$%&# experiments!
Quote from: MileHigh on January 15, 2014, 03:52:05 AM
Some great clips from Itsu:
Pick-up coil for a pulse motor configured in parallel resonance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtnLAVk9Og (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtnLAVk9Og)
Pick-up coil for a pulse motor configured in serial resonance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-avee5Z1oU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-avee5Z1oU)
I would like to discuss and to understand the issues involved in these "rotor speeds up under load" claims.
The set up:
- some sort of pulse motor (or an ordinary electric motor) is pinning a rotor carrying magnets
- a pick up coil (in front of the spinning magnets) picks up electricity and drives a load (or is under no load)
- a certain amount of power is necessary to drive the rotor and the rotor spins with a certain speed
The claim:
- if the pick up coil is burdened with a heavier load (or even shortened) the speed of the rotor increases and the power demand to drive the rotor goes down
Oservation:
- I get the impression (when watching a video of these experiments) that the power necessary to drive the rotor is always very much higher than the power generated by the pick up coil. (Which leads to the question: why is this an OU claim? It is an interesting effect, but OU can not be achieved?)
Further observation:
- This "parallel resonance" (pick up coil LC circuit should have the same frequency as the AC generated by the spinning magnets) is just one of the theories involved and might not even be the explanation?
What is your opinion and how do you see these experiments, e.g. the one Itsu is showing in his videos (I mean the videos cited by MileHigh).
Greetings, Conrad
I put all the measurement circuits and calculators I learned in the last month into the attached PDF-file.
May be that helps others to climb the learning curve faster than I did. The experts will not need this collection.
Again, thank you MileHigh and Gyula for the time you spent on teaching these useful skills.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: tim123 on January 15, 2014, 02:04:37 PM
Synchro, mate...
1) That vid above by Stephen Jones, has to be one of the worst conducted experiments I've ever seen... It's terrible.
2) The experiments you keep ranting about are *so easy to do yourself* - that your ranting is ridiculous.
3) Your attitude towards Conrad & MH is out-of-order!
Just do the damn experiment yourself. For goodness sake!
I'm beginning to be quite irked by people who are not prepared to do their own !$%&# experiments!
I've uploaded close to forty experimental videos. I've repeated this experiment scores of times. Now think about this: Milehigh never uploaded any videos ever, nor has he ever ever done so much as one experiment. So that looks like you're the pot calling the kettle black to me!
It's not so important who's doing an experiment; What's important is that the experiment's done correctly, and if done incorrectly that the mistakes are pointed out and understood. Now I started out with a tank circuit, and it was jettisoned by Milehigh and we got mistaken results. The test was faulty as a result of improvising solutions and not sticking to the directions. It's important for people to know why the test failed! I sought to cultivate a working friendship with Conradelektro, and Milehigh stepped in and puppeteered the novice experimenter, with his
"pseudo-expertise" into sidetracking the original design for a failed alteration!
The way in which Dr. Steven Jones conducted his experiment has very little to do with his choice of components to match with the BPC. He did choose to wire resistors onto output circuit!
I've been saying for a long time that the speed up under load effects are effects of resonance or harmonics. And I've shown it, Notice the voltage waveform is much reduced on load and the rotor is loaded to produce parallel resonance in the pickup coil meaning the loading on the motor and the input to the tank is highest at resonance to maintain the activity in the tank against the losses. When the setup speeds up due to the activity being reduced by load this indicate a reduced load on the prime mover.
I'm intrigued are you saying that you can continually excite a tank to parallel resonance with no input ? This is one of the reasons I usually say at or near resonance.
In practice the impedance is never near infinite because of the losses, as the tank stores energy there are always losses and so there is always input, and when at parallel resonance the voltage and activity is highest so the losses are highest and the input is highest with no load. In my experience. Now when we load a parallel resonant tank with a resistive load we lower the Q of the tank and energy is removed the activity in the tank is less and the losses are less and so there is less input required to maintain that.
If the tank had a near infinite impedance at resonance the input should get less the closer we get to parallel resonance.
In practice with most of the setups I have experimented with when the parallel tank is excited to resonance input is required to keep it there and the input is usually more than to run the transformer without parallel resonance.
Anyway as I said Tesla never mentioned resonance in the patent and I was using the term adjusting to resonance to describe tuning a tank to maximum activity with a load attached.
With no load and no losses a parallel tank would oscillate for ever and the input would see an infinite impedance continuously and the input would go to nothing continously but in practice this does not happen ever. Even in a resonator not directly loaded.
Try this experiment make a low resistance tank circuit and excite it with DC pulses of say 12 volts to maximum amplitude (parallel resonance) note the input as you do it, then place a 10 Ohm resistor on the tank, and re-tune to maximum amplitude (won't take much) then note the input.
What I imagine will happen is as the circuit is tuned around near to resonance is the input will go up and it's max will be when the amplitude is max. The lower the Q the more input will be required to maintain it.
You see practically the experimenter who wants max power throughput is not so concerned with perfect resonance, the object is maximum activity in a loaded tank to produce the highest output.
..
If you skip to about 2:40 in this video you can see the effect of the resistive load on the waveform and shortly after compared to the somewhat capacitive load of the fluro tube. The tube causes the activity to increase due to better resonance and the input also increases. The filament bulb reduces activity by removing energy and the input drops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxde9qga79c
I call these (effects of resonance or near resonance). At about 9:30 I show the effect of the fluro. The resonance is improved with the fluro and the input is increased.
I understand the "ideal" properties of parallel and series resonance being infinite and nil respectively. But I'm not concerned with that I'm concerned with practical use.
And I'm also concerned with showing the speed up under load effect can be done by a hack like me if we know why it happens. :) And that it is nothing fantastic or out of normal
nor is it much use for anything.
I think we can all agree on one thing, the speed up under load effect touted as something special is a load of bogus.
..
I'm not sure about others but I'm usually tuning for maximum output to a load when I experiment with resonant setups. The input only concerns me where efficiency is concerned if it is one of my concerns.
..
I came to my conclusions on Thanes bogus speed up under load effect all by myself and I showed actual setups demonstrating it, many months ago. And I immediately recognized it as useless and a serious loss.
Whats to learn about that ? I had a theory and I tested it, I got the results I expected. I didn't need anyone else to tell me it was bogus, I could see it plain as day on first viewing of his video's, it was bogus through and through.
..
Another way the voltage might effect the frequency is by the higher voltage causing more current through the resistance and engaging the core better.
..
I don't see a tank capacitor as an output "load" in itself. It is a parasitic load, similar to the resistance of the wire in the coil.
..
An unloaded tank is a pointless exercise isn't it, as far as output goes.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on January 15, 2014, 05:13:35 PM
Another way the voltage might effect the frequency is by the higher voltage causing more current through the resistance and engaging the core better.
..
I don't see a tank capacitor as an output "load" in itself. It is a parasitic load, similar to the resistance of the wire in the coil.
..
An unloaded tank is a pointless exercise isn't it, as far as output goes.
..
What's your point here, that resonance starves power from the circuit, and that "Lenz delay effect" is a return to normal?
Conrad:
I sold the Synchro Coil Joy Buzzer patent to Google Jokes! We are rich! lol
QuoteI get the impression (when watching a video of these experiments) that the power necessary to drive the rotor is always very much higher than the power generated by the pick up coil.
I think that nearly all of us would agree with that statement.
QuoteThis "parallel resonance" (pick up coil LC circuit should have the same frequency as the AC generated by the spinning magnets) is just one of the theories involved and might not even be the explanation?
This is true with one caveat. The passing magnets might be at the LC circuit/pickup coil resonance frequency, but the EMF waveform that they generate in the pickup coil is usually not even close to a sine wave. You can see the induced EMF waveform in one of Itsu's clips when he disconnects the capacitor and the load. So the excitation has many higher harmonic frequencies that more or less are filtered out by the LC pickup coil circuit. You can see how the sine wave on the scope display is quite distorted because of this.
To answer your question in a general sense, if you change the configuration of your motor or pickup coil, then it's reasonable to assume that some parameters will change. You can look at that as an A-B comparison test investigation. You also can do a second investigation to see how the change affects were the input power goes as it flows through the motor. For example, if you make a change, the motor efficiency with respect to (output RPM/input power) might increase. The average power consumption may also decrease. Depending on how those variables change between the "A" version of the motor and the "B" version, the rotor can speed up while the power consumption decreases. The key to understanding this is to do your best to track and measure the "waste power," i.e.; the input electrical power that becomes waste heat power.
So it's possible that pick-up coils in LC resonance give you a more efficient motor for a given efficiency parameter. You can just try to measure the different electrical, mechanical, heat, and useful output power levels. That would document what the LC resonance does to improve your efficiency. You also have the option to do a full timing analysis and actually document and measure exactly what the pickup coil in LC resonance does with a full timing diagram. That will explain everything and explain what the resonance is actually doing.
Everything I state above is what is "hiding behind the curtain" when people use the term "the delayed Lenz effect." I believe that the popular notion is that the change in configuration of the motor delays the arrival of the magnetic repulsion on the spinning rotor and therefore the rotor speeds up. Some may believe that you are getting something for nothing because the power consumption did not increase. However, perhaps the first assumption before making real measurements would be to assume nothing! Then perhaps make a basic assumption that the motor became more efficient, and some of the input electrical power that was being lost as waste heat power is now being directed to pumping mechanical power into the rotor and speeding it up. So: Less waste heat power and more rotor mechanical power - which is of course an improvement in the performance of the motor. BUT, you have to make all of the measurements to prove your assumption is true.
MileHigh
Farmhand:
QuoteI'm intrigued are you saying that you can continually excite a tank to parallel resonance with no input ? This is one of the reasons I usually say at or near resonance.
You may want to check the formulas for the resonance frequencies of series and parallel RLC circuits. The frequency is probably not dependent on the resistance. Of course the resistance drains power in the resonator. You figure if you chose the best type of capacitor with the lowest ESR and a coil with fat wire and not too long a length of wire, you could increase the time constant of the exponential decay of the resonator. It might even be a fun experiment because you could have a friendly competition for who can extend the decay out the longest.
So for the parallel LCR resonator, the impedance is not infinite like you say. You can imagine that the AC signal from the signal generator at the signal generator source is always slightly higher in voltage than the resonator voltage at the resonator. So that means that current from the signal generator is slowly seeping into the LCR resonator to compensate for the losses. There is a very very slight voltage drop along the length of the signal generator cable due to the current seepage. If you have a very good LC resonator connected to the signal generator with very low ohmic resistance in the LC circuit, that translates into very high impedance in the parallel LC resonator. Therefore the current seepage from the signal generator to replenish the resonator will be very low. So perhaps the voltage drop along the cable will only be a few hundred microvolts.
I am always concious of this stuff. However, it's understood among the "pros" that you don't have to mention it all the time. It simply makes discussion easier.
MileHigh
I didn't say the resistor itself would change the frequency of resonance. However the extra loading of the tank means there must be input to maintain activity, in practice most loads have some inductance/capacitance and resistance.
Anyway I think we mostly all agree about the folly of the speed up under load effect. I showed what I could, to do what I could to try to improve understanding and save some people some hype disappointment. I certainly do not begrudge others doing the same in their way.
The main thing is I was discerning enough to realize it was BS.
All I can say is many of us have contributed to slaying this false hope.
..
My theory about the voltage and the frequency is just that "a theory" that I would need to prove for it to be an accepted theory, If I cannot prove it then I would have to admit it is a flawed theory, so you can sue me then. ;D
Cheers
Farmhand:
I looked at parts of your clip. You can see how you are investigating both the power measurement approach and the waveform approach to your circuit and when you switch in different types of loads, etc. So it's along the lines of what I discussed but it's not the complete set of measurements to get the complete picture. One thing I did not touch on in my previous posting also worth mentioning is by now an old theme: If you change the load, you assume that you change the overall impedance of the entire setup. That will change the power consumption and could have other effects related to impedance matching and rotor speed, etc.
It's a lot of work to 100% dissect a circuit and if you go to school it's an exercise that you might only do a few times. It might be for your course project or something. Then you can apply that general knowledge and the underlying principles to similar circuits. There must be hundreds of delayed Lenz clips and "reduction in power when load added" clips so there has go to be a lot of commonality among them. So you can make some generalizations, but you can't apply that generalization to one specific example clip. You have to roll up your shirtsleeves and do the work on your circuit if you want a definitive explanation for what is going on. Of course you can also run sims.
MileHigh
Yes, you see the battery voltage rise under the reduced load of the filament bulb and drop under the real load of the fluro tube. And at teh end I power a 100 Watt bulb and a large shaded pole motor the motor I power with a capacitor in series. ;)
Well I'm not all that concerned with a definitive explanation, I shown myself with several different setups that the effect is bogus and that is good enough for me. If others do not accept my experiments as an indicator then they can do their own experiments and find their own results.
In my experience an efficient transformer has a low idle input and high efficiency at full intended load. I have no use for a system that uses a lot of power to just run at idle then it uses less when loaded.
All the time and effort I put in was to show others what I see, not for my benefit. Although I do learn as I go of course.
..
@Farmhand,
I built a very simple reed switch pulse motor with a bifilar wrap around a plastic plumber latex tape spool,
one loop for power the other for output. The magnet tube rotor spun inside the coil core. When I attached the output leads to a capacitor, the rotor accelerated. Shorting the output leads increased the effect. I couldn't explain the effect. It was very observable. Now I'm hearing it's some kind of bogus effect, after years of tests and research.
What about JLN's tests? What did he conclude? Have a look at this straight forward video and try and identify the "bogus" part:
"Here an interesting experiment about the Delayed Lenz Effect which shows that the normal Lenz effect can be reversed with a special setup":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUoyuiQTrRA&feature=player_embedded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUoyuiQTrRA&feature=player_embedded)
JLN clearly demonstrates that at a distance of 1mm the shorted output coil increases input and slows the rotor. Then at a distance of 30mm the shorted coil decreases input and speeds the rotor up! Where's the bogus part in this test. Talk is cheap Farmhand!
There's seems to be some kind of persistent witch hunt pattern among members of this discussion group to placate the geo resource mind set, that's devoid of any constructive content; Just start to kick the stuffing out of any hope for free energy for the fun of it. What's up with that kind of dark age inquisition routine?
Here are JLN's observations:
How the Delayed Lenz Effect (DLE) can be observed ?
In the case of the motors/generators, the increase of the turn rate is produced by the DLE when the devices are loaded,
In the case of solid state generator or special transformers (i.e. the Thane C. Heins' Bitt) , a drop of the input power is observed when a load is connected at the output,
In the case of the generators, the increase of the turn rate is produced by the DLE when the devices are loaded above a critical minimum frequency. Below the critical minimum frequency the DLE coil will produce deceleration as per any conventional Lenz generator coil. Coil frequency dictates coil impedance which is a critical factor in producing generator DLE and on-load system acceleration.
The greater the load i.e. the closer it is to a dead short (an infinite number of resistors connected in parallel) the greater the DLE produced and the more system acceleration will be produced.
The DLE can also be used to produce an unbalance (sink effect) between the outside (i.e the Earth ground) and the load, this is the case of the Tariel Kapanadze generator...
JLN clearly shows that the motor runs more efficiently with the output coil placed at 30mm than without it, and less efficiently at 1mm, where it induces "Lenz drag". This is a very, very important observation. It's wrong to trivialize it!
Then along comes Farmhand and his Petrophile fraternity from "Salem"!
Lenz's law is not all inclusive, but needs to be amended to include the inverse corollary of "Lenz acceleration" along with the principle of "Lenz drag". This is not a bogus effect!
Cool new video from Skycollection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsVrQ_ThrV0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsVrQ_ThrV0)
Quote from: Farmhand on January 16, 2014, 12:53:24 AM
Yes, you see the battery voltage rise under the reduced load of the filament bulb and drop under the real load of the fluro tube. And at teh end I power a 100 Watt bulb and a large shaded pole motor the motor I power with a capacitor in series. ;)
Well I'm not all that concerned with a definitive explanation, I shown myself with several different setups that the effect is bogus and that is good enough for me. If others do not accept my experiments as an indicator then they can do their own experiments and find their own results.
In my experience an efficient transformer has a low idle input and high efficiency at full intended load. I have no use for a system that uses a lot of power to just run at idle then it uses less when loaded.
All the time and effort I put in was to show others what I see, not for my benefit. Although I do learn as I go of course.
..
@Farmhand: I agree that you showed with very simple means that a "speed up effect under load", or better said "a lower power demand under certain load conditions", can be reproduced.
For me it also shows that this is nothing to get overly excited about. But you can never convince a "believer", they want to believe in magic no matter what you show them.
Greetings, Conrad
I want to reproduce the experiment which Itsu shows in his video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg) (resonance with magnet spinner, speed up under load).
Luckily I found an old "Bedini coil" in one of my boxes with stuff from past experiments. (See the attached photo.)
The coil is bifilar (one wire 0.2 mm the other 0.3 mm diameter magnet wire, in series) and has many turns. If I do a calculation with this calculator http://www.66pacific.com/calculators/coil_calc.aspx (http://www.66pacific.com/calculators/coil_calc.aspx) I get about 3200 turns (I have forgotten the number of turns).
The coil parameters (measured with a 4 turn exciter coil and my function generator plus scope as I have learned with the pan cake coils, impedance was measured with my LCR meter and calculated from "parallel LC circuit" resonance tests):
DC resistance about 97 OHm
length 52 mm
diameter 38 mm
core 10 mm (hole in core only 7 mm)
air core
measured impedance: at 100 Hz --> 168 mH
at 1 KHz --> 176 mH
at 10 KHz --> 46 mH
self resonance at 4600 Hz
self capacitance with assumed 170 mH --> 7 nF
(with assumed 44 mH --> 26 nF)
experimental impedance: 810 Hz resonance with 0.22 µF cap --> 172 mH
390 Hz resonance with 0.986 µF cap --> 169 mH
120 Hz resonance with 10.08 µF cap --> 174 mH
steel bolt as core
measured impedance: at 100 Hz --> 520 mH
at 1 KHz --> 320 mH
at 10 KHz --> 44 mH
self resonance at 4000 Hz
self capacitance with assumed 520 mH --> 3 nF
(with assumed 44 mH --> 35 nF)
experimental impedance: 520 Hz resonance with 0.224 µF cap --> 418 mH
225 Hz resonance with 0.986 µF cap --> 507 mH
70 Hz resonance with 10.08 µF cap --> 512 mH
And if you look at the resonance frequency of an LC circuit with this coil and a 10 µF capacitor, one sees that it would resonate at 120 Hz (air core) or 70 Hz (steel bolt core).
I can realise these speeds (7200 rpm and 4200 rpm) with my new "12 DC motor ring magnet spinner" to recreate the resonance condition Itsu is showing (LC circuit resonating at 70 Hz or 120 Hz: coil + 10 µF cap).
The new magnet spinner is almost finished with a professional coupling (and this coil is ready, also the 10 µF cap). But I will not have time till Monday to do any experiments.
In the meantime, what do the experts think? Can it be done like this, should I try this and what are the difficulties and pitfalls?
I do not have a matching monofilar coil. The "speed up under load test" would then only be with this big fat bifilar coil.
Greetings, Conrad
@Conradelektro,
Now your experiments are regaining interest and relevency. Let me just point out that multiple output coils split the output along with the acceleration effect! This is the bane of the Thane Heins generator. Nevertheless, it's a mistake to hide from the effect and pretend it's meaningless! I believe you'll return to the "Synchro Coil" research with renewed insights. It would be very simple to slip a stack of coupled radial magnets into the coil core, in place of that metal bolt, after you're through licking your wounds sufficiently.
Conrad:
It looks like you have all of the pieces to set up some great tests.
You notice how the measured inductance drops down a lot at 10 KHz. I am not sure why and I am a bit surprised, especially for the air core. So you should avoid your testing at the 10 KHz self-resonant frequency and stick to lower frequencies.
Looking forward to seeing the new magnet spinner configuration.
QuoteI do not have a matching monofilar coil. The "speed up under load test" would then only be with this big fat bifilar coil.
The good news is that if you use just one of the wires in your coil (the thicker wire) you will have a comparable, but not identical coil.
The geometry will be the same, but the inductance will measure about 1/4 the series bifilar version. So you can still observe how that monofilar coil responds to it's own resonant condition and it will be comparable with the bifilar with the understanding that the inductance and resonant frequency has changed. You just have to dial up the correct angular frequency on your magnet spinner.
Have fun!
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on January 16, 2014, 01:05:20 PM
You notice how the measured inductance drops down a lot at 10 KHz. I am not sure why and I am a bit surprised, especially for the air core. So you should avoid your testing at the 10 KHz self-resonant frequency and stick to lower frequencies.
The good news is that if you use just one of the wires in your coil (the thicker wire) you will have a comparable, but not identical coil. The geometry will be the same, but the inductance will measure about 1/4 the series bifilar version. So you can still observe how that monofilar coil responds to it's own resonant condition and it will be comparable with the bifilar with the understanding that the inductance and resonant frequency has changed. You just have to dial up the correct angular frequency on your magnet spinner.
@MileHigh:
I just measured the inductance of one wire of my big Bedini coil,
it is 42 mH (air core) and 132 mH (steel bolt core) same for both wires.
Great, you predicted the 1/4 inductance.
Inductance of one wire also drops at higher frequencies:
air core: 43 mH at 1 KHz and 11 mH at 10 KHz
steel core: 80 mH at 1 KHz and 10 mH at 10 KHz.
This calculator at http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm) then computes a resonance frequency of 138 Hz with a 10 µF cap (steel bolt core). And I hope that I can also do 138 Hz (8280 rpm).
But I will not be able to do 248 Hz (14880 rpm) with one wire air core.
The possible tests I envision (10 µF in LC circuit):
70 Hz --- bifilar, steel bolt core
120 Hz --- bifilar, air core
138 Hz -- monofilar (half coil), steel bolt core
248 Hz -- monofilar (half coil), air core
not possible
My new magnet spinner should do up to 150 Hz (about 10.000 rpm). The 12 V motor should do up to 12300 rpm at 18 Volt (even 14800 with little load), but I expect some vibrations, why I do not dare to hope for more than 10.000 rpm).
Self resonance is at 4600 Hz (bifilar air core) and 4000 Hz (bifilar steel bolt core). I did not yet measure self resonance for one wire (half coil).
I did impedance measurements at 10 KHz (one of the settings of my LCR-meter) several times and also the LC-circuit resonance tests with several capacitors showed that the impedance drops rapidly with frequencies higher than 1 KHz. But I will only need the very low frequencies (70 Hz to 132 Hz).
Is it correct that high impedance coils do strange things at high frequencies (specially beyond their self resonance frequency)? 10 KHz (where the LCR-meter shows low impedance) is twice the self resonance frequency, the coil should do funny things?
Greetings, Conrad
@Conradelektro,
Quote from Conradelektro,
"I want to reproduce the experiment which Itsu shows".
Itsu is running multiple magnets on a high speed precision VCR bearing! Your bipolar rpm has to multiply by the number of Itsu's rotor magnets to equal the same frequency!
How come your so smart know it all OU educator "Milehigh" can't tell you that!
Try the bearingless tube spinner on a ball bearing, with your original relay sensor circuit, placed on a concave cosmetic mirror. Don't be afraid of shattering the tube magnet at 25k. There's no hazard at that slow a speed. We get upwards of 300k before we encounter those kinds of problems. You can always put a PVC coupling around the setup, like I do, for extra precaution! Pay close attention to this: DLE=(Delayed Lenz Effect)
Quote from JLN:
"In the case of the generators, the increase of the turn rate is produced by the DLE when the devices are loaded above a "critical minimum frequency". Below the critical minimum frequency the DLE coil will produce deceleration as per any conventional Lenz generator coil. Coil frequency dictates coil impedance which is a critical factor in producing generator DLE and on-load system acceleration".
I call JLN's "critical minimum frequency" the "Lenz acceleration threshold speed".
JLN is motoring his bipolar spinner at 500 hertz which translates as 30,000 rpm. for his "Lenz delay test". Don't be disappointed if you get merely a slowing down effect at 10,000 rpm with a diametric!
Study JLN's DLE-Test-18 before you proceed:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/dlenz/DLE19en.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/dlenz/DLE19en.htm)
Hi Conrad,
When I have some more time this weekend I may add some more comments, now I notice only the eddy current losses of the steel bolt, influencing even the measurements you do when using the LCR meter but the thing is that several experimenters when doing the so called delayed Lenz effect tests often use bolts as a core, so you can test it too, of course.
Nevertheless, I advise to have at hand a normal ferrite rod piece too (OD=6mm length=40mm) from RS components (link: http://at.rs-online.com/web/p/ferrit-stabkern/4674065/ (http://at.rs-online.com/web/p/ferrit-stabkern/4674065/) ) with one such core eddy losses will be negligibly small even at 10 kHz or higher.
Your link to the multilayer-multiturn coil calculator is okay and I would like to refer to another one I have recently found a bit more flexible and precise, works also on-line but freely downloadable too and have some additional plug-in softwares to make it more versatile (I have no any business interest with its creator :D ), see here: http://coil32.narod.ru/calc/multi_layer-en.html (http://coil32.narod.ru/calc/multi_layer-en.html) and download it here, the plug-ins are also here: http://coil32.narod.ru/download-en.html (http://coil32.narod.ru/download-en.html)
Regarding the drop in inductance at the 10 kHz LCR meter's measuring frequency for the air core series bifilar, I think the high value self capacitance of this multiturn bifilar coil causes it, see below the explanation. You may have also noticed that the air core bifilar has a bit higher inductance at 1 kHz (176 mH) than at 100 Hz (168 mH), this is because the 1 kHz is closer to the 4.6 kHz self resonant frequency, here I assume this latter frequency is the first parallel resonant frequency of the series bifilar coil caused by the about 170 mH inductance and the self capacitance.
The interesting thing is that such bifilar coils (connected as series bifilar like it is now) do have multiple resonances as the frequency increases, what is more: parallel and series resonances should alternate each other as you sweep the frequency due to the distributed nature of the self capacitance and inductance.
Here is a good site (watchable only via the internet wayback machine since last December) on some measurements where the series bifilar coil is made of a coaxial cable and in Figure 10 the magnitude of the impedance is shown in the function of the frequency (the high impedance peaks are the parallel and the low impedance valleys are the series resonance points: https://web.archive.org/web/20130321175122/http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/index.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20130321175122/http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/index.htm)
When you have some more time next week, you may wish to check your multiturn bifilar coil in a measuring circuit and experience (by sweeping through the frequencies) the impedance peaks or the valleys manifested by the changing voltage values across the series bifilar, driving it from your function generator. (A good measuring circuit is to be figured out for that.)
Of course a coaxial cable is a transmission line where the outer conductor encircles the inner conductor and these two are inherently guided in parallel with each other of course. When you make a bifilar coil, the two pieces of wires can also be considered as a (long) transmission line where they are guided next to each other in parallel too (though quite often these are twisted to increase the capacitance between them).
Now you or MileHigh can understand why the inductance for the air core series bifilar is so small at 10 kHz: at this frequency the impedance is surely near to a series resonant point (near to an impedance valley) but it is still inductive. At a series resonant frequency (especially at the first series frequency just after the first parallel one) the impedance is nearly the DC resistance of the two series coils (plus some dielectric losses of the enamel and bobbin or core losses when you use any ferromagnetic core etc).
Greetings, Gyula
OK something that has been touched on before but another advantage as compared to tuning a coil with an external capacitor is that with an external capacitor the cpacitance is at the end of the coil leads or terminals and so any current going to the capacitor must flow through the coil and it's DC resistance. Not so with the bifilar coil,
there would be little to nil tank current flowing through the DC resistance of the coil, seems like.
Which must improve efficiency surely. I set up an isolation transformer with the coils wound on different parts of the big core last night and tuned the output coil with a 14 uf capacitor for 50 Hz, when I ran the setup the voltage at the output coil was more than the input coil, almost double, same turn count (inductances trimmed). But the input required was more.
The way I see it it is the current in the output coil "tank" for want of a better word causing more losses, if there was no capacitor there but the coil was a bifilar and was "specifically wound as Tesla describes" but instead for 50 Hz "resonance" as I did with the 14 uF capacitor the losses would be much less. The losses are proportionate to the voltage applied and the current induced in the "tank" through the resistance.
Distributed capacitance would negate all that tank current and loss I think.
So
tuning with a external capacitor is not the same as
using a Coil For Electro-Magnets made to order for the same purpose, in that way at least and it's a big thing as I see it.
This is something we can test with the high resistance coils like Mags is making. ;)
So one for the trained or self educated guys, with the capacitance evenly distributed how much resistive loss is involved in a coil with it's own evenly distributed tank capacitor as compared to a comparative coil (same inductance) but tuned with an external capacitor ? Same or different ?
When I first added the cap I figured it would increase the input of course as the activity is increased, but then I thought if that was a bifilar coil no cap would be needed across the coil and so no current would be flowing through the end of the coil with no load.
QuoteCapacity secured in this particular way possesses an additional advantage in that it is evenly distributed, a consideration of the greatest importance in many cases, and the results, both as to-efficiency and economy, are the more readily and easily obtained as the size of the coils, the potential difference, or frequency of the currents are increased.
..
P.S. On a side note it irks me to no end when people like Utkin when referring to this coil make statements like "No wonder Tesla always said this coil was an
energy amplifying coil." I doubt he said that, I see no evidence of it.
In my opinion we should go through his claims and pick them to pieces. He just adds so much BS it make a joke out of Tesla's work. But people lap it up and re link it and promote the rubbish. I doubt very much Tesla ever uttered those words in relation to this coil or any other. But if he did ther ought to be record of it if people are saying he always used to say it. What a crock.
When I see Utkin or someone else make such a statement I immediately think,
crackpot.
..
So to better explain what I'm envisioning, with a regular coil and tuning capacitor when the applied voltage declines and therefore the magnetic field declines to maintain the current, that current keeps flowing through the wire and it's resistance to the ends of the coils wire before it gets to the capacitor. But with the bifilar coil there is no capacitor at the ends of the coil. So what happens to the current ? My guess is the coils distributed capacitance takes current from along the entire length of the coils wire via the dielectric medium being the insulation on the wire. Just a guess that if so, the ESR of this capacitor is very good.
Any thoughts.
P.S. As an example just say I had a coil of both kinds which has about 720 mH and about 22 Ohms DC resistance with 220 nF excited at 400 Hz.
A generator capable of 400 Hz and about 220 volts would be nice to experiment with. I wonder what the frequency of a car alternator would be at 1200 RPM, I'll have to check.
I could bypass the rectifier and use one phase of that maybe for a lower voltage.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on January 16, 2014, 07:26:25 PM
OK something that has been touched on before but another advantage as compared to tuning a coil with an external capacitor is that with an external capacitor the cpacitance is at the end of the coil leads or terminals and so any current going to the capacitor must flow through the coil and it's DC resistance. Not so with the bifilar coil, there would be little to nil tank current flowing through the DC resistance of the coil, seems like.
Which must improve efficiency surely. I set up an isolation transformer with the coils wound on different parts of the big core last night and tuned the output coil with a 14 uf capacitor for 50 Hz, when I ran the setup the voltage at the output coil was more than the input coil, almost double, same turn count (inductances trimmed). But the input required was more.
The way I see it it is the current in the output coil "tank" for want of a better word causing more losses, if there was no capacitor there but the coil was a bifilar and was "specifically wound as Tesla describes" but instead for 50 Hz "resonance" as I did with the 14 uF capacitor the losses would be much less. The losses are proportionate to the voltage applied and the current induced in the "tank" through the resistance. Distributed capacitance would negate all that tank current and loss I think.
So tuning with a external capacitor is not the same as using a Coil For Electro-Magnets made to order for the same purpose, in that way at least and it's a big thing as I see it.
This is something we can test with the high resistance coils like Mags is making. ;)
So one for the trained or self educated guys, with the capacitance evenly distributed how much resistive loss is involved in a coil with it's own evenly distributed tank capacitor as compared to a comparative coil (same inductance) but tuned with an external capacitor ? Same or different ?
When I first added the cap I figured it would increase the input of course as the activity is increased, but then I thought if that was a bifilar coil no cap would be needed across the coil and so no current would be flowing through the end of the coil with no load.
..
P.S. On a side note it irks me to no end when people like Utkin when referring to this coil make statements like "No wonder Tesla always said this coil was an energy amplifying coil." I doubt he said that, I see no evidence of it.
In my opinion we should go through his claims and pick them to pieces. He just adds so much BS it make a joke out of Tesla's work. But people lap it up and re link it and promote the rubbish. I doubt very much Tesla ever uttered those words in relation to this coil or any other. But if he did ther ought to be record of it if people are saying he always used to say it. What a crock.
When I see Utkin or someone else make such a statement I immediately think, crackpot.
..
"So
tuning with a external capacitor is not the same as
using a Coil For Electro-Magnets made to order for the same purpose, in that way at least and it's a big thing as I see it."
Yep, I believe it is different. ;) A normal coil with a cap in parallel, if we were to apply dc or say initial input, the cap is right there across the supply and takes on current immediately. So will the bifi coil. But the difference is, to charge the bifi cap, the charge has to go through the coil, but the typical LC this is not the case. They are not exactly the same. ;)
Ill have time to set up to wind that coil tomorrow evening. The bobbins that Im using for twin spools to wind a single are going to need a free spinning place to reel off of. The wire is very thin and have learned to be careful. The bobbins are door panel clips with the lil christmas tree tips. No through hole. So I have some hobby bearings Ill temporarily mount on a base. The bobbins also have different amounts of wire depending on where they broke while winding them originally, so they have to be able to spin independently. But now I have good use for that wire. ;)
Im going to remove 3 coils(possibly more if need be) from the motor and use the one space in the middle for testing the 2 different coils so the motor coils dont interfere too much. They are all really close, bout 1mm spacing. The bifi will have a 4 pin terminal for trying different configurations.
Mags
Farmhand:
You are right about the current being lower for a self-resonating coil but your reasoning is incorrect. The current is lower because the amount of energy stored in the self-resonating coil is lower, whether that be monofiler or series bifilar.
But firstly and formostly, you are forgetting the basics. The current flow in the coil is synonymous with the energy stored in the coil, period. You simply have to have current flow and deal with the associated i-squared-r losses no matter what. There is no possible bypass or work-around for the current flow in a self-resonating coil, because the coil stores the energy in the current flow itself.
But here is a simple thought experiment: If you have a regular capacitor in the LC circuit and start to decrease the value of the capacitor, the frequency goes up. What is mentioned less often but is also true is that the AC voltage has to increase while the capacitor decreases in size. If you read 10 volts AC when the cap is 100 uF, and you assume that the resonator energy remains constant, what is the AC voltage when the capacitance is only 37 pF?
The self-resonating coil with no capacitance would have to resonate at some crazy high voltage. The voltage would be so high that the air would break down and the energy would be nearly instantly drained out of the coil. And that's what happens all the time in real life. If you connect a coil across a 1.5 volt battery, when you go to disconnect, the the coil discharges through a spark gap. The spark gap may be so tiny that you don't hear it or see it but it is still there.
So, it's essentially impossible to have a self-resonating coil store a lot of energy because it "shorts itself out" the moment you go to disconnect from the battery. Unless you are in a vacuum or do some experiments with coils submerged in insulating oil, a self-resonating coil in air will always be a low energy affair compared to the same coil connected to a capacitor.
MileHigh
In the theoretical case I refer to above the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is equal to the added capacitor capacitance and the distributed capacitance of the monofilar coil (in theory). So a bifilar coil with a distributed capacitance of 220 nF and a monofilar coil with whatever capacitance is needed added to it to get it to the same 220 nF. Probably need a lot of wire.
If someone wants to test it and that amount of distributed capacitance is not possible then the values could simply be changed to what is possible. Thing is both coils would have the same capacitance and inductance one has an external capacitor and one doesn't.
.
On a side note it is surprising how many different configurations this transformer with the 16 windings on it can be configured. I can make four bifilar coils and connect them in different ways to get different measurements. Interesting...
..
Quote from: Farmhand on January 16, 2014, 10:47:52 PM
In the theoretical case I refer to above the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is equal to the added capacitor capacitance and the distributed capacitance of the monofilar coil (in theory). So a bifilar coil with a distributed capacitance of 220 nF and a monofilar coil with whatever capacitance is needed added to it to get it to the same 220 nF. Probably need a lot of wire.
If someone wants to test it and that amount of distributed capacitance is not possible then the values could simply be changed to what is possible. Thing is both coils would have the same capacitance and inductance one has an external capacitor and one doesn't.
.
On a side note it is surprising how many different configurations this transformer with the 16 windings on it can be configured. I can make four bifilar coils and connect them in different ways to get different measurements. Interesting...
..
For the sake of it, each wire loop in a bifi that is between the lead out first and last loops are little caps in series. lol it would be interesting to see if a bifi resonates at the regular coil freq because of it. Its got to be a bit different than where a normal coil, the plates of the cap are shunted somewhat by each turn, but the bifi are only shunted by half of the whole coil. Much easier for the bifi capacitance to have a high voltage. And maybe even if it can ring at normal coil freq also. ??? ;D
Weve got to try all kinds of ways to test. The amount of voltage difference working in these 2 different coil has to make a big difference in some way. I have some ideas that I want to try. Like dumping fields collapse current from another coil into the bifi capacitor. Where a normal coil would impede the spike, the bifi should take it in. Might be a way of making good use of collapse spikes. Especially if those spikes are timed to res freq. ;D I also really want to try the multi core inductor experiments. Ive got some time starting tomorrow to fiddle.
Mags
Quote from: Farmhand on January 16, 2014, 10:47:52 PM
On a side note it is surprising how many different configurations this transformer with the 16 windings on it can be configured. I can make four bifilar coils and connect them in different ways to get different measurements. Interesting...
..
I have seen where there are 8 individual enameled wires twisted together as a single conductor used in switching supply windings. Take half(4) to make 1 winding and the other 4 for the other winding. Its like using 2 larger wires to make a bifi, but more capacitance. If we want more inductance and less resistance, use a core and less wire. So multistrand windings can help increase capacitance if we use less wire/turns by adding a core, and decrease resistance.
An alternative to multistrand to increase capacitance would be flat wire.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/REA-tinned-copper-flat-buss-wire-003-x-026-2-Lbs/261297961523?_trksid=p2050601.m2372&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D207%26meid%3D4172994119461631007%26pid%3D100085%26prg%3D1112%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D261297961523%26%26clkid%3D4172999009395071920&_qi=RTM1562569
Just an example of many things out there.
Mags
Gyula:
QuoteThe interesting thing is that such bifilar coils (connected as series bifilar like it is now) do have multiple resonances as the frequency increases, what is more: parallel and series resonances should alternate each other as you sweep the frequency due to the distributed nature of the self capacitance and inductance.
Thank you for that information, that's probably the most important posting around here in a while. I suppose that could be simulated with some kind of lumped transmission line or something like that. Your link looks like the real thing. Ham radio guys are the real thing.
To add to that, when you pump some sort of signal into that complex filter, it's the way the individual frequency components in the signal react with the complex filter. There are alternating poles and zeroes (peaks and nulls in the frequency response.) The resultant response is addition of all the responses to the separate frequencies. It's like a frequency "shake and bake" process that takes place. I still think of a real physical spring in self-resonance. There is a certain randomness and strangeness to the physical spring in self resonance because if you think about it there are actually two or more springs springs in one. There is the spring that stretches along the axis, and the spring associated with the bending of the shaft of the spring. The shaft can bend along two orthoganal axes, so that's like two springs. The important point is that an ideal spring is massless, and the mass of the metal of the spring is modeled as a distributed capacitance. It's a very good analogy for what we are talking about.
Also, I saw something once when I was a kid that was so cool. It was a big disk that stood upright. There was a big tuning dial on it. You put it next to your AM radio and you could pull in far away stations and make them sound clear. You moved the big dial to find the tuning spot. Even as a kid I thought it must be some kind of tunable resonator, and now as an old kid I agree. I should try looking it up online. A passive LC resonator that resonates on the AM band.
MileHigh
Here's a report of an experiment by contributor Neptune off the Muller Dynamo thread:
neptune:
I did a small experiment today involving bifilar windings . Someone else posted a link to a website about this . I made 3 electromagnets using 3 similar iron cores . Each magnet used the same length of wire . One was wound normally , one bifilar and one quadfilar .The same power supply was used to test each electromagnet in turn . The strength of each was tested by seeing how many small nails it would lift . The results were as follows :
Normall wind - 4nails .
Bifilar wound - 12 nails .
Quadfilar - 12 nails .
Note that each electromagnet had the same core and the same Amp-turns. I was surprised that the quadfilar was no better than bifilar . This experiment seems ridiculous , but you MUST do it yourself . The implication is that by using a bifilar motor coil , you could create the same input torque for a much lower electrical input , maybe as low as one third . Got to be worth a try? But do the simple experiment first.
Here's a hyper-link to the page: It's at the bottom!
http://www.overunity.com/3842/muller-dynamo/3935/wap2/ (http://www.overunity.com/3842/muller-dynamo/3935/wap2/)
Additional comment from Neptune:
mikestocks2006:
--- Quote from: neptune on July 01, 2011, 07:06:21 PM ---@ Nulpoints , and also in reply to Pm from Mikestocks 2006 ,
Bifilar in my case is as follows . Take 2 wires , A and B . Wind them "2in hand2 side by side . do not twist the wires together , and try to avoid crossed turns . All 3 electromagnets are wound single layer . Connect the start of wire a to the power supply . Connect the END of wire A to the START of wire B. Connect the connect the END of wire B to the power supply . So current flows from start of A to the end of A which is then connected to the start of B . The source makes no mention of the shape factor of the coil , but shows a similar arrangement to above . The nails I used were three-quarter inch upholstery tacks (tin tacks).
Neptune is very clear about nature of the Tesla series bifilar connection he used in the test!
Quote from: synchro1 on January 17, 2014, 01:12:44 PM
...
--- Quote from: neptune on July 01, 2011, 07:06:21 PM ---@ Nulpoints , and also in reply to Pm from Mikestocks 2006 ,
Bifilar in my case is as follows . Take 2 wires , A and B . Wind them "2in hand2 side by side . do not twist the wires together , and try to avoid crossed turns . All 3 electromagnets are wound single layer . Connect the start of wire a to the power supply . Connect the END of wire A to the START of wire B. Connect the connect the END of wire B to the power supply . So current flows from start of A to the end of A which is then connected to the start of B . The source makes no mention of the shape factor of the coil , but shows a similar arrangement to above . The nails I used were three-quarter inch upholstery tacks (tin tacks).
...
Hi Synchro1,
You omitted a very important sentence from the text Neptune posted above, the omitted sentence just followed the sentence I put in bold above, and this is it also in bold (first the last sentence from above): "The nails I used were three-quarter inch upholstery tacks [tin tacks ].
Smaller nails would give a more accurate measurement, my tests were quick and dirty."So Neptune acknowledges that smaller nails (i.e. smaller than three-quarter inch long nails) would give more accurate results and that his tests were quick and dirty. And don't you find it strange that he did not measure difference between the performance of the bifilar and the quadfilar electromagnets?? Or just the quick and dirty test is to blame in this latter case too?
If you recall, I asked you to use smaller iron pieces than your big paper clips you used in your video (I even asked you to chop them up to have much smaller pieces, remember?) to refine the measurements. This is why I repeated my own tests with small sized iron nuts and found no difference because earlier I did not find difference with my paper clips test either but I felt the paper clips were too big for the test.
And remember: Magluvin also did this test and he did not find any difference either. I agree with him that there is no difference between the DC performance of a series bifi electromagnet and a normal electromagnet when they have the same Amperturns, shape factor, same length of wire, same core properties etc.
Gyula
PS this is the link to Neptune's original post from which both synchro1 and I quoted:
http://www.overunity.com/3842/muller-dynamo/msg293547/#msg293547 (http://www.overunity.com/3842/muller-dynamo/msg293547/#msg293547)
@Gyulasum,
I just came across "Neptune's test report" while trying to research Itsu's rotor speed. Itsu says his parallel LC coil see's the rotor RPM at 150 hertz. What's the meaning of that? If the LC resonant coil lowers the "critical minimum frequency" for "Lenz acceleration" by 75%, that would really amount to something! It sounds to me like his rotor's doing more like 9,000. Can anyone tell me wether or not Itsu is spinning his rotor at 2,250 or 9,000 rpm in his resonant output coil video?
The other thing is, I actually managed to pick up a third trombone clip with my nail core bifilar electromagnet in my video at first, just like Neptune!
Quote from: gyulasun on January 17, 2014, 03:31:53 PM
I repeated my own tests with small sized iron nuts...
Magluvin also did this test and he did not find any difference either....
If the two types of coil had the same measured inductance - but different strength magnetic fields - that really would be 'magic'... :)
Quote from: MileHigh on January 17, 2014, 12:30:58 AM
...
Also, I saw something once when I was a kid that was so cool. It was a big disk that stood upright. There was a big tuning dial on it. You put it next to your AM radio and you could pull in far away stations and make them sound clear. You moved the big dial to find the tuning spot. Even as a kid I thought it must be some kind of tunable resonator, and now as an old kid I agree. I should try looking it up online. A passive LC resonator that resonates on the AM band.
Hi MileHigh,
If you are interested, here are some comments on the "true equivalent circuit" (comments to a certain author, Mr Mueller's earlier article on coax traps):
https://web.archive.org/web/20130321175059/http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/QexKom.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20130321175059/http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/QexKom.htm)
Very briefly: it turns out that Mueller paper ( http://ebookbrowsee.net/gdoc.php?id=281896620&url=0fde726e1bf7bf65a20ee3d7db51914f&c=26010868 (http://ebookbrowsee.net/gdoc.php?id=281896620&url=0fde726e1bf7bf65a20ee3d7db51914f&c=26010868) ) gave an 'equivalent' circuit for coaxial traps, which gave the first parallel resonance frequency but did not give any further higher frequency series or parallel resonances, and some works from other authors included some mistakes too, this paper has them listed: http://n6mw.ehpes.com/CT5.pdf (http://n6mw.ehpes.com/CT5.pdf)
Regarding your recalling "A passive LC resonator that resonates on the AM band", it indeed has been a useful device, and still is used by some AM radio fans pulling in distant AM broadcast stations. Recently I saw a youtube video on such an antenna version using several ferrite cores inside a big solenoid coil, see this for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqYZcRXCGxM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqYZcRXCGxM)
Of course there have been many shapes and frames, I guess what you saw as a kid may have had a spider coil like shown here: http://makearadio.com/coils/spider.php (http://makearadio.com/coils/spider.php) (with a variable capacitor of course).
I mention this because an interesting "spin off" is also shown here: http://makearadio.com/coils/contracoils.php (http://makearadio.com/coils/contracoils.php) called as contra wound coils and although they are not 'classical' bifilar windings, they still manifest the 4 times inductance increase (due to the mutual inductance) when the two coils are connected in series, versus the the inductance value when the same two coils are connected in parallel.
Thanks,
Gyula
Quote from: tim123 on January 17, 2014, 04:57:16 PM
If the two types of coil had the same measured inductance - but different strength magnetic fields - that really would be 'magic'... :)
Hi Tim,
Yes they had the measured inductance within a few percent.
Here are the two tests, you may not have seen them, one with paper clips and the other with small nuts:
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357838/topicseen/#msg357838
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952
Gyula
Quote from: tim123 on January 17, 2014, 04:57:16 PM
If the two types of coil had the same measured inductance - but different strength magnetic fields - that really would be 'magic'... :)
The magnetic strength is not a magnetic field feature of the coil per se, but the way in which the coils magnetize the ferrite cores. The major difference in the core materials is super critical and definitely accounts for the huge difference in results.
Seriously now; Take a close look at the coil cores in the pictures below: One's a soft iron on top, 16 penny nails called for by the test controller; The other Mag's used below are some kind of nickel or zinc coated alloy! Not to mention the threads! How could it be even remotely possible to get similar results with such two entirely different core materials? Give me a break, would you please?
This comparison is ludicrous!
Quote from: synchro1 on January 17, 2014, 04:06:47 PM
...
Can anyone tell me wether or not Itsu is spinning his rotor at 2,250 or 9,000 rpm in his resonant output coil video?
...
Synchro1:
In his parallel resonance video, Itsu mentioned his gen coil has 27mH inductance and the tuning capacitor was 40uF, giving 150Hz resonance by the calculation. When he run the motor with the capacitor connected, the scope measured about 146Hz, now if you multiply this by 60, you get 8,760 RPM. If it had measured 150Hz ouput frequency from the generator coil still tuned by the 40uF, then the RPM would have been 9,000 indeed.
And when he disconnected the 40uF capacitor, the rotor speeded up to a higher rpm, surely above 9,000 rpm.
Quote
The magnetic strength is not a magnetic field feature of the coil per se, but the way in which the coils magnetize the ferrite cores. The difference in the core materials appears to be critical and probably accounts for the difference in results.
In those tests I referred to the cores were iron bolts or nails, no ferrite cores were used at all.
How do you know that the 16 penny nails are made of soft iron? and the bolts are made of a totally different iron? You measured them?
Quote from: gyulasun on January 17, 2014, 06:25:25 PM
Synchro1:
In his parallel resonance video, Itsu mentioned his gen coil has 27mH inductance and the tuning capacitor was 40uF, giving 150Hz resonance by the calculation. When he run the motor with the capacitor connected, the scope measured about 146Hz, now if you multiply this by 60, you get 8,760 RPM. If it had measured 150Hz ouput frequency from the generator coil still tuned by the 40uF, then the RPM would have been 9,000 indeed.
And when he disconnected the 40uF capacitor, the rotor speeded up to a higher rpm, surely above 9,000 rpm.
In those tests I referred to the cores were iron bolts or nails, no ferrite cores were used at all. However, I agree with your last sentence, there can be and in fact there are significant differences in the magnetic properties of ferromagnetic materials, even between two iron bolts or nails that seem totally identical by the visual inspection. This is why we have to compare apples with apples.
Gyula
Thanks, that confirms my suspicion that Conradelektro's rotor needs to go faster to test his LC resonant coil.
I can tell from looking at the bolts that they are coated with a shiny metal, not soft iron!
Quote from: synchro1 on January 17, 2014, 06:31:51 PM
Thanks, that confirms my suspicion that Conradelektro's rotor needs to go faster to test his LC resonant coil.
I can tell from looking at the bolts that they are coated with a shiny metal, not soft iron!
Synchro1, that confirms nothing, what are trying to connect here with what?
@Gyulasun,
My point here is simply that a N-S four magnet rotor spinning at 9,000 RPM is equal in frequency to a diametric magnet spinning at 18,000 RPM. Conradelektro plans to start spinning his diametric magnet at between 7,800 RPM and 10,000 RPM. Too slow to cut it!
It was an idle comment, but perhaps this is how to define & test the 'magic' that Conrad was questioning...
If the 2 coils have the same inductance, but different field strengths, then that surely would be magical? I certainly would be surprised...
We seem to have a difference in opinion - i.e. that Gyula recommends a small core, whereas Synchro (I think) is recommending a big core...?
I've just bought a couple of large-ish ferrite rods: 6" long x 1/2". Perhaps, when they arrive, I'll do the test too...
Well I could do the test with my own small coils , but I see no real point, the coils both have the same DC resistance and both have the same inductance and cores (iron powder rods), both coils will see the same current and create the same magnetic field. I'm reluctant to waste another night dong what others have already shown that I agree with.
Which is that when a continuous DC current is sustained through the two different coils they will behave the same, should be as exactly the same as is possible considering build tolerances.
I'm interested to see if there are any efficiency differences between some higher inductance, fairly high resistance (relatively) coils of both monofilar and bifilar coils when excited with a frequency and loaded in various ways to various levels. One way to load a spiral AC electromagnet would be with a steel plate. A way to load a regular solenoid electromagnet might be to use it as a mechanical oscillator drive or something.
Of course my use of the general term "resonance" is wrong when talking of simply tuning a systems L or C to get maximum power through a load on a "tank".
Tesla did not use the term resonance in the patent and I can accept I used the wrong term, if resonance played a major part he would have said so in the patent as he was not afraid to use the term. I will change my language in future to say simply tune the circuit.
Cheers
Quote from: synchro1 on January 17, 2014, 06:50:42 PM
@Gyulasun,
My point here is simply that a N-S four magnet rotor spinning at 9,000 RPM is equal in frequency to a diametric magnet spinning at 18,000 RPM. Conradelektro plans to start spinning his diametric magnet at between 7,800 RPM and 10,000 RPM. Too slow to cut it!
Synchro1,
You may have demonstrated already but I missed it: how did you measure the diametric magnet's spinning at 18,000 rpm? Or if you did not measure it, how did this rpm come about?
Have you measured any output power created by this magnet spinning at this rpm? Please share measurement facts because you have not mentioned any meaningful measured data so far.
I am not asking you to give out your 'magic' or 'secret', just state your measurements, for I suppose you have done some real measurements not to delude yourself for months or years?
Once you wrote that the input current got decreased when the 'magic' happened (i.e. you may have reached the rpm needed for the 'magic'), then what the reduced current draw was at 12V and what was the output power then? how did you check it?
Gyula
Hi Tim,
I did not mean to recommend any core size, small or big, if any "magic" is supposed to happen, then the person stating the magic should define the sizes.
Hi Farmhand,
Tesla wrote in the Coil for Electromagnet patent:
"The effects of self-induction, above referred to, are known to be neutralized by proportioning to a proper degree the capacity of the circuit with relation to the self-induction and frequency of the currents." ... "This is due to the mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that frequency."
So he did not use the word resonance but I am a 100% sure that he meant making the capacitive reactance of the self capacitance of his coil to be equal to the inductive reactance of his coil because I think this is the only way "that permits a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it (i.e. the coil) with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction."
And when you make a coil's reactance to be equal to a capacitor's reactance and or vice versa, and this capacitor is either in parallel or in series with that coil, then you have a resonant LC circuit simply because it is the condition for resonance as we know.
So Tesla had to have a resonant condition in order to achieve his claims in the patent, even though he did not use the word resonance in the text.
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on January 18, 2014, 08:12:52 AM
Synchro1,
You may have demonstrated already but I missed it: how did you measure the diametric magnet's spinning at 18,000 rpm? Or if you did not measure it, how did this rpm come about?
Have you measured any output power created by this magnet spinning at this rpm? Please share measurement facts because you have not mentioned any meaningful measured data so far.
I am not asking you to give out your 'magic' or 'secret', just state your measurements, for I suppose you have done some real measurements not to delude yourself for months or years?
Once you wrote that the input current got decreased when the 'magic' happened (i.e. you may have reached the rpm needed for the 'magic'), then what the reduced current draw was at 12V and what was the output power then? how did you check it?
Gyula
I place the
critical minimum frequency for
DLE (Delayed Lenz Effect) for a
diametric magnet spinner at
twenty five thousand RPM. I measured my spinner speed with a piece of reflective tape attached and a laser tachometer. Itsu apparently lowered the CMF for DLE to a veritable 18,000 RPM with his resonant output coil. This amounts to an achievement, but I think Conradelektro will encounter slow down at 10,000 RPM.I check my input with a digital ampmeter.
Quote from: Farmhand on January 18, 2014, 05:47:57 AM
Well I could do the test with my own small coils , but I see no real point, the coils both have the same DC resistance and both have the same inductance and cores (iron powder rods), both coils will see the same current and create the same magnetic field. I'm reluctant to waste another night dong what others have already shown that I agree with.
Which is that when a continuous DC current is sustained through the two different coils they will behave the same, should be as exactly the same as is possible considering build tolerances.
I'm interested to see if there are any efficiency differences between some higher inductance, fairly high resistance (relatively) coils of both monofilar and bifilar coils when excited with a frequency and loaded in various ways to various levels. One way to load a spiral AC electromagnet would be with a steel plate. A way to load a regular solenoid electromagnet might be to use it as a mechanical oscillator drive or something.
Of course my use of the general term "resonance" is wrong when talking of simply tuning a systems L or C to get maximum power through a load on a "tank".
Tesla did not use the term resonance in the patent and I can accept I used the wrong term, if resonance played a major part he would have said so in the patent as he was not afraid to use the term. I will change my language in future to say simply tune the circuit.
Cheers
The serial bifilar coil generates a quarter million times the potential between the windings as the monofilar. How can you overlook this overwhelming difference? All you refer to is the D.C. resistance and inductance. What about the enormous difference in Hi-Voltage potential? I drummed this in relentlessly. Pay attention! The Tesla serial Pancake coil was pateneted as an iron ferrite
MAGNETIZER COIL! The coil magically transmutes iron into a permanent magnet!Now, if you plan to do the experiment, why not take a trip to the hardware store and buy the 16 penny nail that "Tesla-Coil-Builder" calls for, and use the correct gauge magnet wire stipulated by him. You're going too far afield by improvising materials. This grows very complex with the core reluctance and number of wraps etc. If you do the test like he instructs, you'll get the correct results. A zinc or nickel or chome plated bolt won't magnetize like a soft iron nail. All you'll be left with is the coil's field strength like in Magluvin's test.
Here's a very simple experiment for someone like Magluvin who just wrapped a few spiral coils. I'm ill equipped to perform this one.
Place the serial bifilar pancake on two different metal plates, one at a time, one iron and another aluminum perhaps or any two different metal plates and check the SB pancake coil's inductance in Micro Henries. Then repeat the test with the monifilar. The serial bifilar's inductance is supposed to change due to the high potential between the wraps and the difference in conductivity of the metal plate in adjacency. Repeat the experiment with the monofilar and compare any change in inductance. This is testing the serial bifilar pancake as a magnetizer sensor! The serial bifilar pancake coil is very sensitive compared to the monofilar! Remember, it spontaneously generates 250,000 times the hi-voltage electrical potential between the windings than the single wrap! This power doesn't count for nothing! This is where to find the MAGIC!
@Farmhand and the experts:
I just watched Farmhand's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6nP1HekThc (ring transformer) and it reminds me of an experiment I did last Thursday with my large bifilar Bedini coil (which I posted here http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383363/#msg383363).
MileHigh mentioned that I can use only one wire (of the large bifilar coil) to have a comparable monofilar coil (with 1/4 of the inductance). I measured the inductance of each of the two wires, see this post http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383374/#msg383374 . The inductance of one wire is indeed 1/4 of the inductance of the wires in series (measured with my LCR meter).
So far so good. Then I tried to measure the self resonance of one wire with an exciter coil wound around the bifilar coil. It is the same exciter coil (4 turns of white wire) I used to measure the self resonance of the wires in series (see the photo attached to the first post mentioned above, the exciter coil was simply left in place).
And, I could not measure the self resonance of just one wire with the exciter coil. And, I could not measure the self resonance of the two wires connected in parallel with the exciter coil. (Coil had no core, air core.)
I tried a lot, but no success. It seems that the exciter coil can only "excite" the big coil if and when the two wires are connected in series.
Then I had to stop experimenting (no more free time) and can only do more tests on Monday (I am not at home ).
I write it, because farmhand showed a similar strange measurement over one wire of a bifilar winding and over the wires of a bifilar winding in parallel (on his big ring core in his video).
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad:
Perhaps the self-capacitance is so low that the self-resonant frequency is much higher than you were expecting?
MileHigh
QuoteNow, if you plan to do the experiment, why not take a trip to the hardware store and buy the 16 penny nail that "Tesla-Coil-Builder" calls for, and use the correct gauge magnet wire stipulated by him. You're going too far afield by improvising materials. This grows very complex with the core reluctance and number of wraps etc. If you do the test like he instructs, you'll get the correct results.
These are classic "secret sauce" arguments. It has to be the right wire, etc. Those are to be judged on a case-by-case basis. In the majority of cases the "secret sauce" arguments aren't true. They are a classic technique used by con artists also. I am not implying at all that Synchro1 is a con artist because he is clearly not.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 18, 2014, 01:46:52 PM
Conrad:
Perhaps the self-capacitance is so low that the self-resonant frequency is much higher than you were expecting?
MileHigh
@MileHigh:
The self resonance frequency of the bifilar coil (the two wires in series) is 4600 Hz (air core) which gives a self capacitance of 7 nF. How low could it be for one wire? Anyway I tried up to 20 Mhz (the limit of my function generator).
I will try to get resonance with capacitors (LC circuit) on Monday (10 µF, 1 µF and 0.22 µF) and also try for self resonance again. It can well be that I did something stupid, it was late.
The most puzzling thing is that it did not work with the wires in parallel? The two wires have different diameters, one is thinner than the other.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 18, 2014, 02:20:08 PM
@MileHigh:
The self resonance frequency of the bifilar coil (the two wires in series) is 4600 Hz (air core) which gives a self capacitance of 7 nF. How low could it be for one wire? Anyway I tried up to 20 Mhz (the limit of my function generator).
I will try to get resonance with capacitors (LC circuit) on Monday (10 µF, 1 µF and 0.22 µF) and also try for self resonance again. It can well be that I did something stupid, it was late.
The most puzzling thing is that it did not work with the wires in parallel? The two wires have different diameters, one is thinner than the other.
Greetings, Conrad
In my earlier posts, a 2 turn normal coil has the same capacitance as a 2 turn bifi. ;)
Every time you add a turn to each coil, the effective capacitance of the normal coil will go down and the bifi will go up. ;) So the other coils you were testing had as many turns that would make the normal coil capacitance somewhat lower, and the bifi somewhat higher. When you get into a lot of turns, the spread gets wider. ;)
The info I give is not just nonsensical ramblings. ::) ;D
Mags
Quote from: synchro1 on January 18, 2014, 10:02:14 AM
If you do the test like he instructs, you'll get the correct results. A zinc or nickel or chome plated bolt won't magnetize like a soft iron nail. All you'll be left with is the coil's field strength like in Magluvin's test.
Actually, I used non plated 16 penny nails. We have a guy doing construction at my work. I did do a thin wrap of teflon tape, as the ribbed burrs close to the head of the nail may have scraped the insulation of the wire. I believe for that test to be evident, the coils need many more wraps than described in the article, especially to use a D cell. The author of that site should make changes to that article. Its the right idea, just the wrong ingredients. Sure it may work 'better' with high voltage, but the article doesnt express that.
Mags
Conrad:
Assuming the frequency is too high, there is a way of making inferences about the self capacitance using different values of capacitor. Perhaps if you start with a one nanofarad capacitor and measured the resonant frequency and worked your way back from there you would see a trend line in the frequency. As you reduce the capacitance values what happens to the frequency? Does it start to go much higher than you have seen in other similar tests?
Of course it's noted that the capacitance is always the self-capacitance plus the capacitor capacitance plus the probe capacitance. I am not factoring in frequency effects here but we know they come into play when you are in high frequency territory.
The geometry is telling you that the capacitance has to decrease. Now the distance between adjacent wires is very large because there is an unused wire between each active wire in the coil. If you look up the formula for the capacitance between two plates of metal, you will find that it's inversely proportional to the distance between the plates. So the difference in capacitance between two wires that are 0.1 mm apart vs 2 mm apart is very large. It's possible that the self-capacitance is now so low that it's very hard to measure, and also very hard to observe any effects from it.
MileHigh
Quote from: synchro1 on January 18, 2014, 09:49:51 AM
I place the critical minimum frequency for DLE (Delayed Lenz Effect) for a diametric magnet spinner at twenty five thousand RPM. I measured my spinner speed with a piece of reflective tape attached and a laser tachometer. Itsu apparently lowered the CMF for DLE to a veritable 18,000 RPM with his resonant output coil. This amounts to an achievement, but I think Conradelektro will encounter slow down at 10,000 RPM.
I check my input with a digital ampmeter.
Synchro1:
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxL4f2OsPg) )
quoting from your post to Farmhand:
The serial bifilar coil generates a quarter million times the potential between the windings as the monofilar. How can you overlook this overwhelming difference? All you refer to is the D.C. resistance and inductance. What about the enormous difference in Hi-Voltage potential? I drummed this in relentlessly. Pay attention! The Tesla serial Pancake coil was pateneted as an iron ferrite MAGNETIZER COIL! The coil magically transmutes iron into a permanent magnet!What you wrote above proves that you try to make out any possible "explanation" which seems to prove the superior performance of your "synchro coil". Here is a link to the Tesla patent, very easy to quote the original text because of the neat style of the html page: http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets (http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets) and please quote Tesla's text where he wrote about any iron ferrite magnetizer coil or he wrote about turning any core into a permanent magnet!
The other thing is you claim a COP of 2 for the series bifi coil versus the monofilar coil because in your paper clip tests you found your electromagnet with the series bifi coil lifted up 2 pieces of paperclips while the monofilar electromagnet lifted up only one paperclip: Please explain that in those tests where or how was the quarter million times higher potential present in the series bifi coil when you used a 12V DC battery source for the tests? (You wrote earlier to my question that you used a 12V battery.)
Gyula
Quote from: Magluvin on January 18, 2014, 02:55:34 PM
Actually, I used non plated 16 penny nails. We have a guy doing construction at my work. I did do a thin wrap of teflon tape, as the ribbed burrs close to the head of the nail may have scraped the insulation of the wire. I believe for that test to be evident, the coils need many more wraps than described in the article, especially to use a D cell. The author of that site should make changes to that article. Its the right idea, just the wrong ingredients. Sure it may work 'better' with high voltage, but the article doesnt express that.
Mags
Let me add that the series bifilar pancake or solenoid coil has to be
CHARGED initially to reach it's full potential. This is done simply by snapping a good spark across the leads. Attempting to charge a single coil is useless. I used a depleted Bedini charge battery that was originally 12 volts, bled down to "D" cell voltage. Too much power will fry those tiny coils in no time! Once fully charged, a small amount of D.C. current will produce the extra magnetic strength in the iron core. High reluctance ferrite with low remanence won't magnetize like soft iron. Farmhand said he had some ferrite lying around. It probably won't work because it looses it's magnetic strength too quickly. Coercivity is another dynamic involving the amount of current required to reverse the magnetic charge. Iron has a low enough coercivity to release the junk on a scrap yard pancake electromagnet. You can get the nail coil to drop the load of paper clips, by inducing a reverse charge too. Higher coercivity alloys like Alnico will retain the attraction.
Say we had a BIG coil. 100H coil.
At 100h with a cap across it of 70.3nf we get a resonance of 60hz
100H 6.3nf 200hz
100h 100pf 1.6khz
100h 11pf 4.7 khz
Now just imagine all that wire to make that big coil, it definitely isnt going to ring at 5 or 10khz on its own. Not even 100khz
100h 1.1pf 15khz
So the Big 100h coil has a virtually non existent capacitance. So what would we imagine the capacitance of a bifi coil of the same wire and turns?
Not saying we need to make 100h coils. It was just an example for understanding. ;)
Mags
@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 (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.
Gyula:
Thank you for puling up the YouTube clip with the AM band resonator. The one I saw was a commercial version, probably manufactured in the late 1960s. It must be in the "plastic mould graveyard."
Going back to the self-capacitance issue, there is an exercise that anyone can do as an exploration into the whys and wherefores. Try to estimate the capacitance between to adjacent loops in one of your coils. You don't have parallel plates. So you make a reasonable estimate as to how much a long length of wire of a given diameter translates into an equivalent long rectangular metal plate. What is the approximate equivalent distance between the plates? Let's keep it simple and assume the relative permittivity of the plastic insulation is one. That can also be looked up.
So with a few reasonable judgement calls and a bit of punching the numbers in a formula you can make an estimate of the capacitance per pair of adjacent turns of wire in your coil. Then you can make a quasi estimate the self-capacitance for the entire coil. Then you can compare the two values, estimated and measured. Sometimes the estimated value and the measured value for some kind of system are consistently different by some constant or near constant value. That gives you a "compensation factor" for estimated capacitance so that you can compensate and accurately estimate the actual self capacitance.
There is another way to approach this issue. I still will pitch light gauge speaker wire. The two conductors are very close to each other. You could just put a capacitance meter on the the isolated wire pair and measure the capacitance of the entire spool. (Note: With that data you could work your way back to approximating the dimensions and separation distance for the equivalent long and thin rectangular plate capacitor. Once you have the equivalent model for the two adjacent wire loops as a long thin rectangular plate capacitor, you just punch in the numbers and you are done. So it's also a way of estimating the equivalent long and thin rectangular plate capacitor.)
Then connect up the spool of speaker wire in a series bifilar configuration and measure the self capacitance from the resonant frequency. Again the question is: Is there any corelation between the measured isolated wire capacitance and the measured self-resonant capacitance? Is there a possible compensation factor that you can determine so that you can make a "weighted" or "true" estimate?
MileHigh
Quote from: synchro1 on January 18, 2014, 03:30:55 PM
Let me add that the series bifilar pancake or solenoid coil has to be CHARGED initially to reach it's full potential. This is done simply by snapping a good spark across the leads. Attempting to charge a single coil is useless. I used a depleted Bedini charge battery that was originally 12 volts, bled down to "D" cell voltage. Too much power will fry those tiny coils in no time! Once fully charged, a small amount of D.C. current will produce the extra magnetic strength in the iron core. High reluctance ferrite with low remanence won't magnetize like soft iron. Farmhand said he had some ferrite lying around. It probably won't work because it looses it's magnetic strength too quickly. Coercivity is another dynamic involving the amount of current required to reverse the magnetic charge. Iron has a low enough coercivity to release the junk on a scrap yard pancake electromagnet. You can get the nail coil to drop the load of paper clips, by inducing a reverse charge too. Higher coercivity alloys like Alnico will retain the attraction.
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. >:( ;D
Mags
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
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
Quote from: Magluvin on January 18, 2014, 04:14:36 PM
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. >:( ;D
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 (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.
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. ;D
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.
..
Quote from: synchro1 on January 18, 2014, 03:57:17 PM
@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 (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
Quote from: gyulasun on January 19, 2014, 08:33:02 AM
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
Look, you're the one who is obviously confused if you're changing your mind now and maintaining that Itsu's running at 2250 RPM and quoting me as wrong, when you stated that his RPM was 9,000! Make up your mind!
Here's the quote from you to refresh your memory:
"In his parallel resonance video, Itsu mentioned his gen coil has 27mH inductance and the tuning capacitor was 40uF, giving 150Hz resonance by the calculation. When he run the motor with the capacitor connected, the scope measured about 146Hz, now if you multiply this by 60, you get 8,760 RPM. If it had measured 150Hz ouput frequency from the generator coil still tuned by the 40uF, then the RPM would have been 9,000 indeed. And when he disconnected the 40uF capacitor, the rotor speeded up to a higher rpm,
surely above 9,000 rpm".
I did some more measurements with the big bedini bifilar coil (see my post http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383363/#msg383363, on the photo note the four turn exciter coil with white wire and the capacitors for LC circuit resonance tests).
Today all measurements succeeded (also with the wires separated or in parallel):
- self resonance, wires in series, air core 4600 Hz
- self resonance wires separated or in parallel, air core 58 KHz
- self resonance, wires in series, steel core 4000 Hz
- self resonance wires separated or in parallel, steel core 56 KHz
As MileHigh said, the self capacitance of the coil drops if only one wire is used or if the wires are used in parallel (from around 5 nF to around 600 pF).
The inductance of the coil with wires in series is about 4 times the inductance of the coil with only one wire or the wires in parallel.
The resonance frequency of the coil with only one wire or the wires in parallel in an LC circuit (with 10 µF, 1 µF and 0.22 µ F cap) is about 2 times the resonance frequency of the coil with the wires in series.
Last Thursday I must have had a bad evening because the measurements of the coil using only one wire or the wires in series did not work, but today everything went as it should. Measurements were done with a four turn exciter coil.
Attached is a PDF-file with all measurements of the coil if you are interested.
Tomorrow I will finish the "12 V DC motor magnet spinner" and then the "speed up under load" tests can begin.
Greetings, Conrad
Here's a picture of Ed's rotor wheel and PMH; Apparently Ed made refrences in his book on Magnetricity to the use of the PMH as a driver coil for this 24 iron blade rotor:
I did the "pan cake coil on a steel plate and aluminium plate" test.
Both the bifilar and the monofilar pan cake coil show the same increase of inductance when put on a mild steel plate (34 µH increases to 50 µH).
Both coils do not show an increase of inductance when put on a aluminium plate.
As I recall, someone expected some magic when doing this test? Unfortunately there is no magic. But of course, I for sure did something wrong.
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad:
I hit the motherload for you and for other experimenters interested in measuring inductance and capacitance, and stuff like that. You know how it is always wise to double-check your measurements when you do experiments, especially if you believe that you have out of the ordinary results.
I have only watched one clip from this gentleman so far. I can tell you already that he is the real thing - the real real thing. I can qualify people quite well and his first clip is amazing in its content and delivery and quality. As far as his build quality goes and his use of his equipment goes, he is grade A-1 amazing.
The school of thought says one should go back to the basics and master them to give yourself a good foundation. What did people do before they had inductance meters and capacitance meters and optical tachometers? They used their scope. In this clip he shows you two simple tests, one a capacitance measurement, and the other a very nice and clean variation on measuring inductance (or capacitance) using an LC resonator. It's "cleaner" in the sense that you let the LC resonator resonate itself, and then measure the resonant frequency, as opposed to pumping a frequency into the LC circuit to measure its response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74fz9iwZ_sM
You notice that he has a special high-current-output driver. It's a very nice touch but you can still do the tests without the special output driver. Note however, how easy the driver would be to build using the same materials.
This guy is AMAZING and I am going to check out some of his other clips. If they are as good as I suspect and the stuff he does is relevant or at least related to this discussion I will post a few more links.
MileHigh
Another mind-blowing clip, capacitor self-resonance measurement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3wYMZ_cjdQ
The motherload continued:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykgmKOVkyW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqhV50852jA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi24SpKYYoQ
Quote from: MileHigh on January 19, 2014, 03:04:33 PM
Another mind-blowing clip, capacitor self-resonance measurement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3wYMZ_cjdQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3wYMZ_cjdQ)
@MileHigh: Thank you for the link to these nice and instructive videos. The next time I order some components I will also get a few 74AC14 Schmitt Triggers, they are not expensive:
http://at.farnell.com/texas-instruments/sn74ac14n/inverter-schmitt-trigger/dp/1470853
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 19, 2014, 01:05:37 PM
I did the "pan cake coil on a steel plate and aluminium plate" test.
Both the bifilar and the monofilar pan cake coil show the same increase of inductance when put on a mild steel plate (34 µH increases to 50 µH).
Both coils do not show an increase of inductance when put on a aluminium plate.
As I recall, someone expected some magic when doing this test? Unfortunately there is no magic. But of course, I for sure did something wrong.
Greetings, Conrad
You failed to charge the coil!
So how do you charge the coil?
You snap it across battery electrodes. You need to charge the coil to get it to work. That's where it gets the 250,000 times the potential between the windings. The same goes for the nail and paper clip magnetic strength test. You need to induce the Hi-voltage into the coil , it dosen't show up from nowhere! Think about it!
Shortly after the battery disconnects the coil is back to normal. It doesn't remain charged. Your comment is silly.
Says you! It needs a solid WHACK, not just regular current run through.
For people who are willing to learn:
The ability of an inductor to store energy in the form of a magnetic field (and consequently to oppose changes in current) is called inductance. It is measured in the unit of the Henry (H).
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_15/1.html (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_15/1.html)
"So, if you send a current through a coil, the magnetic field strength depends on the inductance of the coil and on the amount of the current. If the inductance of two coils is equal, for every amount of current sent through the two coils there will be an equal magnetic field strength."
Why do you think people invented the term "inductance" and use it?
I am just a beginner, but I have learned some basics. The idea is to learn, not to talk like a Parrot who does not know what it is saying.
And again I made a grave error. One should not respond to silly posts, it encourages the idiot to post again some nonsense. I will not do it again. I wanted to be nice and do an experiment because I found some material in my lab, but whatever one shows, the idiot will talk around it.
Greetings, Conrad
My first serial bifilar was shop wound, 800 turns, filled with welding rods. I was testing it's magnetic strength running dc current through it with a 12 volt battery, then suddenly a shock went through the coil and when re-connected, it pulled a cutlery case all the way across the kitchen counter, scaring me. I don't need to read any text material from you to help me understand my experience.
Try and impulse charge the serial pancake with high voltage, then retest it and see if it makes a difference.
Quote from: synchro1 on January 19, 2014, 04:57:06 PM
My first serial bifilar was shop wound, 800 turns, filled with welding rods. I was testing it's magnetic strength running dc current through it with a 12 volt battery, then suddenly a shock went through the coil and when re-connected, it pulled a cutlery case all the way across the kitchen counter, scaring me. I don't need to read any text material from you to help me understand my experience.
Try and impulse charge the serial pancake with high voltage, then retest it and see if it makes a difference.
First, are you saying that you put the 12v batt across the coil, is that put on as continuous dc, or just pulsing it?
Second, when did the 'shock' happen? When the batt was pulsed to the coil or mid dc current?
Third, what makes the coil different after the 'shock'? Is it that the core has become magnetized, or are you saying the coil capacitance is charged? Unless both ends of the coil are open, there is no charge in the coils cap when series connected with open ends and no input.
Mags
The pulse apparently magnetized the welding rod core. The magnetizing force of the coil multiplied tremendously! Conradelektro should try and pulse magnetize the steel plate while he has the experiment set up. This is similar to the PMH effect. I want them to awaken to the superior magnetizing power that's latent in that serial bifilar pancake coil!
Quote from: synchro1 on January 19, 2014, 05:24:07 PM
The pulse apparently magnetized the welding rod core. The magnetizing force of the coil multiplied tremendously! Conradelektro should try and pulse magnetize the steel plate while he has the experiment set up. This is similar to the PMH effect. I want them to awaken to the superior magnetizing power that's latent in that serial bifilar pancake coil!
Pulse with what?
Mags
It looks like pretty thick wire. I would try a 12 volt car battery. These coils start to exhibit special qualities when activated with hi-voltage pulse. I want him to try to pulse the coil over the steel plate and see if the plate acts like a magnet.
Quote from: synchro1 on January 19, 2014, 09:22:05 AM
... you're changing your mind now and maintaining that Itsu's running at 2250 RPM and quoting me as wrong, when you stated that his RPM was 9,000!
...
synchro01:
Yes, that is why I wrote (in the 2nd paragrph) that WE ALL make mistakes! (I forgot about the 4 magnets on the rotor, concentrated on the measured output frequency on the scope.)
Of course you did not consider that either: no wonder here though because you do not consider several posts in which facts are asked from you to prove your nonsense or made-out claims like:
in Reply #692: "The Tesla serial Pancake coil was patented as an iron ferrite MAGNETIZER COIL!" or
in Reply #702: "Let me add that the series bifilar pancake or solenoid coil has to be CHARGED initially to reach it's full potential. This is done simply by snapping a good spark across the leads."
Please show evidence where Tesla wrote such claims!
Or another strange "idea" from you: in your paper clip test you also "charge" the (16 penny) nail (with the bifi coil on it) first, and you do not care that making the nail a quasi permanent magnet with your "charge" treatment you strongly alter the conditions for comparable tests: in the original link you brought in as 'the proof', http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm such "pre-charging" for the nail is simply NOT mentioned. And I already told you: this treatment for the nails is not a repeatable process if done by hand: micro or milliseconds are involved and this defines the strength of the nail magnetization and the time duration of the treatment is uncontrollable by hand.
Yet, it is you who mock members here or you use personal insults like recently "Petro Nazi" to MileHigh in Reply #550 but see #551 too, what is more in the end of your Reply #552 you insulted Farmhand, the person who asked you to remove the insult, and because he also dared to write "there is no magic in a series connected bifilar coil" you labeled Farmhand as Petrophile too.
If you think you are on the Wild West, then please look for other places to shoot your guns. Till you do not show a meaningful input / output power measurements on your setup that includes the performance of the magical "synchro" coil, there is no sense from you to force it with words and talks and insults.
Gyula
Quote from: synchro1 on January 19, 2014, 05:36:48 PM
It looks like pretty thick wire. I would try a 12 volt car battery. These coils start to exhibit special qualities when activated with hi-voltage pulse. I want him to try to pulse the coil over the steel plate and see if the plate acts like a magnet.
From what I understand of a pancake as a magnet, it should magnetize the plate radially, if the pulse or input is strong enough. Meaning the center of the plate would be 1 pole, and the outer diameter would be the opposite pole. That would make the plate an unusual magnet. ;) All one pole on the outer edge of the disk.
Mags
Just got the coil wound. I use a bit of glue to hold the outer windings down so it doesnt accidentally unravel. Mistakes with this wire are painful. But 55000 ft for 35 bucks, and I can do a lot of experiments at less expense. Imagine the same coil made of say 16awg 3000 total truns. It would be huge and not cheap. For experimentation purposes anyway. ;D
Glue is drying and terminals ready to terminate. Then we measure. Any body want to try and guess what capacitance it may have before I measure it? ;D
Mags
Quote from: conradelektro on January 19, 2014, 01:05:37 PM
I did the "pan cake coil on a steel plate and aluminium plate" test.
Both the bifilar and the monofilar pan cake coil show the same increase of inductance when put on a mild steel plate (34 µH increases to 50 µH).
Both coils do not show an increase of inductance when put on a aluminium plate.
As I recall, someone expected some magic when doing this test? Unfortunately there is no magic. But of course, I for sure did something wrong.
Greetings, Conrad
Results are as expected I think, not sure who or what comment you refer to. Anyway I was thinking of using a steel plate as a load so that when tuned the coil is tuned to a load as with and induction cooker or induction heater there is some energy removed and the Electro-Magnet is doing some work to heat the load. The wanted output product is heat in the steel plate in that experiment.
My thinking is that with bifilar serial connected coils if we tune the bifilar coil to a certain frequency then the capacitor required to tune the monofilar to the same frequency (for maximum heating output on the load) is external. Then the bifilar coil should see less current as the field declines due to the unused energy being stored in the capacitance of the bifilar coil where as in the monofilar coil some of the unused energy is stored in the external capacitor.
Both should do the same work on the load but the bifilar one should see less or no "Tank current". There is loss in that "extra" current, if the capacitance is all distributed the loss would be less. I think that is what Tesla describes in his patent as well. In a way.
P.S.
Basically when comparing a given distributed capacitance as the "C" of a "Tank" to that of an external capacitance equal to the distributed case, as the "C" of an identical frequency Tank, then the distributed capacitance should be "Inherently" more efficient due to less current in the coil or "through the coil in the case of the external capacitor one.
..
Quote from: Magluvin on January 19, 2014, 06:36:45 PM
From what I understand of a pancake as a magnet, it should magnetize the plate radially, if the pulse or input is strong enough. Meaning the center of the plate would be 1 pole, and the outer diameter would be the opposite pole. That would make the plate an unusual magnet. ;) All one pole on the outer edge of the disk.
Mags
I found the attached images depicting the magnetic field of a pancake coil and of one loop of wire.
The pan cake coil is the primary of a Tesla coil and has a hole in the middle (on the image the pan cake coil is depicted as 3 dots left and right of the cut through the upright Tesla secondary).
The field of a pan cake coil is in principle like the field of a helical coil. No way that there is a pole on the rim. The poles are axial like in any coil.
Any wire loop creates in principle the same magnetic field if current flows through the wire.Old but still nice explanations: http://onlinephys.com/magnetism.html
My opinion: there is so much unfounded hype about pan cake coils and bifilar coils, real measurements are very rare.
Prediction for inductance and self capacitance of Mag's new little bifilar coil (but please do the measurements, it is just a guess):
wires in series: 100 to 200 mH , self capacitance 1 to 5 nF
only one wire: 25 - 50 mH, self capacitance 100 to 500 pF
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: Farmhand on January 19, 2014, 09:01:01 PM
Results are as expected I think, not sure who or what comment you refer to. Anyway I was thinking of using a steel plate as a load so that when tuned the coil is tuned to a load as with and induction cooker or induction heater there is some energy removed and the Electro-Magnet is doing some work to heat the load. The wanted output product is heat in the steel plate in that experiment.
My thinking is that with bifilar serial connected coils if we tune the bifilar coil to a certain frequency then the capacitor required to tune the monofilar to the same frequency (for maximum heating output on the load) is external. Then the bifilar coil should see less current as the field declines due to the unused energy being stored in the capacitance of the bifilar coil where as in the monofilar coil some of the unused energy is stored in the external capacitor.
Both should do the same work on the load but the bifilar one should see less or no "Tank current". There is loss in that "extra" current, if the capacitance is all distributed the loss would be less. I think that is what Tesla describes in his patent as well. In a way.
P.S.
Basically when comparing a given distributed capacitance as the "C" of a "Tank" to that of an external capacitance equal to the distributed case, as the "C" of an identical frequency Tank, then the distributed capacitance should be "Inherently" more efficient due to less current in the coil or "through the coil in the case of the external capacitor one.
..
Farmhand is underscoring an important difference here in the sensor characteristics of the serial biflilar. "the bifilar coil should see less current as the field declines". The serial bifilar needs it's capacitance
charged to begin with, just like the external capacitor on the monifilar!
Energy stored in the capacitance of the bifilar coil has to intitiate from somewhere.
The magnet spinner is finished and the coil is mounted. It does easily 150 Hz, also 200 Hz, but at 200 Hz and above the noise is not good. It did 230 Hz, but one wants to run away because of the vibrations.
On the photo with everything (power supply and scope) the spinner does 150 Hz and the coil produces 5.6 Volt over a 100 Ohm shunt. Coil has 97 Ohm DC resistance. Coil specs see
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383774/#msg383774 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383774/#msg383774)
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383363/#msg383363 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383363/#msg383363)
Tomorrow I will start the " resonance and speed up under load tests". Have to go now.
possible tests (10 μF in LC circuit):
70 Hz --- bifilar, steel bolt core (4200 rpm)
120 Hz --- bifilar, air core (7200 rpm)
138 Hz -- monofilar (half coil), steel bolt core (8280 rpm)
248 Hz -- monofilar (half coil), air core not possible (14.880 rpm)
140 Hz -- monofilar (half coil) air core with 30 μF cap in LC circuit (8400)
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad, the build's looking good :)
Just a thought - your bearings & supports are quite far apart - which is probably why you have the vibration problem. If you were to move the bearings closer to the center of the shaft, it might help.
Regards, Tim
@Conradelektro,
Looks like a ton of bolts! Even if you achieve critical minimum frequency (CMF) for delayed lenz effect (DLE), with your resonant output coil, your low speed limit won't allow for any meaningful acceleration effect measurement.
Hi Conrad,
It is interesting that pancake coils have the magnetic poles in their center area.
Unfortunately I read somewhere the same pole positions like Magluvin described yesterday.
Here is a measurement on the magnetic poles of monofilar and bifilar pancake coils done by a compass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O12UVMFGe2U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O12UVMFGe2U) It shows the poles also in the center area on the opposite sides of the pancake coil and with his compass he probed the strength of the fields at some distances, both for the mono and bifilar pancake coils but he did not measure difference in field strength between them.
Greetings, Gyula
Gyula:
That was a nice little clip. Everything measured fine and the edges of the coil looked fine. There is another fun test as a sideline not related to the investigations. It's to measure the sizes of the magnetic bubbles in the two main orientations and for say two current levels.
Conrad:
Looking forward to your tests. Note you are not likely to see any speed-up under load or a speed up at resonance. It's because you are not using a mosquito-pee pulse motor anymore. Chances are that the motor will not speed up if you add a load to the pick-up coil. Just keep in mind that a "classic" "delayed Lenz effect" test is a relatively light load after an FWBR with a mosquito-pee pulse motor. If you use a matched load resistor and a powerful DC motor the setup has changed.
However, there is a great work-around for that and you will get better data. The data you get could one day be crunched down to torque and mechanical power by testing with a prony brake, but that's not really necessary. If you do a basic test where you measure the current consumption of your motor when you add some friction you will probably observe an increase in current consumption but only very small change in the RPM.
Okay, assuming that's true, then do you have a digital multimeter with three digits of precision after the decimal point? (Gotoluc has a mind-blowing multimeter with five or six digits after the decimal point.) Assuming that you can measure three digits after the decimal point, then just monitor the current consumption of the motor to observe the "delayed Lenz effect."
Note you have some good data points: The motor voltage and initial current consumption and delta current consumption between "no delayed Lenz" and "delayed Lenz." You also have the two RPMs. You can also assume that the specified efficiency for the motor is correct within +/-10% (A guess).
So that means you can measure change in average electrical power consumption for the two cases. So factor in the motor efficiency and that gives you the change in mechanical power. Then since you know the RPM you can calculate the change in torque when you go from "no delayed Lenz" to "delayed Lenz."
Perhaps the most interesting measurement and follow-up number crunching is the change in average torque and the related change in mechanical power between "no delayed Lenz" and "delayed Lenz." And of course you can compare that to the change in electrical input power and also measure how much power is going into the pick-up coil load.
Sorry I forgot about making measurements on the output load resistor but I will leave that to others. You see people sometimes give me a hard time about not experimenting, and at the same time I can easily come up with great experiments. I threw out all of my 74XXXYY chips, my 4000 series CMOS chips, and my PALs and GALs years ago. But like the proverbial fish I still know how to swim.
MileHigh
I think I remember reading something about the poles of a spiral coil being described by Tesla in a patent or somewhere but I can't recall where. I'll try to find it. I think the gist of it is that it can be modeled as a single turn "height" solenoid but with multiple layers to that one turn height, just my take on it. Another advantage of spiral coil in general is that it negates turn direction in that any spiral coil when turned up side down it appears to be opposite wound, but with a solenoid the same does not apply.
TIM. we don't want a strong magnet spinning too close to those aluminium brackets.
Conrad, might I suggest wooden or plastic blocks drilled and screwed to the base so the uprights can screw to it, maybe with brass or copper screws. The blocks could be mounted outside of the uprights rather than inside. Or as I did a single block could be mounted so that the two uprights screw to the outsides of it.
Cheers
MileHigh, I don't agree with your comments above quoted below.
QuoteNote you are not likely to see any speed-up under load or a speed up at resonance. It's because you are not using a mosquito-pee pulse motor anymore. Chances are that the motor will not speed up if you add a load to the pick-up coil. Just keep in mind that a "classic" "delayed Lenz effect" test is a relatively light load after an FWBR with a mosquito-pee pulse motor. If you use a matched load resistor and a powerful DC motor the setup has changed.
Have a look in this video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFWin-crxQY and tell me if you see any mosquito pea motors being used in it. The prime mover is a universal motor powered by about 2 amps from the 12 volt battery so 25 Watts input there, the motor is used under the rated voltage but the torque is not too bad for the input. In the longer (2nd Part of the full) clip you can hear the acceleration of the rotor that happens when I increase the input with the boost converter. It accelerates the rotor with a fair bit of parasitic drag quite easily with the motors torque ;D Shorting the drag/load coils only speeds it up slowly. hehehehe
The scope shows I used a lower harmonic on the Drag/load coils I believe.
Watch just the beginning of this clip from about 0:38 to 0:53, also at 5:45 to 5:57, I had to be careful to stay under 5 or 6 amps to save my boost converter diodes. ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV_dm8COKBY to see the current from the battery and the increase in rotor speed by me applying more power, while the parasitic drag is present and in effect trying to slow the rotor.
Also Gesalt's video I think he uses an induction motor for the prime mover. He also got speed up under load.
I can do it with almost any prime mover, it's about creating enough parasitic drag to slow that prime mover, whatever it takes, then removing some of that drag. With a flea-pea pulse motor it takes little with a stronger prime mover it takes more.
The applied load reduces the overall load on the prime mover and a speed up occurs, it's not rocket surgery.
Cheers
Farmhand:
I agree that I am generalizing. The idea is that with a weak motor when you go from light mechanical load on the rotor to a very light mechanical load on the rotor the weak motor will speed up. Or to put it another way the weak motor slows down under a light mechanical load. If, under the same conditions, you replace the weak motor with a strong motor, you won't see the speed change because the strong motor will not have slowed down in the first place.
But it remains to be seen what Conrad does. My real point being that if his setup looks like the "strong motor" setup as described above, you can measure the motor average current consumption and RPM and do some number crunching and generate some pretty good data: Measure the change in the output torque of the motor between "no delayed Lenz" and "delayed Lenz."
MileHigh
Oh yes you are right, if the motor can draw more current to compensate it may not slow down.
I didn't take into consideration that my boost converter and the circuit resistance in the motor was restricting the input current for me. I should have made that more clear in the video's too I suppose.
You do make a very good point. Point taken. :)
Cheers
P.S. If you watch right at the end of the clip when I turn off the power to the drive motor how quickly it stops. So the amount of drag I had artificially induced on it was significant. ;)
Oh and if I had used Bifilar coils maybe that drag might have been less, as I may have needed less external capacitance, but I think it would still have been there just relative to the "tank current". hehe And also to the "tank energy lost I guess", something like that.
..
The coils capacitance is 6.7nf with one meter and 7nf with another. Not sure why.
Im going to wind another tomorrow to see if there is a variance. The wire is so small, as it was winding, the wires could have tracked away from the other. Looked pretty good as it went. Just doesnt make much sense. I ve wound larger and smaller coils and capacitance grew accordingly. Here it should have been up, but it is down compared to coils with much less turns. Im beat. maybe Ill see that I wired it wrong tomorrow.
With calculating L n C it should have rung at near 7.5khz but rings at around 13khz.
Maybe Im just tired and not doing something right.
Mags
Mags did you do a test for a short using the continuity function ? Distractions and fatigue can get the better of anyone, temporarily. If something doesn't seem right it probably isn't.
Cheers
Quote from: Magluvin on January 21, 2014, 12:17:43 AM
The coils capacitance is 6.7nf with one meter and 7nf with another. Not sure why.
...
Hi Mags,
You may wish to check the two C meters with a 5.6 nF (or 10 nF) normal capacitor and compare the two values, of course you may have done so?
Also, if you check the measuring frequencies of the C meters with a scope when you measure say an 5.6 nF capacitor with them: perhaps the differing measuring frequencies could also explain the difference.
Gyula
I managed to do the first "speed up under load" test, please see the video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXQBpuLu68&feature=youtu.be (Please read the video info.)
The more the rotor speed goes away from the resonance frequency of about 52 Hz (lower or higher) the more the "speed up under load" diminishes.
25 Hz , no load, motor consumption 2.0 V and 0.82 A
load, motor consumption 2.0 V and 0.91 A, speed drops to 23 Hz
52 Hz, no load, motor consumption 4.4 V and 1.7 A
load, motor consumption 4.4. V and 1.09 A, speed rises to 68 Hz (the magic happens)
110 Hz, no load, motor consumption 6.4 V and 1.06 A
load, motor consumption 6.4 V and 1.06 A, speed stays at 110 Hz
Please comment and make suggestion for further tests and scope shots. (I will test air core and monofilar, but would like some discussion before I go on, I might do something wrong.)
@MileHigh: thank you again for the help, finally I managed an interesting test. The 12 V DC motor was a great idea. The motor made it simple to build a versatile and stable magnet spinner. I have nor problem with posters who do not do experiments as long as the posts are helpful and state important principles and facts. Posters with relevant knowledge are very rare.
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
Thanks for your efforts and kind words, very good work!
As I mentioned in the first few lines of my earlier post ( http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383401/#msg383401 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg383401/#msg383401) ) I suspect the bolt as a core may "trick" the LC circuit by changing its magnetic properties as the AC current inside the tank changes: first when the magnet gets near to the bolt and then starts spinning and second when the 100 Ohm load is attached. (Perhaps it would be good to check the coil inductance when the magnet is stationary in front of the bolt and the 10 uF cap is disconnected, with both magnet polarity.)
This is why a normal ferrite core would be ALSO good to use, and when you have such (I gave a link to obtain it in my earlier post), then you would insert it into the coil to have the same resonance what the bolt gave in the unloaded case.
I mention this because the bolt core may "trick the circuit because when you attached the 100 Ohm load, the phase relationship between the current and the voltage in the tank changed from the nearly 90° to almost 180° out of phase. I suspect this phase shift happens due to the permeability change in the bolt due to the much less current amplitude in the tank: in the unloaded case the tank current is 108 mA and in the loaded case it is 56 mA.
I believe the effect of this change in the excitation current would not influence a ferrite core's permeability as much. I mainly consider here the eddy current losses in the bolt: it increases when excitation is increased and vice versa.
You may have noticed that the voltage amplitude across the tank decreased to a too low value (from 31.2 V rms to 4.8 V rms) when you attached the 100 Ohm load: if the load is matched to the generator, then the loaded output voltage may have half the value of the unloaded output, in this case it should be around 15.5 V instead of the measured 4.8 V. This may indicate that the inductive reactance of the coil changes as per the excitation i.e. by the AC current magnitude in the tank, hence influencing the Quality factor of the coil, hence influencing the generator output impedance.
Perhaps you happen to have a 470 or 1000 or even a 2200 Ohm variable resistor, either a trimmer or a normal potmeter and you may wish to use it instead of the fix 100 Ohm to adjust the 15.5 V AC rms across the tank and also slightly adjust the motor speed to reastablish the best resonance (because the changing load affects the core magnetic properties).
So it is very good you show the tests with the bolt core.
Greetings, Gyula
I did some more tests with one wire only (still the steel bolt as core).
wires in parallel, mild steel core (DC resistance 20 Ohm)
110 Hz, no load, motor consumption 7.3 V and 1.79 A
load, motor consumption 7.3 V and 1.06 A, speed rises to 130 Hz
only thicker wire, mild steel core (other wire open, DC resistance 27 Ohm)
110 Hz, no load, motor consumption 7.1 V and 1.64 A
load, motor consumption 7.1 V and 1.01 A, speed rises to 126 Hz
only thinner wire, mild steel core (other wire open, DC resistance 70 Ohm)
100 Hz, no load, motor consumption 6.5 V and 1.44 A
load, motor consumption 6.5 V and 1.1 A, speed rises to 113 Hz
It look s like the DC resistance of the wire has an influence?
I will proceed to tests with air core. I have a Ferrite rod which just does not fit into the hole of the coil. I will try to widen the hole a little bit. But I do not want to do that till I have enough measurements with air core and steel bolt core (the coil might be damaged when manhandling it).
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 21, 2014, 12:52:15 PM
....
I will proceed to tests with air core. I have a Ferrite rod which just does not fit into the hole of the coil. I will try to widen the hole a little bit. But I do not want to do that till I have enough measurements with air core and steel bolt core (the coil might be damaged when manhandling it).
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
Okay, just do your schedule as you wish I have no intention to "divert" anything.
In your above tests, you used the same 10 uF tuning capacitor?
The DC resistance establishes a basic coil loss resistance and this latter establishes mainly the current via the coil: hence this influences the core's excitation I believe.
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on January 21, 2014, 01:00:45 PM
Hi Conrad,
Okay, just do your schedule as you wish I have no intention to "divert" anything.
In your above tests, you used the same 10 uF tuning capacitor?
The DC resistance establishes a basic coil loss resistance and this latter establishes mainly the current via the coil: hence this influences the core's excitation I believe.
Gyula
@Gyula: I always used the same 10 µF capacitor (yellow thing, I only have three, and two are in a box). No problem with suggestions, you are not diverting, you are teaching.
New test with air core (all the same, only the steel bolt was removed and coil is a bit closer to spinning magnet, 3 mm gap):
wires in series, air core (DC resistance 97 Ohm)
125 Hz, no load, motor consumption 7.3 V and 1.18 A
load, motor consumption 7.3 V and 0.94 A, speed rises to 133 Hz
For comparison:
wires in series, mild steel core (DC resistance 97 Ohm)
52 Hz, no load, motor consumption 4.4 V and 1.7 A
load, motor consumption 4.4. V and 1.09 A, speed rises to 68 Hz
For test with
only one wire (mild steel core) see: http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384176/#msg384176
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: tim123 on January 20, 2014, 10:46:44 AM
Just a thought - your bearings & supports are quite far apart - which is probably why you have the vibration problem. If you were to move the bearings closer to the center of the shaft, it might help.
@tim123: yes, of course, but I wanted some space left and right of the spinning magnet for bigger pan cake coils. Thank you, every observation helps and brings me forward.
The biggest unbalance is the magnet, one even sees how one halve is slightly bigger than the other. I might try some counterweight on the axis.
Greetings, Conrad
The thing I looked at with the speed up under load effect is the dismal output as compared to the input, overall a faster rotor is not output, the power dissipated by the load resistor is the output, and the input compared to that.
Conrad try this if you don't mind, set the arrangement to the resonance point you get at 52 Hz or whatever it is how you have it, then after connecting the load adjust the drive motor to try to increase the voltage across the generator coil. Re tune the setup in other words, What I expect will happen is the output power dissipated by the resistor will increase and possibly change the efficiency somehow. It looks like you could tune it easily while loaded.
What I looked at was the efficiency of input to output. And a more lower input and faster rotor were a novelty compared to the tragic efficiency. Both loaded and unloaded as compared to a well designed and efficient "meets the load generator".
If you got 5.6 volts across the load resistor of 97 Ohms that works out to less than 0.4 of a watt. And if the input is some 3 or 4 volts at one amp when loaded then that is 3 or 4 Watts. Something to consider.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on January 21, 2014, 01:33:00 PM
The thing I looked at with the speed up under load effect is the dismal output as compared to the input, overall a faster rotor is not output, the power dissipated by the load resistor is the output, and the input compared to that.
Conrad try this if you don't mind, set the arrangement to the resonance point you get at 52 Hz or whatever it is how you have it, then after connecting the load adjust the drive motor to try to increase the voltage across the generator coil. Re tune the setup in other words, What I expect will happen is the output power dissipated by the resistor will increase and possibly change the efficiency somehow. It looks like you could tune it easily while loaded.
What I looked at was the efficiency of input to output. And a more lower input and faster rotor were a novelty compared to the tragic efficiency. Both loaded and unloaded as compared to a well designed and efficient "meets the load generator".
If you got 5.6 volts across the load resistor of 97 Ohms that works out to less than 0.4 of a watt. And if the input is some 3 or 4 volts at one amp when loaded then that is 3 or 4 Watts. Something to consider.
Cheers
Attached are the scope shots for the air core test (the phase shift of the current is still similar to the mild steel core test).
Scope shot of "mild steel core test" see here http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384149/#msg384149 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384149/#msg384149)
@Farmhand: The
coil with air core seems to have a maximum output over the 100 Ohm resistor at about 200 Hz, at 240 HZ it definitely puts out less, also below 200 Hz.
The output is very low compared to the demands of the DC motor ( ~0.3 Watt versus ~4 Watt). It is a very bad generator, but it is intended to measure the "speed up under load" and not "generator design". You are right, there are many things to consider if maximum output is the goal.
@all: General observation
My feeling is that the "speed up under load" or the "delayed Lenz effect" has something to do with "resonance of the coil with its self capacitance", which can be shown at lower frequencies with an "external parallel LC circuit capacitor of high capacitance" (such simulating the resonance condition at an artificially lowered frequency).
To spin this haphazard theory a bit further: if the generator coil is in this "resonance condition" it introduces heavy losses and the losses are reduce if a load pulls the generator coil out of the resonance condition. Therefore the "speed up under load" and the "reduced power consumption of the drive motor under load".
May be I am wrong, but my tests point in this direction.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 21, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
...
The coil with air core seems to have a maximum output over the 100 Ohm resistor at about 200 Hz, at 240 HZ it definitely puts out less, also below 200 Hz.
...
Hi Conrad,
When you have some time, would you make a scope shot of the voltage and current when the air core coil have the max output with the 100 Ohm load at about 200 Hz? If the shot is very similar to what you have so far showed just in the previous post, then of course no need to make it, just mention that. (I am interested in the phase relationship under this condition.)
EDIT: A strange thing I observe: when you have a voltage max at about 52 Hz by the scope measurement (loaded case, with bolt, series bifi, motor input 4.4V/1.68A from your video ), the 10 uF capacitor needs 936.7 mH coil inductance to get resonance at 52 Hz. How is it possible I wonder, the bolt makes your series bifi coil to be 520 mH.
Thanks, Gyula
Conrad:
What a beautiful setup you have! I am going to be busy for a while so I can't say too much now. I think I see the "light at the end of the tunnel" already though. There are many tests you can make so have fun. I can see you have a suggestion queue going also!
I have always said, when you make a change, the electromechanical impedance of the motor changes and you have to investigate that before drawing any conclusions.
Here are my first impressions:
The motor speeds up when you add the load, so that must mean the mechanical load, i,e.; the "back torque" from the coil decreases.
When I look at the coil in resonance I see the highest voltages and currents. You know the coil resistance and the current sensing resistance and the RMS current. So you can calculate the power dissipation in that system. Note this is analogous to reactive power with resistive losses in the wiring.
When you add the load, you have all the resistances and RMS current. We can see that the RMS current has dropped. So you can calculate the power dissipation in this system.
As others have already said, it looks like the total power dissipation in the coil system goes down when you add the load.
Therefore we can conclude that the rotor speeds up because the total power dissipation in the coil system goes down. It's almost too obvious and it's amazing how a well run experiment can clarify things up. With 20-20 hindsight some of these effects will seem obvious.
It would appear that an unloaded coil + capacitor at resonance is a power hog. It makes perfect sense because the voltage and current increases at resonance, and that means you burn off more power in the coil itself.
Note of course that the belief is that it's (resonance + load) that gives you an advantage, and that is open to more investigation. But we now know that a coil in "pure resonance" (coil and cap but no load resistor) is actually a heavy load. (to be confirmed by someone crunching the numbers)
Anyway, that's a great start on your part.
Here is an advanced call on what we are seeing: The "delayed Lenz effect" is really an impedance change in the coil such that it burns off less power with a load resistor added as compared to just resonating with no load resistor. The reason many people were "thrown off the trail" is because when a (coil + cap) is in resonance alone (no load resistor) it actually acts somewhat akin to a "matched" load resistor. i.e.; the voltage and current increase in the LC resonator to the point that the resistance in the coil wire itself becomes a nasty load on the motor.
I believe perhaps people believed that there was "almost no load" when there was no load resistor and "a bigger load" when they added a load resistor. In fact, it was the opposite of what they thought. It's happened before, some of these things are not obvious at all and it shows the value of "doing the experiments" with the caveat that you can't "just observe and draw up conclusions." You have observe and then work the problem out and crunch the numbers and do A-B comparison testing and so on.
MileHigh
Quote from: Farmhand on January 21, 2014, 01:33:00 PM
The thing I looked at with the speed up under load effect is the dismal output as compared to the input, overall a faster rotor is not output, the power dissipated by the load resistor is the output, and the input compared to that.
I think there is something with speedup under load. The question is why less load on the rotor when the pickup coil is loaded compared to unloaded? If we add another pickup coil, would the speedup not speedup so much as just 1 coil?
Romero had 16 pickups and had very good speedup. If speedup does reach the same rpm with 1 coil and more than 1 coil, then start adding coils till the output reaches or exceeds input.
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on January 21, 2014, 06:24:03 PM
Conrad:
What a beautiful setup you have! I am going to be busy for a while so I can't say too much now. I think I see the "light at the end of the tunnel" already though. There are many tests you can make so have fun. I can see you have a suggestion queue going also!
I have always said, when you make a change, the electromechanical impedance of the motor changes and you have to investigate that before drawing any conclusions.
Here are my first impressions:
The motor speeds up when you add the load, so that must mean the mechanical load, i,e.; the "back torque" from the coil decreases.
When I look at the coil in resonance I see the highest voltages and currents. You know the coil resistance and the current sensing resistance and the RMS current. So you can calculate the power dissipation in that system. Note this is analogous to reactive power with resistive losses in the wiring.
When you add the load, you have all the resistances and RMS current. We can see that the RMS current has dropped. So you can calculate the power dissipation in this system.
As others have already said, it looks like the total power dissipation in the coil system goes down when you add the load.
Therefore we can conclude that the rotor speeds up because the total power dissipation in the coil system goes down. It's almost too obvious and it's amazing how a well run experiment can clarify things up. With 20-20 hindsight some of these effects will seem obvious.
It would appear that an unloaded coil + capacitor at resonance is a power hog. It makes perfect sense because the voltage and current increases at resonance, and that means you burn off more power in the coil itself.
Note of course that the belief is that it's (resonance + load) that gives you an advantage, and that is open to more investigation. But we now know that a coil in "pure resonance" (coil and cap but no load resistor) is actually a heavy load. (to be confirmed by someone crunching the numbers)
Anyway, that's a great start on your part.
Here is an advanced call on what we are seeing: The "delayed Lenz effect" is really an impedance change in the coil such that it burns off less power with a load resistor added as compared to just resonating with no load resistor. The reason many people were "thrown off the trail" is because when a (coil + cap) is in resonance alone (no load resistor) it actually acts somewhat akin to a "matched" load resistor. i.e.; the voltage and current increase in the LC resonator to the point that the resistance in the coil wire itself becomes a nasty load on the motor.
I believe perhaps people believed that there was "almost no load" when there was no load resistor and "a bigger load" when they added a load resistor. In fact, it was the opposite of what they thought. It's happened before, some of these things are not obvious at all and it shows the value of "doing the experiments" with the caveat that you can't "just observe and draw up conclusions." You have observe and then work the problem out and crunch the numbers and do A-B comparison testing and so on.
MileHigh
Well I have been saying almost that exact same thing for quite some time, mainly in the other thread, I've also said the speed up effect is an increased lenz effect that is decreased by the load, go figure. If the frequency is again adjusted then the output will increase as the resonance is "refound on load", it is something that must be done when getting power from activity in a tank, if the load drops the activity you need to readjust the circuit to get back as much of the activity as possible. Some loads can increase the activity if the system is slightly off resonance to begin with. The effect on the tank is no different to what I see in any resonant tank I load.
As I said the voltage and activity in the tank increase until it creates a significant parasitic load. Best way is to tune the circuit to the load till the proper output is gotten.
Once the maximum output on load frequency is established for that load then if the load is removed at that frequency the input will drop. :) Is my assumption based on experience.This is due I think to the fact that the circuit is adjusted to loaded "resonance" and when the load is removed it goes to a less than resonant condition, therefore the tank voltage and activity is less with no load and so the input is less.
We all know that a resonant tank will increase its voltage and activity to the point of loss, which is why a low loss tank is important if we use one like that.
I found I heated up 0.7 mm wire by a direct short when tuning to try to increase current under the dead short or even heavy load.
It is nice to see when a load is attached like a filament globe light right up by tuning after having it drop the activity and not light up. It shows the power of the resonance good resonance makes a hard voltage that will meet any load it can if adjusted.
..
Here is a quick video that shows tuning the tank to the different loads and no load, the tank is excited by the transmitting transformer which is an AC generator, the tank I adjust is the output tank of the receiver coil, in this case the resonance of the transmitting and receiving coils are at play as well but are only slightly affected by the not so tightly coupled tanks. There was no tank on the transmitting coil as such, but when conducting the primary capacitance makes resonance on the primary of the transmitter, the transmitter tank is only a tank when the mosfets are conducting, not important, the effects are at the receiver. but the period can be changed at the transmitter to effect the same result. Easy, it can be tuned from either end, which shows changing the applied frequency or adjusting the L/C of the tank will re-tune the tank.
Tank tuning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJgHWYTk6_g
This video shows the transmitter resonant waveform going to the receiver and the input drop under load ect. Same effect, same output tank style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcy-bGetZf0
..
I'm certain if Conrad keeps experimenting he will be able to show almost every aspect of it with different effects when tuning the setup.
Another thing to try might be to setup a "series tank" with the load in the tank already and tune to best output to see any real difference between series and parallel loaded resonance. I must admit I did not try that. :-[ The effect would be that resonance is only attained on load and with series resonance, until the load is attached there is no tank.
..
So much for infinite impedance of a parallel tank. What it means in practice is higher input with no load not lower as many Like Duncan from EF tout.
With a solid state setup if the system is out of tune when no load but in tune when on load then the input is very small with no load (out of tune) , then when the load is added it becomes what tunes the tank and input will increase. It is all a matter of tuning for output. That's why they call them "tuned circuits" to get the most from them they must be tuned.
..
I think when loaded the inductance drops in the tank. like shorting a second coil on a regular transformer drops the inductance of another wound on the same core.
..
Was thinking about how to keep the 2 wires together while winding. I remembered today I saw a guy that used an empty pen to guide and feed the wires around his star coil. I think its the guy with the Dean Martin hat and has part in the pulse motor buildoffs. Anyway, I buy this Chair Repair superglue from Ace and it comes with a couple siring looking applicators that I fitted to a piece of 1/8in pvc tube. Pic shows 1 wire and it looks like 4, 5 or 6 or maybe 10 could fit. I cannot find anything smaller at the moment. Possibly if I keep the tip bent a bit, the wires will stay together better.
Another way would be to twist the pairs as I wind. Lol, even thought of how to run the wire off the 2 spools and they are mounted to a spinning wheel. I make a jig that once the wires come off the spools, they are directed back and over the spinning wheel with spools, and the winding of the wire to the new bobbin is what spins the wire wheel to twist the wires.
But twisting them would take up space on the coil.
So we will see if the capacitance is different with this coil. if not, then I have to blame it on not enough surface area of smaller wire and capacitance suffers. Would seem strange, all that density of fine copper and little air space. If thats the case then flat or square wire would be the next best bet at getting the most capacitance.
Mags
Farmhand:
I looked at your clips and you may be observing some similar effects but it's hard to tell from the viewpoint of the watcher of the clip. Your comments and observations about being on resonance vs. off resonance are correct like you stated, but real measurements with a scope and everything else make a difference.
Conrad has a great test setup. For example, a typical experimenter connects a load resistor and the pulse motor speeds up past the resonance point and they call that the "delayed Lenz effect." What about what happens when you connect a load resistor and you want to still measure what happens at resonance? That's more interesting information. With Conrad's setup he just has to lower the voltage to the DC motor and then run at the resonance frequency and make some more measurements. This allows you to do a nice A-B comparison: Behaviour with and without a load resistor at the resonance frequency. Note you can still measure the DC motor power consumption.
Likewise, you have to consider the wire resistance of the coil relative to the resistance of the load resistor. You can always measure the power dissipation in the load, or in the coil-load combination. It's all relevant data that can't be ignored if you want to track where the power is going.
And impedance matching is the dominant factor in all of this. With a pickup coil with a load resistance that varies between zero ohms and infinity ohms and no capacitor, we know that there is no power dissipation in the load resistor at either extreme because it is a complete impedance mismatch. Likewise, we know that at the matched impedance you get maximum power dissipation in the load resistor (and in the coil.) Something similar is happening when you throw the capacitor in the mix. Resonance comes into play and tends to make the coil suck more power to burn off in one or both resistances, but clearly impedance matching is coming into play just the same. Note even with a cap, if the load resistor is zero or infinity, you still get zero power transfer into the load.
Is there really and truly a "delayed Lenz effect?" The answer is almost there, you just have to look for it. It's such an easy experiment also. You just put a tiny sensor coil on the other side of the spinning rotor magnet. With some care and some experimentation you can find a way to use the sensor coil as a scope trigger and as a top-dead-center indicator relative to the real pickup coil. Then you simply look at the current waveform for "no delayed Lenz" and "delayed Lenz." You will be able to precisely determine if the pickup coil is in repulsion or attraction as the rotor magnet spins by, by carefully analysing the current waveform in the coil relative to the angular position of the rotor magnet. You do the A-B comparison with the no-capacitor case at the same frequency.
Let's assume that you do the A-B comparison test and you find that there is a phase shift in the current waveform and the onset of Lenz repulsion or attraction is indeed delayed when you add a load resistor and the motor speeds up. That's interesting but the real action is all about the overall impedance of the (coil + load resistor + capacitor). It's the impedance match or lack of impedance match that determines the amount of power burned off in the real load resistor. That determines the Lenz drag and that determines the rotor speed. The phase angle of the current waveform in the pickup coil is related to the impedance but you still must look at everything if you really want to know what's going on.
The source impedance is somewhat abstract. It's related to the rate of changing magnetic flux from the spinning rotor magnet interacting with the pick-up coil. The magnet only has so much flux and likewise the motor can only output a certain amount of power. It's how the pickup coil + load resistor + optional cap match that source impedance and draw power from it.
Conrad will do his thing and pursue his own line of investigation. You can certainly appreciate that he has a great test bed and he is pretty much in control of most or all of the variables. For me, it's great to see how he is really using his scope to monitor the current and the voltage in the pickup coil setup. Modern scopes spit out live RMS voltage readings, it's almost too good to be true.
MileHigh
This reminds me of my old LAG-lenz asisted generator project's-way back then lol.
Please excuse my green understandings of days past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKb3F61cg_s
Test data video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv8SGxWNELo
Quote from: gyulasun on January 21, 2014, 04:51:15 PM
Hi Conrad,
When you have some time, would you make a scope shot of the voltage and current when the air core coil have the max output with the 100 Ohm load at about 200 Hz? If the shot is very similar to what you have so far showed just in the previous post, then of course no need to make it, just mention that. (I am interested in the phase relationship under this condition.)
EDIT: A strange thing I observe: when you have a voltage max at about 52 Hz by the scope measurement (loaded case, with bolt, series bifi, motor input 4.4V/1.68A from your video ), the 10 uF capacitor needs 936.7 mH coil inductance to get resonance at 52 Hz. How is it possible I wonder, the bolt makes your series bifi coil to be 520 mH.
Thanks, Gyula
@Gyula:
Steel core: I think that the mild steel bolt causes strange effects, e.g. that the inductance is very high at low frequencies. The inductance at 100 Hz is about 520 mH and drops fast with rising frequency, and it could well be 930 mH at 50 Hz. The steel bolt is useless and introduces too many unknown factors. For Ferrit core tests I have to wind two new identical coils (one monofilar and the other bifilar) over a 10 mm Ferrite core, what I want to do anyway soon. I can not fit my 8 mm Ferrite core into the big coil I am using now. And a 6 mm Ferrite core would rattle (that is why I did not buy it).
Air core: The big problem with the scope shots is the placement of the oscilloscope probes, specially the GND of the probes (which has to have the same potential for both probes). See the attached circuit diagram, I have changed the placement of the probes and the scope shots might look more familiar to you concerning the phase shift of current.
In the original cope shots the phase of current and Voltage was 180° shifted due to the placement of the probes and therefore it was unfamiliar for you.
Original scope shots (air core) are at: http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384192/#msg384192 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384192/#msg384192)
Attached please find the new scope shots with the new placement of the scope probes. - The two top scope shots show the "speed up effect". (Voltage over the motor was not changed, only the 100 Ohm load was switched on).
- The two bottom scope shots are at higher speeds (222 Hz and 281 Hz) with the 100 Ohm load still on. The Voltage over the motor had to be increase to get to these higher speeds. You see that at 222 Hz the output was higher than at 281 Hz. Starting with 200 Hz there is no increase of the output (although the motor needs ever more Voltage and Amperage).
I will test with a variable resistor as a load next (air core).
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: tinman on January 22, 2014, 05:27:32 AM
This reminds me of my old LAG-lenz asisted generator project's-way back then lol.
Please excuse my green understandings of days past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKb3F61cg_s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKb3F61cg_s)
Test data video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv8SGxWNELo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv8SGxWNELo)
@tinman: I looked at your "LAG", very impressive. Could you please post a link to more information. At what stage is the project?
I did not try to build a new motor, I use an ordinary 12 V DC motor to spin a diametrically magnetised ring magnet. And I put a 10 µF cap in parallel with a generator coil placed in front of the spinning magnet.
The big 10 µF cap (in parallel with the generator coil) serves to simulate a generator coil with a massive self capacitance in order to bring the (faked) self resonance down to a low frequency (in this case 52 Hz). According to my opinion this allows to simulate the so called "reduced Lenz drag" or the "speed up under load" (what your LAG is doing).
Have a look at my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXQBpuLu68 . I would be interested in your opinion, since you built a LAG.
Greetings, Conrad
I just measured a strange result (see the attached circuit diagram):
I compared power output over the "100 Ohm load" with and without the parallel 10 µF cap. One measurement (calculation) was done after the "speed up effect" occurred. Then the cap was removed and the power supplied to the motor was regulated to get about the same output over the "100 Ohm load alone".
There is a phase shift of about 45° between Voltage and current if the cap is in place and absolutely no phase shift without the cap.
If one compares efficiency (power needed to drive the motor for approximately the same output over the 100 Ohm load), the circuit with the 10 µF wins easily. But the phase shift might falsify the result?
You can see the phase shift in this post http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384371/#msg384371 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384371/#msg384371) (top right scope shot, speed up effect)
What influence does a phase shift between Voltage and current have on the calculated Watt?
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: I looked it up, it is called power factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor).
Since the phase angle shift is 45°, the "active power" = 0.71 * "apparent power" , 0.71 is cos(45°).
So, the active output with the 10 µF in place is lower than calculated. Therefore the comparison is not valid.
Real comparison:
- 0.79 apparent Watt is only 0.79 * 0.71 active power, 0.56 active Watt at 134 HZ (motor consumption 7.3 V at 0.94 A) if 10 µF cap is in place
- 0.57 active Watt at 125 Hz (motor consumption 7.1 V at 1.07 A) without the cap (I just did the measurement)
So, the whole set up is slightly more efficient without the 10 µF cap, which is to be expected.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 22, 2014, 10:52:54 AM
...
For Ferrit core tests I have to wind two new identical coils (one monofilar and the other bifilar) over a 10 mm Ferrite core, what I want to do anyway soon. I can not fit my 8 mm Ferrite core into the big coil I am using now. And a 6 mm Ferrite core would rattle (that is why I did not buy it).
...
Hi Conrad,
Perhaps you could use a small piece of polifoam to wrap up the 6 mm ferrite core against the rattle? just a suggestion to save you from winding new coils? of course you do as the most appropiate for you.
Okay on the scope probe placements, unfortunately I did not check it on your drawing...
Will make further comments tomorrow.
Gyula
Hi Conrad:
You notice in your scope trace where there is just the pure capacitor load (with no resistor) there is a standard phase shift of 90 degrees between the voltage and the current. The current leads the voltage by 90 degrees.
You also noticed when it's a pure resistive load that the phase shift is zero.
When you add a capacitor to the circuit then the phase shift falls somewhere between zero and 90 degrees. How many degrees difference is dependent on the size of the capacitor, resistor, and the frequency. The higher in frequency you go the capacitor starts to predominate and takes more current. That makes the phase shift move towards 90 degrees.
These things can be visualized with rotating phasor diagrams. Here is one for a pure capacitor load at a given frequency.
Imagine there is a source of light directly over the phasor diagram. The actual voltages and currents you will see on your scope are the "shadows" of the phasors on the "ground."
Conrad:
QuoteWhat influence does a phase shift between Voltage and current have on the calculated Watt?
If you have a phase shift that indicates that you have a partially reactive load. You can argue that reactive loads are bad for your efficiency measurements because some of the energy is "ringing" and oscillating back and forth between the capacitor and the coil and being burned off in the resistance of the coil. So that's power that is being 'stolen' from the load resistor.
Here is a thought: With the capacitor as a resonator with the coil you can get more energy circulating and as a result get more power going to the load resistor. However, nobody is saying that you can't simply remove the capacitor and change the value of the load resistor so you get more power in the load resistor. Do you see what I mean? You can argue that that is the true basis of an "even playing field" for comparison.
In the next posting I will cover using your scope to explore the coil in a bit more detail.
MileHigh
Conrad:
In posting #765 you changed your scope probe configuration. Your original configuration (on the left) is arguably better and I will explain why.
Let's take out the "big guns" and look at the currents when the switch is closed and do some basic circuit analysis. You can see two current loops in the circuit. You see the left rectangle in the schematic. That's one current loop. Let's call the first current loop I1. For the right rectangle let's call it I2. Let's also say that clockwise current is positive current for both loops.
Here is the key thing: Look at the capacitor and imagine the two current loops flowing clockwise. The current flowing in the capacitor is (I1-I2). Can you see that?
You can see that channel 2 is monitoring I1. You can see that channel one is monitoring I2 because it's across the 100 ohm resistor. You don't have to worry about the capacitor, all information about I2 is provided by the voltage measurement across the 100-ohm resistor.
So you can see how the original scope connection allows you to monitor both of the currents I1 and I2. So you can calculate the power being burnt in the coil and the power being burnt in the load resistor simply by looking at the two RMS voltages and crunching a few numbers.
Beyond that, the scope channel across the 100 ohm resistor monitoring I2 is also implicitly telling the you the current through the capacitor. The current through the capacitor is proportional to the slope of the voltage waveform across the 100 ohm resistor. (That's a big 'trick' about capacitors. As long as you can see the voltage waveform across the capacitor, you don't have to measure the current, you can "eyeball" the current with very good accuracy.) Also, the current through the capacitor is also (I1- I2) and your scope may be able scale down the channel 2 voltage measurement by a factor of 100 before it adds it to channel 1 and displays it on your display as a third computed trace. That would be a second way to get the capacitor current.
I note that you changed the scope probe connections because the polarities of the signals was confusing. That's what the "invert waveform" function on the scope is for. Instead of changing the probe connections around simply invert the waveform on the display and everything will make sense.
MileHigh
@MileHigh: thank you for patiently explaining the basics, I am learning.
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: This forum just lost a lot of its usefulness by not displaying the images.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 22, 2014, 11:05:57 AM
@tinman: I looked at your "LAG", very impressive. Could you please post a link to more information. At what stage is the project?
I did not try to build a new motor, I use an ordinary 12 V DC motor to spin a diametrically magnetised ring magnet. And I put a 10 µF cap in parallel with a generator coil placed in front of the spinning magnet.
The big 10 µF cap (in parallel with the generator coil) serves to simulate a generator coil with a massive self capacitance in order to bring the (faked) self resonance down to a low frequency (in this case 52 Hz). According to my opinion this allows to simulate the so called "reduced Lenz drag" or the "speed up under load" (what your LAG is doing).
Have a look at my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXQBpuLu68 . I would be interested in your opinion, since you built a LAG.
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad
Nice setup there,and a very simple wat to show the effect. I have always thought it works by releaving eddy current preasure within the generator coil-if there is such a thing?-just my way of trying to explain why it works. I think the motor is already loaded by the coils core,and when you draw power from that coil,it removes some of the drag from the core. A very simple test is to do what you did in the video,and record all measurement's, then remove the coil from the system,and see how much the motor draws at the same RPM as it was doing with the coil there. I think you will find that you dont gain as much as you loose with the coil in place.
The LAG works in a different way-i wonder who can guess how. I recon MH and TK will know how it work's. Anyway,i discontinued the project,as i knew what i wanted to achieve with it,and did just that. From that came the rotary transformer,and the results were much the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6xRcSkPYn4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szpJ97M58G4
@Conradelektro,
I'm finding your resonant output coil tests extremely interesting. I want you to examine in retrospect the dramatic effect attaching resistors directly to the "Synchro Coil" produced compared to adding them as a load to the resonant capacitor electrodes. The LC tank supplies the speed up effect at lower RPM as you demonstrated. I used the loop back to source as a load, but resistors would speed the rotor up too. Why not return to the "Synchro Coil" test, now that you have the advantage of your new prime mover and the great experience gained from your resonant coil experiments? Gauge a resonant electrolytic capacitor to resonate with the old bifilar coil you wrapped at running rotor RPM. Don't forget the diode. Then measure the coil output with and without the magnet core through the resistor load, along with any DLE.
These new tests would go much further then anything I've been able to accomplish so far. Don't shun this challenge simply because your radical departure from my original design caused me to have a conniption fit. There's a great deal of power that's available for the discovery.
What is Magnetic Resonance? How would one determine the magnetic matching frequency of the LC rotor resonance? This is where my speculations grew kind of far out, positing a "Terahertz fractal". However, magnetic resonance is an established science. I imagine one could test for it simply by running a series of pulse frequencies through the magnet core "Synchro Coil" and watching the scope traces. Then, the capacitor value and rotor frequency could be determined. This is the combination I believe I achieved just with intuitive skill alone.
@Conradelektro,
I found a video that demonstrates exactly the effect we're looking for. This video is a definitive video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OrPCNVSA4o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OrPCNVSA4o)
This video is a simple demonstration of Magnetic Resonance. The motion of the B1 field is analogous to the spinning rotor. The diametric core field takes the place of the compass needle with it's two polarities. The frequency of the B1 field is adjusted to the natural vibration frequency of the compass needle. Repeated weak pushes have a large effect when applied in synchrony with the natural oscillation. This is the resonant condition!
What is the natural frequency of the stack of core magnets? How do we determine this? If we can ascertain this frequency, and match the LC and rotor resonance to it, we can derive a formula to apply universally to all these types of output coils. Follow through with this set of experiments with me, and together we'll succeed in making a very positive contribution.
Remember how difficult it was to achieve magnetic resonance at first by physically positioning the diametric stack in proximity to the spinning rotor. Determining the precise frequency of the core stack resonance through testing should solve the positioning problem and deliver a reliable generating coil. I think simply test tuning by feeding an adjusted spectrum of pulsed DC frequencies into the "Synchro coil" with scope probes attached should produce some obvious resonant signal patterns at the correct hertz. That magnetic resonance frequency determines our rotor speed and capacitor value. You already got there with it just by physically testing. Now you're uniquely situated to really get some awesome results! Surly you can appreciate now the tremendous potential that's been driving me to pursue this project so persistently. Think of all the coal we can save!
Repeated weak pushes have a large effect when applied in synchrony with the natural oscillation. This is the resonant condition!
Conradelektro's darning needle rotor was only spinning at around 20 hertz when he got the magnet flutter. Igor Moroz's reed switch diode loop back to source bearingless neo sphere, is powered off a 1.3 volt battery, and in the mild 20 hertz flutter range of Conradelektro's vertical needle rotor. Igor is recovering a substantial amount of his power pulse through a reverse biased LED because his low voltage is not jumping the reed switch as Magluvin pointed out. Any substantial output from a magnetic resonant coil would project a massive COP when coupled with a near self sustainer like Igor's; Especially if a very low CMF for DLE could be achieved with a resonant LC tank, for speed up under load. Weak pushes are all that are required:
Repeated weak pushes have a large effect when applied in synchrony with the natural oscillation.
This Magnaformer video from Tinman is interesting because he wrapped two magnets from a microwave oven with an LC tank coil and capacitor. He surrounds that with a second core of soft iron and a power coil he's pulsing in the Kilohertz range. Very similar in design to the "Synchro coil", except he's pulsing the LC tank with a coil not a spinning rotor. The magnetic wave produces a continual current.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sxM1eSaKmw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sxM1eSaKmw)
"This transformer (the Magneformer) uses the magnetic wave effect to produce a continual current across a resistive load while the induction coil is at it's rest state".
Have a look at how "Marco's Dancing Magnets" behave when pulsed at the Shumman constant of 7.8 hertz by a kick coil: This translates into the relativly slow diametric rotor speed of 468 RPM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUJza3l8rmU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUJza3l8rmU)
Danial Nunez feeds his Rodin coils with this hertz range sound frequency to get his magnetic field effects! I got extraordinary results at 20 x 7.8 or 156 hertz pulsing a 12 volt filament bulb with a 555 timer circuit. The bulb emitted an aura of standing waves in the pattern of a magnetic field!
I wonder what size capacitor Conradelektro would have to use to get his "Synchro coil" to resonate at 7.8 hertz?
Here's a quote from Tinselkoala about the 7.8 Hz signal video:
"Yep. The fact that a mechanical resonance is stimulated by a 7.8 Hz signal is just a coincidence. The really interesting thing about that video is that the pulsations are being transferred to the magnets by a "core effect" toroidally wound coil. Recall that such a coil has very little leakage of the actual B field produced by the coil; it's all trapped inside the toroid. What happens when it is energised is that the core is driven into magnetic saturation, which _reduces_ the pull experienced from the external ring magnet. When the current is removed from the core-effect coil, the attraction is restored! And the polarity of the current is relatively unimportant. This seems exactly backwards from traditional electromagnet behaviour, and it is. The core effect needs more exploration as an energy transfer phenomenon, and can be used to make really neat pulse motors (Steorn's eOrbos from the Waterways demonstration, for example.)"
Wether the 7.8 Hz signal is related to the Shumman constant by coincidence or not, The resonance is in synchrony with the natural oscillation of the magnets. It would be interesting to place an Orbo type toroid at one end of the "Synchro coil" and pulse it at 7.8 Hz to measure the output from the coil.
The "Synchro coil" with the Orbo toroid would look allot like JLN's 2Sgen:
Conradelektro's "Synchro coil" at 34 uH with the magnet core would need a 1.2245e+7 microfarad electrolytic capacitor to yield a resonant LC tank frequency of 7.8 hertz in series with a fast switching diode. The resonant rotor speed should be set at 468 RPM. This should cause a power generating magnetic oscillation, and finish the "Synchro coil". A resistor load attached to the capacitor electrodes may even create a speed up effect.
This "Synchro coil" could then couple with Igor's low voltage reed switch loop back to source bearingless neo sphere spinner. Any Lenz free power at all from that magnetic oscillation output coil would push the reverse biased LED back spike to source motor overunity.
It wouldn't take much for Conradelektro to finish and test the "Synchro coil" to these precise specifications.
Increasing the LC tank resonance to 156 hertz, (7.8 X 20) would require a 50v 3uF electrolytic capacitor, in parallel with the series bifilar coil of 34uH and a fast switching diode in series with the capacitor. This would require a rotor speed of 9360 RPM. This is assuming, as I do, that the frequency of magnetic oscillation is a constant. I would like to see Conradelektro test the "Synchro coil" at both ranges with and without the magnet core, both for output through resistance and for speed up under load.
Synchro1:
There is no need to worry about 7.8 Hz or any harmonics of 7.8 Hz. The whole thing is a red herring. My suggestion to you is to take one of your bigger coils and find a decent-sized non-polarized capacitor and do some experiments with resonance and find out for yourself.
I am willing to bet you that in almost every "delayed Lenz effect" clip you find on YouTube the real explanation for the acceleration under load is because the power draw of the coil goes down when you add the load resistor and that reduces the load on the prime mover and as a result the rotor speeds up. It's just one of those follies in the realm of free energy. How many amateur experimenters have you seen measure the total coil power dissipation before and after adding the load resistor?
For your "self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner" the same type of investigation should be done. In all likelihood, the same principle will apply and you will find out that the speed increases for the same reason.
MileHigh
The issue is amplifying magnetic field oscillation in a permanent magnet output coil core by coupling rotor resonance and LC tank resonance, not DLE.
The oscillating frequency of the magnet core can be determined easily by test pulsing if the 7.8 common denominator proves to be ineffectual. Once the resonant frequency of the magnets is established, the frequency of the output coil LC tank can be established along with the rotor RPM.
Getting the output coil magnet core field flux to agitate generates copious output. Conradelektro needs to return to his testing of the "Synchro coil" with these worthwhile goals in view.
The magnets that you play with on your bench don't have a resonant frequency. Your clip with the virtual compass needle oscillating is essentially showing you mechanical resonance between a mass and an invisible magnetic spring.
If you have a scope then you can try out your theories. If you execute and measure properly then we can look at your data.
@Milehigh,
We started out positioning the stack of diametric ring magnets in adjacency to the spinning rotor explicitly to experience the flutter that Conradelektro reported. Look at the "Dancing magnets" video again. You see increased oscillation visibly there.
The "Synchro coil" Conradelektro overwound doesn't collect any flux in the outer wraps from those magnets buried deep inside the core. First of all, he reduced the rotor speed below the frequency that produced the essential "Flutter" oscillation from the excessive Lenz drag on his flimsy darning needle rotor due to the overly thick windings. I instructed him to connect a 100uf electrolytic capacitor to a lightly wrapped coil in the 4uH range, a tenth of the thickness, which would have yielded an LC tank frequency of 7.8.
Conradelektro needs to repeat the "FLUTTER TEST", then determine the actual rotor speed on his new set up. Next, he needs to strip around 25uH of wire off the coil. We can move forward with the necessary alterations from that point toward a successful and fulfilling conclusion to this experiment.
The other question is, who hired you on as Conradelektro's nanny?
@Milehigh,
This is a quote from Conradelektro. His rotor speed was 2500 RPM when he got the rattling effect. This was a "MAGNETIC RESONANCE EFFECT". He awarded me a badge for discovering it:
"I just held 6 diametrically magnetised ring magnets (stuck together) near the spinning magnet. They also rattle (all of them) and I have to stay a bit further away from the spinning magnet than with only two ring magnets between my fingers (in order not to slow the spinning magnet down)".
320 X 7.8 = 2500! That would require an LC tank frequency of approximately 40 hertz. An electrolytic capacitor of 4.6563e+5 Microfarad's would bring his 34uH "Synchro coil" into resonace at that RPM.
@Milehigh,
Just a note on the personal side. The fact that you would boldly deny even so much as the existence of something so commonly recognized as "Magnetic Resonance" is one more example of your chronic and egregious "befuddelry". You are an arrogant free energy supressionist, and I deeply resent your persistent undermining of anything worthwhile on this community web site. You are a bane to everyone sincere about advancing free energy, and should be thrown off this web site entirely for constantly causing trouble.
Synchro1:
Refer to post #566 in this thread.
MileHigh
Here's post 556, just what's the problem here?
Here's the "Old Scientist" tuning a bifilar coil LC tank with a variable air capacitor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CcxJogghxY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CcxJogghxY)
He concludes that a bifilar coil has strong harmonics but is not influenced in the same way a standard or parallel LC tank circuit would be, due to the "resonance between the capacitor and the self capacitance of the coil".
In other words, the virtual LCC tank resonance of the bifilar tank is not as easily influenced by interference like a standard LC tank, and more stable!
Synchro1:
Refer to post #566 (five hundred and sixty-six) in this thread.
MileHigh
@synchro1:
In this post http://www.overunity.com/13852/self-accelerating-reed-switch-magnet-spinner/msg381222/#msg381222 I explained my error of judgement concerning the rattling. And the badge was given while I was still making this error of judgement.
Everything you wanted me to test had a negative result. Everything you write in your posts is mainly nonsense.
I would very much appreciate if you stopped referring to my errors, I admit them, no need to turn anything around. I did not see any effect you are claiming.
Please do not address me in your posts I will not respond. You are entitled to your opinions but they are not my opinions.
I am not mad, you may do whatever you want, but I am sick and tired of your posts specially if you involve me.
It was a grave error of judgement to ever engage in a conversation with you. I am sorry that I did experiments inspired by you, because you then behaved like I am your experimenter. You got this wrong, I am not doing your experiments. It is sad that you can not do experiments, but I do not consider this as my problem.
Greetings, Conrad
@Conradelektro,
You're a sorry failure. I could make that coil work in ten miniutes. All your pancake test results are worthless Mickey Mouse gimmicks; Running milliwatts of D.C power through a coil designed to work on AC current. Utter nonsense!
I'm the one filled with regret over you radically altering my coil design, then pronouncing your version a flop with my name attached to it. You're a Conrad Veidt fossil from the "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", Herr Professor serf of MH.
Quote from: synchro1 on January 26, 2014, 08:56:09 PM
@Conradelektro,
You're a sorry failure. I could make that coil work in ten miniutes. All your pancake test results are worthless Mickey Mouse gimmicks; Running milliwatts of D.C power through a coil designed to work on AC current. Utter nonsense!
I'm the one filled with regret over you radically altering my coil design, then pronouncing your version a flop with my name attached to it. You're a Conrad Veidt fossil from the "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", Herr Professor serf of MH.
The above is absolutely atrocious garbage. There are limits to this and people deserve to be treated with respect. And your comments are lies, Conrad has done some great work and you yourself are fully aware of that. Your 'fantasy world' that you inhabit around here is fooling nobody. You are either faking all of this and playing the ass or you need psychological help. If you are just faking it all, then it's arguable that you still need psychological help. Don't expect me to respond.
MileHigh
Synchro, Obviously I'm not a moderator here, but if I was one, you would be banned by I.P. address. That abusive kind of response is not acceptable in my opinion. That's crossed the line.
..
Conrad, I applaud your build and your experiments and demonstrations are very much appreciated.
..
I have not given up the tests, but my old bifilar Bedini coil with the many turns has outlived its usefulness, because it has two different wires and the number of turns is unknown. The two wires are also wound in a haphazard way, almost never next to each other. The coil was good enough to test my magnet spinner with the 12 V DC motor and to learn measurement methods with my function generator and scope.
I am currently building and winding two new coils, one bifilar and the other monofilar, otherwise identical. The idea is still to find useful differences between a bifilar and a monofilar coil. There might be none, but I want to see that myself.
As always, it will take some time and I might create a new thread (e.g. "Differences between monofilar and bifilar coils") once my two new coils are ready.
Maybe someone has a better idea about how to name a new thread?
Greetings, Conrad
To the KRUP WERK'S:
Conradelektro succeeded in achieving a rattling effect in a stack of diametric magnets. Then he placed the magnets inside the core of a solenoid wire coil and could not reproduce the effect. Then he went on to maintain that the effect was commonplace and could easily be produced even with iron. He also offered a theory on why he believes there is a rattling effect, and this theory of his rules out any kind of magnetic oscillation, but he says it's a result of the push and pull of the opposite poles of the rotor magnet, but it dosen't invole "Magnetic Resonance". Why is it that Conradelektro couldn't reproduce the effect on the stack of magnets after he placed them inside the wire coil, regardless of what kind of theory he uses to explain it? This was a stupid failure of Conradelektro's right at the very out set. At first he thought this rattling effect amounted to something, then he realized it was just stupid after he lost it! Conradelektro built an induction coil for Milehigh to prove there's no value in my design. I warned him plenty about that in advance!
Producing the "Rattleing effect" in a stack of diametric neo magnets oscillates the magnetic flux outside the core. This effect would be absent with a piece of iron.
Milehigh has said very, very stupid things that no one should allow to pass unchecked. Like "Science proves magnetic resonance is impossible" "The whole thing is a red herring". and so forth. I refuse to just stand by idly while a click of pseudo intellectual fraud's discredit truly great inventors like Nicola Tesla, and gain false esteem as a negative consequence. None of you clowns can come up to Nicola's sock tops! Some of you conceited phony's are calling for censorship because my insults are viewed as deprecating. I'm trying to alert others to your obvious monarchistic "petro bias".
Think about the relationship of coil pulse frequency and the magnet oscillation in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Qe9t1Hwuo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Qe9t1Hwuo)
How does this magnet oscillation compare to the flux field oscillation in Conradelektro's stack of neo magnets?
Think about this gentlemen: What would the result be if we held this oscillating tube magnet stationary, and wrapped a wire coil around it, then resumed the power coil pulsing? Would a charge appear in the coil, and if so, what kind of effect would changing the pulse frequency of the power coil have on raising and lowering the charge level of the stationary tube magnet output coil wrap? This wire coil would wrap directly over the magnet just like Conradelektor's "Synchro coil". What would happen if you over wrapped it? It would work just as stupid, right?
This is the "Dragone effect" I demonstrated in several of my videos!
Try and answer this question for yourselves!
Quote from: conradelektro on January 27, 2014, 09:13:48 AM
...
Maybe someone has a better idea about how to name a new thread?
...
Hi Conrad,
I would suggest a title: "Some tests on mono and bifilar coils" or something like that and you may wish to copy all your relevant posts, pictures into your new thread.
Quote from: gyulasun on January 27, 2014, 12:19:26 PM
Hi Conrad,
I would suggest a title: "Some tests on mono and bifilar coils" or something like that and you may wish to copy all your relevant posts, pictures into your new thread.
Good title, and I will copy the few results and some important explanations to the new thread.
Greetings, Conrad
What are the parameters in the gravity oscillation in the "Gilbondfac" video? Newton's law of gravity: The ratio in feet per second per second in acceleration of mass by attraction of gravity, to the elevation of power coil pulse in Joules.
What are the dynamics involved the re gauging of flux positioning? Dr. Dragone produced a working formula that predicts the power to flux restructuring ratio. There's a resonant feature involved with sping back of magnet flux, just like in the tube magnet gravity piston!
How does this compare to the 7.8 oscillation in Marco's dancing magnet video? Can anyone imagine a flux spring back frequency that corresponds to the gravity oscillation? What about perceiving the Earth as a magnet? "That's just a coincidence" from a group of ivory tower eggheads!
Maybe magnet fields have a spring back rate "mind of their own" and don't conform to any laws!
Suppose we build an LC tank around the magnet and gauge the coil's resonant frequency to match the field restructuring frequency so a sympathetic oscillatory relationship exists? How would this effect any kind pulsating power input? A light wind of 4uH and a fat capacitor of 100mF would give the magnet coil a sympathetic oscillatory frequency! Like the one I asked Conradelektro to use.
Now Einstien Elektro's moving on to a new more important "Mythbuster" thread. Whoppy do!
Dr. Dragone wrapped an axial polarized tube magnet with a wire coil. Then he pulsed the coil with sufficient power to neutralize the permanent magnet field. Then he posed the question: Where did the field of the permanent magnet go?
It went some place, and when the coil charge is deleted, the permanent magnet field reappears! Voila!
How long does it take for it to come home? Does this return time differ between magnets? Do some magnet fields linger longer then others?
Dr. Dragone reported a COP of >40 with his simple "MAGNET PUMP". How did he do this? An LC tank perhaps? Suppose we get the tank frequency to push the field return frequency like a swing? What happens inside the capacitor?
Magnetism is not solid. The south pole is always trying to force itself into the north pole, and the north pole fights back to restore the balance. This tug of war goes on between the Earth's poles as well as in all permanent magnets. First a penetration followed by a recoiling. Are they ebbing and flowing at different rates, or is there a constant frequency in the match?
Here's a quote from Dr. Leon Dragone:
"The entire cycle would require from 10 to 100 milliseconds so that from 10 to 100 cycles can be made per second. The numbers chosen herein are typical of the orders of magnitude that I have experimented with".
Here, Dr. Dragone's placing the frequency of the magnet's field return from coil pulse at between 10 and 100 hertz. This places the range of the oscillatory frequency of the spinning rotor, between 600 RPM and 6000 RPM. This is the rotor speed range the magnet core output coil has to operate within. Is it any coincidence that 7.83 divides into 5481 exactly 700 times?
The LC tank has to correspond to the rotor hertz, so at the low end of 10 hertz a 100 microfarad capacitor would need 2.533 Henrys of wire coil wraps, no more or no less! The question is where in this 5400 RPM range can we find an oscillatory sweet spot? We have to ask if the Shumman constant of 7.83 Hertz divides into the oscillatory range of 5481 hertz exactly 700 times as a matter of coincidence?
I think a rotor speed of 2700 RPM would be a good place to fix the optimum oscillatory frequency for a "Synchro coil", and to build an LC tank with a 100 uF capacitor. This is very close to the RPM's Conradelektro was spinning at when he got his rattling effect. The resonant inductance would require exactly 36.791 Henrys of wire wraps with that large of a capacitor in the mid frequency range, no more and no less!
We have the example of the magnet repulsion gravity piston. There's an operating range. The magnet can't keep up with too great a frequency, depending on the pulse strength. The more powerful the pulse, the longer it takes for the magnet to return to the power coil at the base. Too high a frequency won't produce any thing but a fibrillation!
The same relationship holds true to the pulsing of the flux field in the magnet while holding it stationary. Dr. Dragone places the frequency between 10 and 100 hertz. This is a constant, and holds true for all magnets. This is the ability of the flux field to produce measurable power in the coil after rebounding from the restriction pulse.
The irrational feature, is that Dr. Dragone measured up to 2000 times the power from the resurgence of the flux field then the power the coil consumed to induce the restriction pulse. The magnet cools and consumes ambient heat to do the atomic restructuring on the quantum plane. The power pulse only needs a short duration and a low duty cycle, followed by an extended pulse for recovery, perhaps 3 times as long, after the current is switched to recovery through a DPDT switch. Simple as that!
Just got my second bifi wound last night using the tiny wire guide. I set the glue to dry till today and will be terminating the wires now. Will be interesting if the capacitance increases, hopefully. ;D I was really shocked at the 6nf of the first one. I dont think any of my bifi coils measure that low, and none of them have this many feet of wire. While I was winding this one, I could keep the 2 wires much tighter. The first one, I could see the every once in a while separation then back together. The coil itself is only 1/8 in deep.
Havnt had much time. We had an NCRS show in Orlando this weekend. Took 8 cars up. Lots of prep before and unpacking after. ;D
Will be checking the coil in a bit here.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on January 27, 2014, 09:01:21 PM
Just got my second bifi wound last night using the tiny wire guide. I set the glue to dry till today and will be terminating the wires now. Will be interesting if the capacitance increases, hopefully. ;D I was really shocked at the 6nf of the first one. I dont think any of my bifi coils measure that low, and none of them have this many feet of wire. While I was winding this one, I could keep the 2 wires much tighter. The first one, I could see the every once in a while separation then back together. The coil itself is only 1/8 in deep.
Havnt had much time. We had an NCRS show in Orlando this weekend. Took 8 cars up. Lots of prep before and unpacking after. ;D
Will be checking the coil in a bit here.
Mags
5.3nf. :-\ And I tried very hard to keep the wires together. ??? I dont believe it would be the resistance of the wire causing funky readings. So it must be the lack of surface area of the wire. Still doesnt make sense to me. Very little air gap between wires, dense windings. I dunno for sure.
Well, even though there is a difference of 6 and 5.3, Im at a point of it is safe to say that this is what these coils are going to be. So Ill run some numbers on them and a normal coil and test them on the motor. I have some scrap kevlar to pull some long strands from to go around the edge of the rotor to keep the mags from coming out. I dont have much gap so it has to be thin and strong to increase the rpms to what I might need to get speed up and so on. Will need to be around 1500 rpm. These are air core.
The motor is in working order. I can just remove 1 coil to install the bifi and Ill just not have the 2 coils on either side connected in the motor circuit as to not affect the testing of motor effects.
Mags
Also, being that I am running air cores, if I get speed up effects when shorting or loading the bifi, that would be unusual, being that when the coil is open, there is no core to influence the rotor by slowing it down. So why would it speed up loaded? ;D
Mags
Because it does still have an air core. The L/C of the coil at or near resonance or a harmonic will cause drag by Lenz. Maybe the bifilar air core will have less drag (less "tank" current) and that would be interesting. :) Though it may not be noticeable at lower frequencies. My experiments with the Tesla coil AC generator and receiver with output tank showed the supply battery was "unloaded" by a load in exactly the same way as the mechanical effect, but with an air core it was done in solid state and it was at a much higher frequency. Still when tuned in a certain way when the output was loaded the strain and current demand on the supply battery was relieved and the battery voltage rose due to less active loading. More or less the same effect.
Cheers
Here's a hyper link to the "Energetics of Ferromagnetisem" by Dr. Leon Dragone:
http://192.211.49.220/-%20Free%20Energy/Lester%20J%20Hendershot/Energetics%20of%20Ferromagnetism%20by%20Leon%20Dragone.pdf (http://192.211.49.220/-%20Free%20Energy/Lester%20J%20Hendershot/Energetics%20of%20Ferromagnetism%20by%20Leon%20Dragone.pdf)
The adiabatic process must be factored in to account for the "Free energy" that's released from the "Synchro coil".
Here's a new video from Dr. Stevan Jones: He's using a Tesla series bifilar to imulse magnetize ferrite. The back spike when the circuit's broken is a transformer reaction that releases 100 percent of the stored input, because it was transformed to magnetic flux. Dr. Steven Jones shows that the magnetic locking force is variable, and can be increased in proportion to the amount of input pulse. The stronger pulse is stored in the magnetic flux. A ferrite pendulum with this type of magnetic power coil may be able to recover nearly 100 percent of it's fly back spike, and generate power too!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utdrWqrEQyw&list=UUgY1w73JtptzOlzD9X7VTaQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utdrWqrEQyw&list=UUgY1w73JtptzOlzD9X7VTaQ)
Dr. Jones causes a disconnect pulse to separate the ferrite blocks, that is less then the input locking power pulse. He sends less current in, then breaking the circuit causes the separation. Separating the bifilar strands, and using one side to charge the release pulse and the other side to recover the inductive back spike, would be a good way to collect it. A switch can reconnect the coil to series bifilar for the locking pulse.
At 1:33 the keeper travels 2 or 3 inches from this PMH: Plenty of distance to throw a pendulum arm. Bifilar coils could decouple and recover the pulse for a gain! Test results demonstrate an over unity COP from the demagnetization phase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T96aaWKc-I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T96aaWKc-I)
The answer, my friend, is in the B-H curve...
The answer is in the B-H curve.....
@Milehigh,
Thanks for the BH charts.
Imagine a Trifilar coil around the core, two batteries a commutator and the ferrite core and keeper. Three events; One, the pendulum arm's commutator closes one set of points and runs power to the bifilar coil from one + - facing poles battery. Next, the commutator triggers the second reverse pole facing battery, sending a backwards charge through the bifilar coil, that snap collapses the magnetic field and triggers the fly back into the third pickup coil that directs the flyback pulse to a rated storage capacitor, through a third set of commutator points. Pretty simple circuit for a pendulum.
Results have demonstrated that the return fro the demagnetization phase is greater then the input required to create the field. JLN measured over eight times the payback in his 2SGEN. Nicoli Zaev and Leon Dragone have results and theory.
I think a rotary trigger magnet on a tiny motor and two reed switchs would allow one to reverse the current without the pendulum. Switching the two reversed battery currents this way and dispensing with the pendulum would allow harvesting of the demagnetization flyback with the keeper in place. What would the upper limit be on the lock and unlock switch frequency? 1, 10 100 Hertz? The energized field collapse should return more power on it's own then the two battery input pulses!
A bifilar should work fine: One wire to lock and unlock, and the other for output.
No magnetic attraction is detectable in the PMH after locking, and none again after unlocking. There is no residual attraction after reverse pulse!
Synchro1:
If you can draw out a circuit and make a timing diagram then we can discuss.
MileHigh
@Milehigh,
I can't help with the drawing. The important feature is the sudden snap the commutator or reed switch imparts to the discharge. A DPDT reed switch would reverse the current from one battery. They're pretty costly. I don't think a drawing would be of much help. We're only dealing with one switch. A tiny spinning toy motor with two N S facing trigger magnets on a rotor. The switch triggers from both poles.
Here's a reed switch in series with a Leedskalnin PMH coil, powering a N-S magnet rotor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqJzU321NXs
Synchro, that's a couple of coils in series on a bent piece of steel. What exactly makes it a PMH ?
It's no different from any old piece of U shaped steel with a couple of coils wound on it.
..
Mags,
I have build the same Bifilar coil into a Tesla Transformer- air core, The effects me and my cousin have seen is when there is load on the secondary coils the Transformer seems to boost its performance and not affected in the so called counter induction. So we tried to add more coils in the Transformer, we have accidentally stumble on it the other secondary is powering a load of bulb with full brightness, accidentally Short circuit the new other Secondary coils that result into a boost of brightness on the bulb being load on the other secondary.
We have tried to make more shorted Bifilar secondary coils on this Transformer it seems to boost its performance with out demanding more power from the input source.
Meow
Quote from: Magluvin on January 28, 2014, 01:05:03 AM
Also, being that I am running air cores, if I get speed up effects when shorting or loading the bifi, that would be unusual, being that when the coil is open, there is no core to influence the rotor by slowing it down. So why would it speed up loaded? ;D
Mags
Synchro your way off topic, please take the PMH discussion to an appropriate thread and remove any posts about it.
Fairs fair.
Quote from: stupify12 on July 12, 2014, 09:53:47 PM
Mags,
I have build the same Bifilar coil into a Tesla Transformer- air core, The effects me and my cousin have seen is when there is load on the secondary coils the Transformer seems to boost its performance and not affected in the so called counter induction. So we tried to add more coils in the Transformer, we have accidentally stumble on it the other secondary is powering a load of bulb with full brightness, accidentally Short circuit the new other Secondary coils that result into a boost of brightness on the bulb being load on the other secondary.
We have tried to make more shorted Bifilar secondary coils on this Transformer it seems to boost its performance with out demanding more power from the input source.
Meow
Hey Stups
So are you saying, air core transformer, normal winding primary? Then bifi secondary lights bulb, but how is the input affected? Then, short another secondary bifi and the light gets brighter on the other bifi secondary?? ;D When that second secondary is shorted, what happens on the primary as compared to no short on second secondary?
Thanks Cat daddyo ;)
Mags
I've have a situation where using the (COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS) will be useful to me. I'll try to explain in a few words.
I have a HF air core transformer which comprises of two coils one each side of the primary, a (bipolar setup center grounded),
each coil is composed of twenty turns of 2 x 1 mm magnet wire, I had intended to use it with the 2 x 1 mm turns in parallel for
low resistance. However there is spacing string between each 2 x 1 mm wire turn but not between the two wires of each turn
see picture. This means the coils have only 28 uH inductance each and for the experiments I want to carry out I need a higher inductance so that I do not need too much external capacitance, then the only external capacitors I need are one 30 to 1300 pF
parallel plate variable air capacitor on each coil to give me the tuning adjustment I want.
The coils each in series connected configuration should have 112 uH each and with a 30 to 1350 pF variable capacitor I should
be able to tune the LC of the coils to get from the 420 kHz (fundamental frequency of primary) all the way to 5 times that
frequency for experimenting with harmonics.
OK so numbers--
So if the coils in series connected mode = 112 uH then I should need 1280 pF to get them to resonate at 420 kHz.
And if the coils have internal capacitance then I should need less external capacitance than 1280 to get the same effect.
If so the tank current will be less than if I used regular coils with 1280 pF.
I will measure the capacitance between the bifilar windings when they are unconnected.
I will then measure the inductance of the coils to see if there is a reduction from the usual 4 x inductance increase due to
the extra winding. Maybe the spacing affected the usual inductance increase.
Then I'll carefully tune the coils (or one at least) to resonance and power off, disconnect the capacitor and measure the
capacitance required for resonance.
So I'll have the measured inductance, I'll have the required capacitance for resonance and I'll have the capacitance measurement
from before series connecting the windings in the coils.
Then I should be able to use the formula/calculator for L/C resonance to get the required capacitance for resonance and compare
that to the actual external capacitance required. The online L/C resonance calculators have been quite accurate for me in the past.
The benefit in my opinion would be that if less external capacitance is required then the tank current should be less as the
internal capacitance should store it's share of the tanks charge on the coils without causing "tank current".
So if we only require activity in a coil or L/C tank at HF then the "biflar wound" series connected method might be beneficial and
more efficient.
I was also thinking that the energy exchange between the "biflar wound" series connected secondaries and the primary might
be different due to the HV end of the first winding being returned to the bottom near the primary.
Anyway below is a picture of the coils and also a schematic of how I intend to set them up for experimenting with the harmonics.
I am using only 12 volts so far but will employ some kind of voltage boosting arrangement on the input to boost the battery voltage.
P.S. With this setup now having 40 turns on each side secondary I should get a magnificent resonant rise of may times the
transformation rate x the input voltage. Each coil should operate as a 1/4 Wave resonator at the fundamental frequency.
..
Wow, works well anyway, good enough to "strike" the 300 mm tube, meaning it lit up fairly bright then as I increased the tuning
the input current suddenly dropped and the light got good and bright. Still adjustable brightness. :)
I couldn't get one of the coils into full resonance tonight at the fundamental frequency because I got a spark discharge on my
capacitor and maxed out the power supply current because it jumped into Tinsel Koala's "Supernova mode" where the setup
pulls itself very rapidly into full tune. Tuning down in capacitance and up in frequency Supernova comes on very quick, but tuning
up in capacitance from minimum and down from a higher frequency to resonance the Supernova comes on slower.
Then I decided to light up a tube and see what happened. ;D
I made a mistake about the minimum size of the variable capacitors it must be 300 pF to 1300 pF, because I cant get the coils tuned
down in capacitance to get up to the 1260 kHz mark, 3 x primary frequency. But it does get some voltage and activity at 840 kHz.
Could it be the extra capacitance of the coils maybe, I measured 580 pF between open windings and each secondary has 120 uH
now with the coils in series connected mode.
I'll investigate the coil and capacitance thing tomorrow, when I work out how I will manage full voltage with no load.
Considering this setup has only 40 turns on each side and I only tuned and scoped one side and 8 primary turns the voltage rise
is pretty wild. Q factor should be fairly good.
Some pictures. Only the right hand secondary was tuned and used. First is the setup as it was when I took the top left shot.
Top left shot shows the voltage while driving the tube. top right input power.
Bottom left is the highest voltage I dared before it sucked itself into resonance. and right is the secondary at double frequency.
I think that's a 10 Watt tube, Says HV Cathode on it. I've got an 18 Watt 3 foot tube which is what I would want to use x 2.
Itching to get some good measurements on the tank and load powers. Input was under 4 Watts once the tube was struck.
..
Hello :D
Asking for clarification on experts in building Tesla Coils.
How do you understand this title of Nikola Tesla "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS"?
Should we used this Coil for our PRIMARY Electro-Magnets or Secondary Electro- Magnets?
Tesla always use this Coil on his Primary and Secondary..
What really happen if this Coil (Bifilar Configuration) neutralize the Self Induction(CEMF) in a coil while in operation?
Just asking for some clarification.
Meow :D
Quote from: stupify12 on August 22, 2014, 07:06:39 PM
What really happen if this Coil (Bifilar Configuration) neutralize the Self Induction(CEMF) in a coil while in operation?
Just asking for some clarification.
Meow :D
Hello Stupify!
This is the way I understand the series wound bifilar coil's activity. If we look at parallel-wound wires, there is repulsion between them due to like magnetic fields. If the wires are wound in series bifilar fashion, the wires' opposite radial magnetic forces cause them to attract, and we know that this is what causes them to cancel one another's fields. So we in fact have a greater concentration of magnetic field between the turns at the same time as increased capacitance (as per Tesla's patent). But think about the structure of the magnet that our friend Theoriaapophasis (Ken) has been talking about. The magnet interacts with the dielectric all around us, and the dielectricity terminates as magnetism. This means that with the increased magnetic field between turns, there is also increased interaction with the dielectric. That is, there is greater opportunity for dielectric influx into your system. I think this is why you saw increased power draw from your apparatus in your post above.
Stay well, my feline friend!
Bob
The similarity between Farmhand's schematic and the solid state "Synchro Coil" are strong. I called for two series bifilar pancake coil LC tanks, one on each end of a diametric tube magnet, and a third bifilar wound length wise. A 3-D spindle could slide this output coil over the tube magnet.
The big difference is, the power goes the other way! A tiny D.C current tops off the spiral coil LC tanks in the magnet exciter coils. The oscillating sine wave in the pancake coils alone causes a fluctuation in the permanent magnet field that results in output through what would be the primary in Farmhand's design. There's no load on the spiral tank circuits in the "Synchro Coil" unlike Farmhand's backwards current version, where power in equals power out.
The magnet can be viewed as a reactive power transverter with no "Lenz Drag" from the secondary. The self oscillating frequency of the spiral exciter coil LC tanks has to match the resonant frequency of the permanent magnet which is around 180 khz. This is where the magnet should begin to "Ring" from the LC resonant sandwich.
Quote from: Farmhand on August 17, 2014, 10:59:37 AM
Wow, works well anyway, good enough to "strike" the 300 mm tube, meaning it lit up fairly bright then as I increased the tuning
the input current suddenly dropped and the light got good and bright. Still adjustable brightness. :)
I couldn't get one of the coils into full resonance tonight at the fundamental frequency because I got a spark discharge on my
capacitor and maxed out the power supply current because it jumped into Tinsel Koala's "Supernova mode" where the setup
pulls itself very rapidly into full tune. Tuning down in capacitance and up in frequency Supernova comes on very quick, but tuning
up in capacitance from minimum and down from a higher frequency to resonance the Supernova comes on slower.
Then I decided to light up a tube and see what happened. ;D
I made a mistake about the minimum size of the variable capacitors it must be 300 pF to 1300 pF, because I cant get the coils tuned
down in capacitance to get up to the 1260 kHz mark, 3 x primary frequency. But it does get some voltage and activity at 840 kHz.
Could it be the extra capacitance of the coils maybe, I measured 580 pF between open windings and each secondary has 120 uH
now with the coils in series connected mode.
I'll investigate the coil and capacitance thing tomorrow, when I work out how I will manage full voltage with no load.
Considering this setup has only 40 turns on each side and I only tuned and scoped one side and 8 primary turns the voltage rise
is pretty wild. Q factor should be fairly good.
Some pictures. Only the right hand secondary was tuned and used. First is the setup as it was when I took the top left shot.
Top left shot shows the voltage while driving the tube. top right input power.
Bottom left is the highest voltage I dared before it sucked itself into resonance. and right is the secondary at double frequency.
I think that's a 10 Watt tube, Says HV Cathode on it. I've got an 18 Watt 3 foot tube which is what I would want to use x 2.
Itching to get some good measurements on the tank and load powers. Input was under 4 Watts once the tube was struck.
..
Try putting the coils and cap in a mineral oil bath. This will allow you to push the system further then you are being able to without breakdowns of the air. Also the wires carrying the high voltage energy should be statically shielded by using aluminum strips overlapped, no grounding, then covering that shielding with rubber cement remember to use this only where you don't want the energy to interact with the environment. Make sure the bands are within the frequency of the device, this will increase the capacity of the wires up to certain limits. Even this method will break down at a certain level so this will only be as good as you make it.
jbignes5
An LLC tank of two pancake coils and one variable capacitor could be powered by a D.C. power source and potentiometer. Bifilar pancake coils of 20 gauge, 4 inches in diameter match a specific capacitance for 180 khz. Two controls, a variable capacitor and power potentiometer to regulate the precise frequency and amplitude of the oscillating sine wave to match the magnet's resonating frequency. Only a few cheap components!
"Coler also invented another device called the Stromzeuger (Current Generator). He claimed that, "with an input of a few watts from a dry battery an output of 6 kW could be obtained indefinitely."
Six coil wrapped magnets, two capacitors and two solenoid coils, one sliding inside the other!
"Possibly the soft iron magnets which Coler used were subjected to such stress by ultrasonic magnetostriction from the coil windings at the 180 kHz resonant frequency".
This kind of dual Butterfly Capacitor is an ideal component for the "Synchro Stromzeuger". From zero to a few hundred pico farads with the normal tuner coupled to a fine tuner in the 50 pico farad range: Maximum voltage is determined by the distance between the plates. The plates can even touch if insulated for the lowest voltage operational configuration. We only need to store and deliver around twenty volts. Capacitance is determined by the thickness and surface area of the plates.
Voltage is independent of capacitance. Air gap "Butterfly Capacitors" are normally designed for high voltage tuning. The "Low Voltage" magnet wave variable capacitor needs to be a "Dielectric Capacitor" where the blades are compressed and separated by a high dielectric ceramic insulator. A thin film of Tungsten Carbide or Barrium Titanite coating between the snug aluminum conductor plates would work best.
Capacitors are additive in parallel, so the "Dielectric Trimmer" can be in the zero to five hundred pico farad range, and increase through coupling. I'm searching for a suitable manufactured type, but nothing has come to light as yet! The "Synchro Stromzeuger" may require this one custom built component.
Factors affecting capacitance:
There are three basic factors of capacitor construction determining the amount of capacitance created. These factors all dictate capacitance by affecting how much electric field flux (relative difference of electrons between plates) will develop for a given amount of electric field force (voltage between the two plates):
PLATE AREA: All other factors being equal, greater plate area gives greater capacitance; less plate area gives less capacitance.
Explanation: Larger plate area results in more field flux (charge collected on the plates) for a given field force (voltage across the plates).
PLATE SPACING: All other factors being equal, further plate spacing gives less capacitance; closer plate spacing gives greater capacitance.
Explanation: Closer spacing results in a greater field force (voltage across the capacitor divided by the distance between the plates), which results in a greater field flux (charge collected on the plates) for any given voltage applied across the plates.
DIELECTRIC MATERIAL: All other factors being equal, greater permittivity of the dielectric gives greater capacitance; less permittivity of the dielectric gives less capacitance. Explanation: Although its complicated to explain, some materials offer less opposition to field flux for a given amount of field force. Materials with a greater permittivity allow for more field flux (offer less opposition), and thus a greater collected charge, for any given amount of field force (applied voltage). "Relative" permittivity means the permittivity of a material, relative to that of a pure vacuum. The greater the number, the greater the permittivity of the material. Glass, for instance, with a relative permittivity of 7, has seven times the permittivity of a pure vacuum, and consequently will allow for the establishment of an electric field flux seven times stronger than that of a vacuum, all other factors being equal
The following is a table listing the relative permittivities (also known as the "dielectric constant") of various common substances:
Material Relative permittivity (dielectric constant) ============================================================
Vacuum ------------------------- 1.0000
Air ---------------------------- 1.0006
PTFE, FEP ("Teflon") ----------- 2.0
Polypropylene ------------------ 2.20 to 2.28
ABS resin ---------------------- 2.4 to 3.2 Polystyrene -------------------- 2.45 to 4.0
Waxed paper -------------------- 2.5
Transformer oil ---------------- 2.5 to 4
Hard Rubber -------------------- 2.5 to 4.80
Wood (Oak) --------------------- 3.3
Silicones ---------------------- 3.4 to 4.3
Bakelite ----------------------- 3.5 to 6.0
Quartz, fused ------------------ 3.8
Wood (Maple) ------------------- 4.4
Glass -------------------------- 4.9 to 7.5
Castor oil --------------------- 5.0
Wood (Birch) ------------------- 5.2
Mica, muscovite ---------------- 5.0 to 8.7
Glass-bonded mica -------------- 6.3 to 9.3
Porcelain, Steatite ------------ 6.5
Alumina ------------------------ 8.0 to 10.0
Distilled water ---------------- 80.0
Barium-strontium-titanite ------ 7500
This means Barium Titanite will produce an "Electric Field" nearly 7,000 times as great as air per volt! Materials with a greater permittivity allow for more field flux to develop for a given amount of electric field force (voltage between the two plates).
Higher permittivity dielectric material will strengthen the field force of a low voltage power supply. We need this force to strengthen the magnet waves projected from the twin Tesla pancake bifilars. It should be simple enough to dip a few teardrop shaped aluminum capacitor plates in a Tungston Carbide powdered slurry of linear polyurethane, for a five plate trimmer!
The increased field force in the dielectric capacitor will strengthen the amplitude of the oscillating sine wave in the LLC magnet exciter tank.
The dual Teardrop Variable Dielectric, set in a frame and a bath of mineral oil is in parallel with a DPDT switch that connects the capacitor to the D.C. power source, then connects the capacitor to the Tesla bifilars. The combined coil inductance determines the capacitance for the self resonant frequency, and the DPDT switch frequency is then based on the capacitor discharge rate, probably around a hertz. Power generated in the magnet output coil by the oscillating LLC tank sine wave between the capacitor charge cycles should accrue as gain!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ec6rQuk14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ec6rQuk14)
The uneven nature of the switch "ON" time for the DPDT is easily controlled by changing the capacitor and resistor values in this circuit according to formula. It takes longer for the tank oscillation to peter out then it does to charge the capacitor. The "Astable Multi-Vibrator" circuit needs a separate power source, perhaps a 9v battery. The primary power source should be a variable voltage and amperage type transformer that allows for adjustment of power factors like 10 volts and .5 amp.
Farmhand directly tapped his tank resonance for output and ran into the power in power out conundrum. Here, the oscillating sine wave excites a permanent magnet field through "Sympathetic Vibration" without any effect or back influence on the resonant tank frequency! Zero "Lenz Drag"!
The high dielectric variable capacitor can tune an "Egg Crate" of magnet coil resonators.
In the DPDT switch schematic, A1 & A2 are the Battery terminals. B1 & B2 are the coil leads, and C1 & C2 the capacitor: The C to A interval is naturally shorter then the C to B tank contact. The "Astable Multi-Vibrator" circuit is up to the task.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Xrwt-50AA&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Xrwt-50AA&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA)
Quote from TinselKoala:
"I was inspired to build a little magnet spinner by synchro1's interesting work".
TK's axial disk magnet spinner is rotating between two red wire radio shack coils in series. He's spinning the disk with a pure sine wave at twenty volts and 180 hertz with 175 milli amps of current. Merely 1/35th of a watt!
The variable hi dielectric capacitor should spin this disk with no problem, coupled with the capacitor charger and equivilant power source. Starting with a low frequency high amplitude signal of high capacitance, then speeding the spinner up with capacitance reduction.
What would the input economy look like spinning the rotor off an LC tank oscillating sine wave with a pulsed D.C. power source, compared to a signal generator? How would the addition of a second series of coils and A.C. sine wave disk magnet spinner effect the D.C. input?
Quote from: synchro1 on August 25, 2014, 09:33:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ec6rQuk14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ec6rQuk14)
The uneven nature of the switch "ON" time for the DPDT is easily controlled by changing the capacitor and resistor values in this circuit according to formula. It takes longer for the tank oscillation to peter out then it does to charge the capacitor. The "Astable Multi-Vibrator" circuit needs a separate power source, perhaps a 9v battery. The primary power source should be a variable voltage and amperage type transformer that allows for adjustment of power factors like 10 volts and .5 amp.
Farmhand directly tapped his tank resonance for output and ran into the power in power out conundrum. Here, the oscillating sine wave excites a permanent magnet field through "Sympathetic Vibration" without any effect or back influence on the resonant tank frequency! Zero "Lenz Drag"!
The high dielectric variable capacitor can tune an "Egg Crate" of magnet coil resonators.
In the DPDT switch schematic, A1 & A2 are the Battery terminals. B1 & B2 are the coil leads, and C1 & C2 the capacitor: The C to A interval is naturally shorter then the C to B tank contact. The "Astable Multi-Vibrator" circuit is up to the task.
Synchro if you post any more silly comments I am going to abandon this thread and begin another which I will request due to
past actions that you do not post in, if you do post in it I will abandon that as well.
Synchro I request that you post no more speculation, and that you show experimental evidence for your claims.
I used several methods to load the main tank.
You have shown nothing but claim a lot. I request you begin posting some evidence of your own experiments. And concern
yourself less with trying to make out everyone is silly except you.
I wound those coils probably over 2 years ago and there is proof of that. It is simply two coils in series with a primary between
there is nothing special about the setup, except the coils only need about 1000 pF of external capacitance to tune to resonance
when they should need about 1280 pF, so I estimate the coils have about 250 pF or so of inherent capacitance. The current
associated with the extra inherent capacitance in the tank will not appear to contribute to the charging of the tank capacitor
but to the charging of the coils capacitance, and so about 1/5 of the tank activity does not see the external tank capacitor.
You actually stated my setup was "backwards" haha what a joke. It can be a receiver or a transmitter or a transformer both a
step up and a step down, it's a generator of AC sine waves, and a generator of "tank activity".
Show us your setup and what it can do. Since my setup is considered as "backwards" by you. There are backwards things
around here but it's not my arrangement. :) It works as intended and as expected.
Synchro, can you even build a "solid state continuous wave resonant air core transformer" ? If so show us and show us the
wave forms as well. If not then you have things to learn. If you can't show it then it might as well be fairy dust.
..
Here's a diagram of how different loads can be connected. People like Thane Heins and the Babcock and Murry ect. measure the
input to their device at the output of "Tx1" being the transformer connected to the output coil "C2" of "the generator of HF AC Power".
The output of coil "C2" across capacitor C6 being "Analogous" to the grid wall outlet. Everything before that is "generator of AC".
Any reactive power claim which relies on the grid as a "provider and receiver of reactive power" is only taking part of the real
costs into consideration.
If we ignore the output phase 1 with the fluro and just look at output phase 2, (right hand phase), the below makes sense.
This is evident when we look at my arrangement and see that I can measure the power out of "Tx1" and the power into any DUT
as well as any load power for a load connected to the DUT tested there ect. and all I get is an efficiency for powering the load
from that device when that device is powered by the supply that supplies it.
Not the true cost of powering the load in it's entirety. :)
Just saying.
@Farmhand,
Answer two questions for me please;
One: Do you think an LC resonant tank sine wave alone can power a tiny disk magnet spinner like the one TinselKoala demonstrates from a signal generator?
The other question is; Would the spinner retard the tank frequency?
Look at this high inductance coil with the high perm ferrite core. We can spin inside the the toroid hole. This would allow for a much higher capacitance charge and increased amplitude! Couple this to a hi-dielectric variable capacitor, and Voila, we have an overunity motor.
Highest permitivity Barium Titanite dielectric capacitor, and highest permeability Metglass inductor core. These "Space Age" materials would allow us to strengthen the sine wave amplitude sufficiently to power a magnet spinner from zero to 10k rpm. This couples with the cap charger and timer.
This kind of motor would accelerate accompanied by power reduction. An effect I demonstrated in my videos. This answers question number two: No, the spinner generates power that helps reduce input into the tank. It's a negative load! TinselKoala shows this effect in his mini spinner video.
Imagine a fixed capacitance LC tank of high inductance with a self resonating frequency of 100 hertz. Now we spin the magnet rotor up to 6000 rpm from the side with a separate pulse coil. Will the negative load value from the spinner output be sufficient to replenish the tank depletion to resistance loss? The LC tank spinner should begin to power itself, as I've described in my "Self Accelerating Magnet" thread. The speed would be limited by the fixed tank frequency in this case.
Quote from: synchro1 on August 27, 2014, 10:48:11 AM
Imagine a fixed capacitance LC tank of high inductance with a self resonating frequency of 100 hertz. Now we spin the magnet rotor up to 6000 rpm from the side with a separate pulse coil. Will the negative load value from the spinner output be sufficient to replenish the tank depletion to resistance loss? The LC tank spinner should begin to power itself, as I've described in my "Self Accelerating Magnet" thread. The speed would be limited by the fixed tank frequency in this case.
Synchro, check out this video at 20:53 and following (I've got the link cued up there): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVUN3GsekKQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=1256
Look at what Tariel's using to spin the shaft - a toroidal coil...
Bob
I'm posting here because the topic involves resonance. I started a thread entitled "Self accelerating reed switch motor" that produced Milehigh's excellent OP Amp motor.
The Reed Switch is normally open. So when the magnet rpm exceeds the switch's maximum rated frequency, the switch electrodes stay open acting as capacitor plates. I believe now that the Open Reed Switch was acting as a "Resonant Tank Capacitor" connected to the bifilar pulse coil in series. It makes sense to me now, that the magnet was boasting the amplitude of the LC resonant frequency and that this is what accounts for the spontaneous speed burst up to axle friction breaking point. Once that magnet spinner is surfing the LC sine wave, the axle could clutch onto a generator drive shaft and supply free power!
The other point is, current can't get past the open Reed Switch electrodes after they charge to maximum capacitance. There's no longer any possibility for additional input into the circuit after the Reed Switch electrodes create capacitance and establish LC tank frequency, as my test equipment showed. Flux from the spinner at 25k would exclude any further input into the power coil as well. The resonant tank acts as an infinite resistor. Even though the battery is blocked from adding input, it's needed in this circuit as a resonating tank component. This is my latest theory!
Quote from: Bob Smith on August 27, 2014, 11:09:50 AM
Synchro, check out this video at 20:53 and following (I've got the link cued up there): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVUN3GsekKQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=1256 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVUN3GsekKQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=1256)
Look at what Tariel's using to spin the shaft - a toroidal coil...
Bob
No, no, no. What spins the motor is the action of the disks against the hidden iron cores below the disks. Here is the relevant Tesla information on this and below is the relevant picture attached.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm
You have to understand that this is an example of a one wire system that uses the metal plate at the end as an anchor of low potential when compared to the high potential of the source transformer. This causes an gradient to form to draw from.
Each part of this diagram is seen in the video. The transformer is inside of the metal base. The output pair of wires is two one wire circuits as evident from the dual disks and two wires coming out of the metal base box. The iron cores are shown as well. You have to look very closely but you can see the shape of each core below the disks in that video. The plate is very very obvious as the metal covering the transformer box base.
You can even see the real engineer trying to figure out why there is no potential difference coming out of the transformer box with the two wires going to the toroid. they are two one wire channels with the same potential on each wire. This causes no potential difference between the two channels and hence why there is no apparent current going to the system.
Hope this helps.
jbignes5
P.S. There are a great many nuances to this technology that we can glean by watching and learning, like phase propagation between two similar impulse streams when one is separated by a coil from the base metal box. One channel will lag the other creating a difference between the two to draw from or enhances the strength of the discs rotating by retarding one stream to enhance the next impulse. There are many many things to learn from TK's devices and Tesla technology.
Sorry for the off topic post but I thought clarification needed to be shown here about the previous post.
@Jbigness5,
Thanks!
Tesla appears to power the copper disk with an oscillating sine wave from an LC tank in series, exactly like I power my magnet spinner after the Reed Switch electrodes seperate over the operating frequency and it turns into a capacitor. The big difference is, the magnet spinner reinforces the sine wave amplitude and outputs power back into the circuit!
Let me add that I'm among Farmhand's ardent fans, and believe he should be able to deal with us pirating the thread a little, without jumping overboard!.
Quote from: synchro1 on August 28, 2014, 03:03:12 PM
@Jbigness5,
Thanks!
Tesla appears to power the copper disk with an oscillating sine wave from an LC tank in series, exactly like I power my magnet spinner after the Reed Switch electrodes seperate over the operating frequency and it turns into a capacitor. The big difference is, the magnet spinner reinforces the sine wave amplitude and outputs power back into the circuit!
Let me add that I'm among Farmhand's ardent fans, and believe he should be able to deal with us pirating the thread a little, without jumping overboard!.
Not quite. They are longitudinal impulses that propagate along 1 wire. Not a sign wave in the least bit. the special transformer does use a capacitive discharge across a magnetic spark gap. this is like a magnetic diode effect that only allows one part of an AC discharge. This is how he gets impulses of the right character. Check out the entire link I provided. It shows all the circuit and not just one aspect like I showed, which is the output usage.
jbignes5
jbignes5
Thanks very much for your post.
It's good to be able to see more clearly through the eyes of Tesla (and TK), and I appreciate your clarification.
Bob
@Jbigness5,
Thanks, I'll look at it.
The rated capacitance of the 12 volt Reed Switch is .2 pico farads. Pretty small because only the electrode tips are overlapping, but just right to resonate with an 8 micro henry thread spool coil of 40 turns at 400 hertz. This is where the switch stops closing, and input power is curtailed.
The Resonance Formula for these inductance and capacitive values confirm that the self resonating frequency was exactly at the 25K rpm of the spinner when the speed burst was noticed.
Quote from: jbignes5 on August 28, 2014, 04:43:28 PM
....a capacitive discharge across a magnetic spark gap. this is like a magnetic diode effect that only allows one part of an AC discharge. This is how he gets impulses of the right character.
From what I know ::) ;D , the magnets blew out the spark like using compressed air, etc. Probably like in a glass television picture tube, the deflection coils can bend the electron beam. So when the cap voltage gets to be enough to jump the gap, as the spark discharges the cap, the stream of electrons is pulled and pushed from its straight path from electrode to electrode due to the srong magnets. Maybe the magnets bend the path enough that it stops due to too great a distance as the bend grows ??? ;D . Also probably cutting off the spark well before completely discharging the cap.
Tito once told me in pm that, yes, he uses a zener as a spark gap. So possibly putting it all together here, we would need a rectifier diode in series with a reverse biased zener(probably high voltage), in which the rectifier diode forces the one way street and the zener stops conduction from the cap at a particular voltage level. One more item would be needed. A timed/voltage controlled switch in series with the diode and zener. The trigger level to turn on the transistor would be what ever voltage that is higher than the zener voltage that you desire. This would effectively produce a disrupted discharge. Say the trigger turns on the transistor at say 300v, and the zener cuts it off at 250v. Just an example. The transistor should stay on after trigger voltage is met, possibly also triggered off when the zener cuts out. Would have to be worked out.
I dont believe that the magnets at the spark gap act as a rectifier. I believe a spark could happen in either direction, just the bending would be opposite. So the idea of the abrupt cutoff is to stop current in one direction abruptly without any possibility of continued current flow from the cap to the load/coil, like a reed switch allowing current to continue to flow across the spark between the open contacts. And once the cap has lost some charge from an abrupt discharge, the voltage is not high enough to breach the gap, so no chance of refire till the caps voltage reaches breaking point. In the zener gap model, the switch would be triggered by a preset breach voltage level sensor from the discharge cap. Probably better than trying to use a timer and tune to operating freq. ;D And the switch,transistor needs to be turned off just 'after' the zener makes the break in current flow. This way the switch/transistor is protected from possible spikes, that tend to burn transistors.
Mags
The coil's series bifilar.
Here's the magnet:
1/2" od x 1/8" id x 1/2" thick
Nickel Plated
Diametrically Magnetized (https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp)
It might help lower the sine wave powering threshold by wiring a higher value capacitor in parallel with the Reed Switch through a DPDT switch. We can run it up and engage the extra tank capacitor by blade switch, to lower the tank frequency and perhaps achieve self running at a lower R.P.M! A trimmer capacitor placed here might act as a speed controller. One switch position for pulse power, the other for LC oscillating sine wave! Anything in the ballpark might work! I think this system needs a battery for a ground, after sine wave transition, but not for power.
TinselKoala demonstrated that a magnet spinner no longer acts as a load when it's driven by a sine wave, but actually reduces input. The faster it spins, the more power it feeds back to it's own power coil.
The self capacitance of the "Tesla Series Bifilar Coil" helps stabilize the LC tank. The ability of this kind of coil to completely free itself of reactance at high frequency resonance is another topic under discussion in this thread, I feel the subject is in the right area.
I think this is much easier to succeed at then most people think, and that any dipole magnet, series bifilar power coil pulse motor, can be rigged to self run just by synchronizing the R.P.M to your pre calculated tank frequency. I also think the "Sine Wave Tank" motor will run with the battery removed if the circuit is Earth grounded.
Quote from: Magluvin on August 28, 2014, 09:39:43 PM
From what I know ::) ;D , the magnets blew out the spark like using compressed air, etc. Probably like in a glass television picture tube, the deflection coils can bend the electron beam. So when the cap voltage gets to be enough to jump the gap, as the spark discharges the cap, the stream of electrons is pulled and pushed from its straight path from electrode to electrode due to the srong magnets. Maybe the magnets bend the path enough that it stops due to too great a distance as the bend grows ??? ;D . Also probably cutting off the spark well before completely discharging the cap.
Tito once told me in pm that, yes, he uses a zener as a spark gap. So possibly putting it all together here, we would need a rectifier diode in series with a reverse biased zener(probably high voltage), in which the rectifier diode forces the one way street and the zener stops conduction from the cap at a particular voltage level. One more item would be needed. A timed/voltage controlled switch in series with the diode and zener. The trigger level to turn on the transistor would be what ever voltage that is higher than the zener voltage that you desire. This would effectively produce a disrupted discharge. Say the trigger turns on the transistor at say 300v, and the zener cuts it off at 250v. Just an example. The transistor should stay on after trigger voltage is met, possibly also triggered off when the zener cuts out. Would have to be worked out.
I dont believe that the magnets at the spark gap act as a rectifier. I believe a spark could happen in either direction, just the bending would be opposite. So the idea of the abrupt cutoff is to stop current in one direction abruptly without any possibility of continued current flow from the cap to the load/coil, like a reed switch allowing current to continue to flow across the spark between the open contacts. And once the cap has lost some charge from an abrupt discharge, the voltage is not high enough to breach the gap, so no chance of refire till the caps voltage reaches breaking point. In the zener gap model, the switch would be triggered by a preset breach voltage level sensor from the discharge cap. Probably better than trying to use a timer and tune to operating freq. ;D And the switch,transistor needs to be turned off just 'after' the zener makes the break in current flow. This way the switch/transistor is protected from possible spikes, that tend to burn transistors.
Mags
I haven't started messin with the spark gap thing yet. I need to move myself to a more remote area and start working in my new lab. What I can report is that Tesla knew this was a better way to get an abruptive spark and that it's effects were much smoother, like in the displays he designed to look at these discharges. He also found that the spark gaps robustness was far superior to other methods. In the lecture he describes the effects going from a larger wire circle to a ball electrode. He found that going into a smaller inner surface tended to intensify the discharges going to the center electrode. He talks about the discharges as being unusually smooth and had a better uniformity that he had never seen.
As for syncro's statements I have to agree. The bifilar seems to be worthy of our study. Think about the increased capacitance alone makes this something special. Built in capacitance inside the coil itself. We know about lcr circuits but this changes things a bit, especially when it is series bifilar.
Quote from: jbignes5 on August 30, 2014, 11:49:36 PM
As for syncro's statements I have to agree. The bifilar seems to be worthy of our study. Think about the increased capacitance alone makes this something special. Built in capacitance inside the coil itself. We know about lcr circuits but this changes things a bit, especially when it is series bifilar.
Is the uniqueness of the swbf coil perhaps due more to its interaction with the dielectric medium than has been acknowledged?
The dielectric is essentially an all pervasive reservoir of stored charge. That is, a kind of all pervasive capacitance that is constantly discharging and replenishing everywhere.
In the swbf coil we have mutual cancellation of magnetic fields between windings and accompanying minimization of current; we also have accompanying rise in voltage output and raised capacitance between windings. But at the same time, we also have the interaction of bemf in oppositely-wound coils.
So, while we have concentrated magnetic attraction between windings, we also have interaction of bemf forces between windings. This means the forces between windings are also coextensive with the dielectric medium - a kind of entry point for the dielectric to rush in to a circuit.
So yes, the swbf coil acts like a capacitor, a step-up voltage transformer of sorts, but also an entry point for greater interaction between the dielectric medium and circuit.
Might this interaction with the dielectric be part of this coil's magic that made it so important to Tesla?
Bob
It appears to me that the capacitance developed between the adjacent conductors supplies the capacitance needed to match the inductance of the coil without introducing external capacitors. Old radio transmitters and receivers had a huge problem with capacitors aging. If the sets sat around for a long time inactive the dielectric coatings on the foils used would change and the capacitors would go far off range. Circuits had to be utilized to strip and redeposit the dielectric. Tesla developed the coil because of the problems with lumped components. There are no buss losses either between inductor and capacitor. I believe he used the coil as an oscillator. The spark gap acts to introduce power into the oscillator. The magnetically quenched spark gap is used just like the blowout coil on a dc circuit breaker. As soon as current flows through the quenching coil it magnetically blows out the plasma in the gap before the supply capacitor dumps all it's charge. The coil rings down until the electric field between electrodes in the gap causes the air to ionize into a plasma. The electrolytic capacitors mentioned above used boron and water. The electrolyte extends one of the plates electrically to the solid dielectric film of one plate. There ions are attracted to the cathode and remain there after the voltage is removed from the capacitor. This keeps the electrons in the cathode plate allowing for the storage of the potential applied. So in a way the coil for electromagnets acts as a dynamic capacitor. It stores the energy of each supply capacitor discharge in the oscillations of energy between magnetic field and electric field within the geometry of the coil.
QuoteIs the uniqueness of the swbf coil perhaps due more to its interaction with the dielectric medium than has been acknowledged?
The dielectric is essentially an all pervasive reservoir of stored charge. That is, a kind of all pervasive capacitance that is constantly discharging and replenishing everywhere.
In the swbf coil we have mutual cancellation of magnetic fields between windings and accompanying minimization of current; we also have accompanying rise in voltage output and raised capacitance between windings. But at the same time, we also have the interaction of bemf in oppositely-wound coils.
So, while we have concentrated magnetic attraction between windings, we also have interaction of bemf forces between windings. This means the forces between windings are also coextensive with the dielectric medium - a kind of entry point for the dielectric to rush in to a circuit.
So yes, the swbf coil acts like a capacitor, a step-up voltage transformer of sorts, but also an entry point for greater interaction between the dielectric medium and circuit.
Might this interaction with the dielectric be part of this coil's magic that made it so important to Tesla?
Bob
Bob, The coil for electromagnets or ( a bifilar wound then series connected coil) does not have "mutual cancellation of
magnetic fields between windings and accompanying minimization of current".
The windings are in addition configuration not cancelling, if the winding are connected to cancel each others magnetic fields then
the coil is connected oppositely to how it is connected in the patent, and if connected in cancelling mode the coils when
connected will read very close to zero inductance.
Coils connected in cancelling mode have no place in this thread.
..
Quote from: sparks on August 31, 2014, 11:49:54 AM
It appears to me that the capacitance developed between the adjacent conductors supplies the capacitance needed to match the inductance of the coil without introducing external capacitors. Old radio transmitters and receivers had a huge problem with capacitors aging. If the sets sat around for a long time inactive the dielectric coatings on the foils used would change and the capacitors would go far off range. Circuits had to be utilized to strip and redeposit the dielectric. Tesla developed the coil because of the problems with lumped components. There are no buss losses either between inductor and capacitor. I believe he used the coil as an oscillator. The spark gap acts to introduce power into the oscillator. The magnetically quenched spark gap is used just like the blowout coil on a dc circuit breaker. As soon as current flows through the quenching coil it magnetically blows out the plasma in the gap before the supply capacitor dumps all it's charge. The coil rings down until the electric field between electrodes in the gap causes the air to ionize into a plasma. The electrolytic capacitors mentioned above used boron and water. The electrolyte extends one of the plates electrically to the solid dielectric film of one plate. There ions are attracted to the cathode and remain there after the voltage is removed from the capacitor. This keeps the electrons in the cathode plate allowing for the storage of the potential applied. So in a way the coil for electromagnets acts as a dynamic capacitor. It stores the energy of each supply capacitor discharge in the oscillations of energy between magnetic field and electric field within the geometry of the coil.
Sparks, I agree with you and this has been my contention since i read the patent, the coil being called a [COIL FOR ELECTRO-
MAGNETS] only means that is what he called it. He makes clear claims in the patent. And the coils can be used according to the
patent for various reasons. I found that a bifilar wound then series connected coil for HF that has a reasonable amount of "built
in capacitance" requires less external capacitance and in my latest setups it has allowed me to achieve relatively low frequencies
with only a small external capacitance easily provided by a parallel plate air variable capacitor, this is good because those
capacitors don't wear out and are of course self healing being air dielectric.
You may have noticed that I spaced the pairs of conductors, I think that would cause the majority of the "built in capacitance"
to be between the individual conductors of the conductor pairs, but not between the pairs of conductors. Not that it would make
much difference. It's just a means to an end. I see no evidence that Tesla used these coils in his HF Transmission arrangements
though, all his patents and drawings from the Colorado Springs Notes show that he was trying to minimize the "built in
capacitance" of the HF transmitter arrangements due to the problem of it affecting the frequency and the output.
However one drawback of the "built in capacitance" is that as Tesla explains in the Colorado Springs Notes as the voltage
becomes very high then a lot of energy is "locked" up in that capacitance of the coils themselves.
Magnetically quenched spark gaps have about as much to do with this coil as an elevated capacitance has to an induction motor. ;)
..
Quote from: Farmhand on August 31, 2014, 12:36:58 PM
Bob, The coil for electromagnets or ( a bifilar wound then series connected coil) does not have "mutual cancellation of
magnetic fields between windings and accompanying minimization of current".
The windings are in addition configuration not cancelling, if the winding are connected to cancel each others magnetic fields then
the coil is connected oppositely to how it is connected in the patent, and if connected in cancelling mode the coils when
connected will read very close to zero inductance.
Coils connected in cancelling mode have no place in this thread.
Just going by the patent you linked at the beginning of this thread, Farmhand. It states that figure two is:
Quote2. A coil composed of contiguous or adjacent insulated conductors electrically connected in series and having a potential difference of such value as to give to the coil as a whole, a capacity sufficient to neutralize its self-induction, as set forth.
Bob
@Bob,
These guys kill me! The canceling effect accompanies the condition of "Self Resonance". They get these mistaken ideas and bogus test results by running zero frequency D.C. current through the "Tesla Pancake Bifilar Coil" like Conradelektro did in his series of "Super Scientific" coil comparison tests.
Capacity can only neutralize self-induction in the state of "Self Resonance".
They find that the "Bifilar Hairpin" connection measures zero inductance with D.C. current and conclude that Tesla made a mistake! This amounts to the height of preposterousness.
What kind of current does one single pulse induce in the "Tesla Series Bifilar"? That's all it takes to achieve bifilar self resonance. The solitary pulse induces an oscillating sine wave in the Tesla Series Bifilar that resonates at the coils self resonating frequency. The coils Ohmic resistance from "Reactive Impedance" cancels out in the state of self resonance. You need to charge the coil to get the cancellation!
The single pulse induces a resonating A.C. oscillating sine wave in the series bifilar coil! How can a straight zero frequency D.C. current make the coil oscillate? I failed to pound this amount of simple understanding into their thick skulls over a period of years. What a pack of Turkeys! How stupid can people get? It's hard for me to believe that Farmhand is such a simpleton!
Tesla's Pancake coil needs a charge followed by a "Magnetic Field Collapse" to self oscillate. The coil stores enough charge internally from the field collapse , to re-magnetize the field and sustain the oscillation. The Tesla Pancake Coil needs to be actively oscillating before any of it's characteristics stand out.
I believe that he was planning on using this coil in his magnifying transmitter. I also believe that the mt was to operate at the lowest possible frequency to reduce electromagnetic wave propogation and loss of energy from the transmitter. The coil appears in his mt patents as the secondary (a') which is inductively coupled to the 2 turn primary. Tesla was not trying to produce highfrequency highvoltage electromagnetic energy waves. He was after megavolts of potential creating an electrical monopole in the extensive ground. The voltage between the top terminal and the ground in the megavolts. Any electric field emanating from the coil and connectors had to be uniform so as not to produce coronal losses from the system. Despite these efforts during testing reports were made of a blue light emanating from the top terminal. I believe that down in the ground tesla was creating an emitter. The whole ground becoming negatively charged. This would cause a flow of current in the ground away from the emitter. Upon relaxation of the voltage the crammed up electrons would naturally disperse. This would begin to create waves of charged particles oscillating in the ground at the tower resonant frequency. Not low-frequency electro-magnetic waves but more like electrical compression waves.
Your preaching to the choir about most everything except the bifilar wound series connected coils in the magnifying transmitter setups.
All I see is either regular spiral coils or regular solenoid coils.
Can you provide some evidence for the use of the [Coil for electro-magnets] in those patents.
Coil "A" the secondary is a simple single wound solenoid. Coil "C" the primary is also a simple single wound solenoid, and coil "B"
the extra coil is also a simple single wound solenoid. The extra coil appears to be shown wound oppositely to the other two coils
and I think that can be done to reduce or eliminate any coupling between secondary and extra coils, not sure if it's a drawing
oversight or just showing it can be done that way.
http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1119732-0.png
Remember this [Coil For Electro-Magnets] Patent is not limited to spiral coils the patent clearly states that the patent can be
applied to all coil types.
He covers extensively in the Colorado Springs Notes why he needed to minimize the inherent capacitance in his transmitter coils.
..
Tesla's patent on wireless transmission of power drawing looks more like a bifilar wound coil was on the drawing board. Again it is impossible to see it.(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tfcbooks.com%2Fimages%2Fpatents%2F645576-1.gif&hash=5cb9c75e3ae69542f956ee5b197b78a8aa81ea4b)
Quote from: synchro1 on August 31, 2014, 02:00:08 PM
@Bob,
These guys kill me! The canceling effect accompanies the condition of "Self Resonance". They get these mistaken ideas and bogus test results by running zero frequency D.C. current through the "Tesla Pancake Bifilar Coil" like Conradelektro did in his series of "Super Scientific" coil comparison tests.
Capacity can only neutralize self-induction in the state of "Self Resonance".
They find that the "Bifilar Hairpin" connection measures zero inductance with D.C. current and conclude that Tesla made a mistake! This amounts to the height of preposterousness.
What kind of current does one single pulse induce in the "Tesla Series Bifilar"? That's all it takes to achieve bifilar self resonance. The solitary pulse induces an oscillating sine wave in the Tesla Series Bifilar that resonates at the coils self resonating frequency. The coils Ohmic resistance from "Reactive Impedance" cancels out in the state of self resonance. You need to charge the coil to get the cancellation!
The single pulse induces a resonating A.C. oscillating sine wave in the series bifilar coil! How can a straight zero frequency D.C. current make the coil oscillate? I failed to pound this amount of simple understanding into their thick skulls over a period of years. What a pack of Turkeys! How stupid can people get? It's hard for me to believe that Farmhand is such a simpleton!
Tesla's Pancake coil needs a charge followed by a "Magnetic Field Collapse" to self oscillate. The coil stores enough charge internally from the field collapse , to re-magnetize the field and sustain the oscillation. The Tesla Pancake Coil needs to be actively oscillating before any of it's characteristics stand out.
I'm sorry but I have to agree with this statement. A straight dc current will not reveal anything about the bifilar design. This coil needs impulses to shine or even an AC signal.
The "Tesla Series Bifilar Coil" can not charge it's own capacitance through the wire coil like a normal LC tank because the capacitance is sealed. Running D.C. current into a normal LC capacitor through the inductor will trigger the oscillation after the capacitor is full and wants to discharge. This may be the cause of the fundamental error our experimenters fall pray to. The "Series Bifilar Tank" won't work the same way. You need to not only charge the wire coil, you then need to induce a "Violent Field Collapse" to fully charge it's self capacitance. You can't test the "Series Bifilar" cold. It's just another piece of copper dead tanked.
Quote from: Bob Smith on August 31, 2014, 01:40:22 PM
Just going by the patent you linked at the beginning of this thread, Farmhand. It states that figure two is:Bob
Oh OK , I get you now, but that cancelling of the self inductance so that the currents face only the DC resistance of the coils is
not a result of a cancellation between the windings, it's an effect of resonance or near resonance due to the L and C of the coil,
however with a coil for electro-magnets if no external capacitor is required to get resonance (in other words the coils own self
capacitance is enough C to get resonance with the L of the coil at a certain frequency), then in that case with no external
capacitor resonance is achieved and the resonance or near resonance is what has the effect of the cancellation of the "effects"
of the self induction.
In a coil that is connected in opposing mode there is no inductance to begin with, no inductance means a totally cancelled
magnetic field and that configuration is a coil resistor. The coil for electro-magnets has the two windings connected in series
adding configuration to and for the same amount of wire as a regular coil has the same inductance, but the bifilar wound then
series connected coil will have a higher self capacitance and therefor a lower self resonant frequency and it is at or near the
self resonant frequency that the coil's self capacitance effectively cancels the "effects" of the coils self inductance then the only
resistance faced by the currents is the DC resistance of the coils windings.
Synchro.
The effect can be realized with any input wave shape, and at or near the frequency of resonance sine waves will be seen on the coil if it is scoped, an abrupt switched pulsed DC input will only show the relevant result according to the input.
Sparks, those are regular spiral coils, The Coil For Electro-Magnets Patent covers all coils and a spiral coil was shown in the
patent drawings only because it showed the arrangement and connections well I think. However anything more than a single
layer coil cannot be a perfect embodiment of the concept due to non uniformity.
Fourth paragraph of the patent, the patent applies to any form of coils. Very clearly stated.
http://www.google.com/patents/US512340
QuoteI would here state that by the term coils I desire to include generally helices, solenoids, or, in fact, any conductor the different parts of which by the requirements of its application or use are brought into such relations with each other as to materially increase the self-induction.
..
@farmhand: I'm starting to think that he didn't use the bifilar in the mt. I am sure he used resonance though in the mt. The mt patent also shows a generator as the power input to the primary closely coupled to the spiral coil. And no spark gap. He also said that the generator could be replaced by a capacitor. How the heck are you going to induce a current in the secondary with a straight dc input? Either the word generator was used instead of alternator or the input is dc. Dc current through the primary on startup of the generator would be induced into the secondary. The tower goes into resonance and then starts creating a variable loading of the primary generator or capacitor. Now you have the capacitor/generator in sympathetic oscillations with the secondary oscillations. Like two lcr's magnetically coupled ringing out of phase.
Quote from: synchro1 on September 01, 2014, 11:11:47 AM
The "Tesla Series Bifilar Coil" can not charge it's own capacitance through the wire coil like a normal LC tank because the capacitance is sealed. Running D.C. current into a normal LC capacitor through the inductor will trigger the oscillation after the capacitor is full and wants to discharge. This may be the cause of the fundamental error our experimenters fall pray to. The "Series Bifilar Tank" won't work the same way. You need to not only charge the wire coil, you then need to induce a "Violent Field Collapse" to fully charge it's self capacitance. You can't test the "Series Bifilar" cold. It's just another piece of copper dead tanked.
Yeah that charging in an active system has to be from the coil inputs(inside to outside). But if you use it passively you can charge the bifilar very easily through normal inductive action(outside to inside).
Remember guys the bifilar has no other opposition to impulses but for the dc resistance. Reduce that resistance by paralleling and you get an excellent impulse target through it's own connections at it's resonant frequency.
The bifilar coil I think is the perfect emitter and also the perfect receiver based on the circuit used. The work JLN Labs did shows this. Weather the source is outside or internal it acts like a diode from the capacitance being charged internally. This allows it to be explained by the kid on the swing analogy and resonance is merely the timing of the pushes then according to the position of the kid on the swing.
I am also of the opinion that the bifilar pancake series connected coil is an accelerator of real charges. Tesla spent some time on the concept of energizing matter to the point that it is accelerated away then if it is aimed at a target it's hit on the target releases the energy based on speed of the excited matter and it's surface area plus if the matter breaks apart that energy is added as well. Tesla really knew what he was talking about. So there are many things bifilar pancakes can be used for.
Lets think about this for a second. Charges can be accelerated in a bifilar pancake coil that is serial connected. That increases the potential by the speed of the movement alone. A diode like effect is created from the geometry of the coils and internal capacitance. A bifilar coil series connected uses both polarities of a source solenoid. The capacitance determines the the direction the diode works in and both polarities enter the coil according to the capacitors polarity. Every capacitor has a polarity and this fact should be applied to the bifilar design as well.
In the Captret thread we discovered that capacity is not sealed at all. That we can draw from the capacitance through the case to extract energy or potential of the capacitor itself through the metal case via the induction between the case and each plate. So unshielded caps are a way to get or send potential via an outside metallic plate. If the potential field is done in the right manner you can ring the cap and get additional energy via the cap discharge through induction and adding capacitive inertia to the system. In a bifilar coil this is the same premise. All capacitance must be figured into the design to get the best results. This includes the capacitance between the bifilar and the external plate plus the rest of the circuit. Every aspect must be planned for.
The dc component can emulate an AC signal if you change the reference spot.
..... _____ DC Pulse 50v
......| |
......| |
......| |........ AC zero line
......| |
___| | DC pulse 0V
Now change the reference 0V to middle and you get simulated AC through discharging a cap into a solenoid. The reverse swing is created in the pulse reflecting back into a normal solenoid effectively changing the DC pulse to AC via the magnetic field.
Adding a bifilar wrap over the solenoid should allow you to capture any waste field in the bifilar capacitance as well.
I haven't done much experimenting yet with the bifilar coil. I am looking for a good spot to call home and get the lab up and running first. Trying for a farm type setup but we will have to see.
You think too much. ;D All we need is strong magnetic field without consuming much amps. ;) and you can do it with many bifilar coils connected together, because they are designed for electromagnets. 8)
I agree with this good explanation Farmhand.. I think the self-inductance you are talking guys are a lot different from which Tesla says on his papers. I think Tesla is referring to the [Counter EMF]Self Induction of the coil in the COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS.
By the way, Tesla never said cancellation of self induction, rather Tesla stated Neutralization of Self Induction of the Coil.
I agree with this statement:Farmhand
Quotehowever with a coil for electro-magnets if no external capacitor is required to get resonance (in other words the coils own self
capacitance is enough C to get resonance with the L of the coil at a certain frequency), then in that case with no external
capacitor resonance is achieved and the resonance or near resonance is what has the effect of the cancellation of the "effects"
of the self induction.
I also agree with you Farmhand on this statement:
Quotebut the bifilar wound then
series connected coil will have a higher self capacitance and therefor a lower self resonant frequency and it is at or near the
self resonant frequency that the coil's self capacitance effectively cancels the "effects" of the coils self inductance then the only
resistance faced by the currents is the DC resistance of the coils windings.
Additional info: The Tesla Transmitter and Reciever is a Bifilar Coil when the two Tuned Coils are place near to each other.. Tesla is more into the Capacity of anything on our surrounding, The Tesla Transceiver is working because it is virtually connected with Capacitance of Air and Earth Ground as Dielectric...
I believe the most simple design which replicated Tesla's work with harnessing the energy from the capacity is Ed Gray.. The Ed Gray Tube is a simple Vacuum Tube Triode that was taken from all Tesla devices..
For example the rod on the Ed Gray Spark Gap is a carbon rod which is taken from Tesla' Arc Lightning Incandescent Bulb design. I think everyone knows when a metal is heated it will emit electrons which can charged plates.
Read the Tesla Incandescent Bulb design and look for the world Charge Receiving Element which sound so familiar when we talk with Ed Gray Tube..
If we actually build a device according to Tesla's design then everything is on the right track. I believe you are more focus on Coils but not in the Capacity which Tesla was always amaze.
Meow ;)
Quote from: Farmhand on September 01, 2014, 04:44:35 PM
Oh OK , I get you now, but that cancelling of the self inductance so that the currents face only the DC resistance of the coils is
not a result of a cancellation between the windings, it's an effect of resonance or near resonance due to the L and C of the coil,
In a coil that is connected in opposing mode there is no inductance to begin with, no inductance means a totally cancelled
magnetic field and that configuration is a coil resistor. The coil for electro-magnets has the two windings connected in series
adding configuration to and for the same amount of wire as a regular coil has the same inductance, but the bifilar wound then
series connected coil will have a higher self capacitance and therefor a lower self resonant frequency and it is at or near the
self resonant frequency that the coil's self capacitance effectively cancels the "effects" of the coils self inductance then the only
resistance faced by the currents is the DC resistance of the coils windings.
Sparks, those are regular spiral coils, The Coil For Electro-Magnets Patent covers all coils and a spiral coil was shown in the
patent drawings only because it showed the arrangement and connections well I think. However anything more than a single
layer coil cannot be a perfect embodiment of the concept due to non uniformity.
Fourth paragraph of the patent, the patent applies to any form of coils. Very clearly stated.
http://www.google.com/patents/US512340
..
I made a diagram of how I think Tesla's wireless transfer of energy was to work. I used just lumped components to show that in a tank the current between inductor and capacitor is ac whille the voltage across cap is dc. The secondary capacitance is developed in the tower between Earth and ground with air being the dielectric. The inductance by the mass and geometry of the copper employed in the spiral coil and the riser to the top terminal. The whole idea is to get the tower q and the ground q maxed out. Get the resonance to occur at the lowest frequency possible so you don't start broad casting.
I noticed this video today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxcS0oYsBG4
"Ohms law people, ohms law. The wire is a resistor. Assuming the length of the windings is the same, when hooked up in parallel the resistance of the wire is DIVIDED by 2 (2 resistors in parallel is half the rating), when hooked in series the resistance of the wire is DOUBLED (2 resistors in series is doubled resistance). When the bifilar coil is hooked up in series, the power draw is 1/4 of that in parallel. This is a fundamental secret in many free energy/OU machines".