Overunity.com Archives

The idea is to compare monofilar and bifilar coils which are identical besides the fact that one is wound bifilar and the other monofilar.

There was a discussion in this thread

http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/495/#.UuahibS1KHs (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/495/#.UuahibS1KHs) (starting here)

which had originally an other topic. So, I start this new tread which should be exactly on topic.


I have done some tests with a pair of pan cake coils:

See my videos (video info contains extensive description):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC84W0PIZoE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC84W0PIZoE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spQ9yLdb7v4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spQ9yLdb7v4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCEqnX1JsGw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCEqnX1JsGw)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDUAcC1hbk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDUAcC1hbk)


I also did a "speed up under load" experiment with a bifilar coil, but it does not have a monofilar equivalent. I want to do this experiment and others (like with the pan cake coils mentioned above) with a new pair of coils.

See my video (video info contains extensive description, see also the attached PDF-file "Test Beschreibung"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXQBpuLu68 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXQBpuLu68)


Attached are some PDF-files with background material.


Currently I am building and winding two new coils, one bifilar and the other monifilar (otherwise identical). Once the coils are finished I will be back.


Greetings, Conrad

Try running some AC current through the monofilar and series bifilar pancake and see if you can notice any difference.

Conrad:

I an offer you a suggestion about the winding of your bifilar coil.  I am going to assume that you are going to wind it on a spool.  Make a tiny hole about one-half way up on the side of the spool.  When you wind the coil and you come to the hole, just push a small loop of the pair of wires through the hole.  The wires exit the hole and then loop back inside.  Then just finish off winding the coil.

Then you can carefully strip off some of insulation and then tin the exposed wires with some solder.  You can used that as a tap point to see the voltage action going on inside the coil.  You can observe the increased voltage potential between adjacent wires like that.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on January 27, 2014, 10:08:11 PM
Conrad:

I an offer you a suggestion about the winding of your bifilar coil.  I am going to assume that you are going to wind it on a spool.  Make a tiny hole about one-half way up on the side of the spool.  When you wind the coil and you come to the hole, just push a small loop of the pair of wires through the hole.  The wires exit the hole and then loop back inside.  Then just finish off winding the coil.

Then you can carefully strip off some of insulation and then tin the exposed wires with some solder.  You can used that as a tap point to see the voltage action going on inside the coil.  You can observe the increased voltage potential between adjacent wires like that.

MileHigh

@MileHigh: good idea.

To see the increased voltage potential between adjacent wires I have to lead out two adjacent wires?

In the monofilar coil, a loop of wire from two consecutive turns?

In the bifilar coil, a loop of wire from the pair of wires?

Greetings, Conrad

That is a good idea.

I would say to the questions.  1) Yes, 2) No need but would be cool and handy, 3) Yes.

Can't wait to see the results.

Cheers

Coil formers are ready, see attached photo.

The aim is to wind ~ 200 mH coils.

In order to be able to count the windings (to have the same number on both coils) I need paper between each layer (which gives me a smooth surface to lay the next layer upon, also makes it easier to see if the wires are close together). The whole point is to have identical coils (besides monofilar and bifilar).

I guess this will increase self capacitance (increased space between wires)?

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on January 28, 2014, 02:37:26 PM

...
I guess this will increase self capacitance (increased space between wires)?
...

Hi Conrad,

Normally, the increased space i.e. distance between two conductors reduces capacitance. However, in case the dielectric constant of the insulating layer (you wish to use to fill the space) is significantly higher than that of the air, then it can compensate for the decrease or even increase capacitance.  Somewhere you can find a tabelle on the net for dielectric constants of insulators like paper etc.

Gyula

@Gyula:

This table says that paper has dielctric constant of 3 (air 1) http://members.gcronline.com/cbrauda/0007.htm.

The plastic sheets I have are similar.

It is probably hard to say whether the paper between layers will distroy some effect one would want to detect? It sure destroys the purpose of the test if the two coils are largely dissimilar. Therefore I like the paper because it insures "same number of turns".

I wound quite a lot of coils and paper (or plastic sheet) between layers are a big help. Without a separator between layers one needs thick wire not to mess up. But with thick wire the inductance goes down at the same size.

I got the idea of a seperator sheet between layers of windings when taking wire off old transformers to get the core. Although the wire was quite thick, there were seperator sheets. May be to absorb heat but I thought it was to keep the windings neatly spaced.

Greetings, Conrad

I usually use home made bees wax paper between layers. Just getting the wires next to each other and lined up in neat layers will get a good result, you could do the same with the mono filar coil. I melt the wax in a non melt-able container then just soak a sheet or two at a time of normal typing paper in the hot wax till the paper soaks it up then the sheets will be totally saturated with wax. Just pick up with tweezers or similar and and let drip till it solidifies. Then I cut the wax paper so that it fits neat in the spool and makes one complete turn with a bit of overlap, each layer will need to be a bit longer so some planned cutting of the sheets into the longest possible strips, two pieces can be overlapped to complete a layer of paper as well. Might help save paper. Using home made paper means the wax paper will stick to itself very well and will be a superior insulator than store bought wax paper. Good home made bees wax paper also will hold the wire for you a fair bit by sticking it to the paper. You can also make the wax thick or thin as you desire. Bees wax is great for experimenting. a lump of bees wax will hold wires in place for some time rather than tape ect.

If you get the paper too hot it can make it a bit brittle, but normal melted wax (not real hot) usually produces a good result.

It should not make too much difference really as the paper gets molded into a wavy shape and the winding still fit together kind of thing. But as Gyula says it may because of the reasons Gyula gave.

Here's another table, paper alone is 1 to 3 depending on things and bees wax is 2.4 to 2.8. much more consistent. Fully saturated bees wax paper I would say 3. So your assessment would be spot on Conrad.  ;)
http://www.csgnetwork.com/dieconstantstable.html

..

Cheers

P.S. I actually made a video to show how I use the paper, and wind the coils with a battery drill.  :)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCHdzdP5_28

If doing a bifilar just use two spools to feed and the fingers keep them next to each other. A rev counter on the drill would be handy. That can be done in several ways.

Just counting or calculating the average turns per layer (by measurement) and also the number of layers gives a close figure on turns.

..

Conrad:

Let me make an ascii schematic of the coil.  I am going to assume that you are going to use a wire pair to wrap the bifilar coil - i.e. the source wire has two conductors.  So the way you will make the series bifilar coil is to connect the end of the 'left' wire to the beginning of the 'right' wire in the pair.

So we have the start, middle and end contacts.  Let's call them TP1, TP2, and TP3.

Then if you make a loop that is half way, you have two more contacts, let's call them LP1 and LP2.

Let's pretend the wire (pair) is 100 turns.

        <Turn1>                                   <Turn 100>
        <inner spool>      <middle>    <outer spool>
TP1--WWWWWWWWWW(LP1)WWWWWWWWWW--TP2
TP2--WWWWWWWWWW(LP2)WWWWWWWWWW--TP3
        <Turn 101>                              <Turn 200>


So, you notice that the TP1-TP2 voltage and the TP2-TP3 voltages already have 100 turns of the bifilar coil "distance" between each other.  So in theory you don't have to have LP1 and LP2 to see the "full bifilar separation."  The addition of the loop has limited value because there are other test points that do the same thing.  However, this is an exploratory mission, and they can't hurt, so why not add them?  (Note you only need one hole per spool.)

LP1-LP2 (turn 50 and turn 150) also have 100 turns "distance" but I am doubtful that you will see much difference between the loop sensing points and TP1-TP2 or TP2-TP3.

I suppose the question is will there be anything interesting when you look at the potential difference between the various test points.

Now let's assume that you are going to make a monofilar coil of 200 turns with the equivalent one-conductor wire.

So you have this:

        <Turn 1>                                  <Turn 200>
TP1--WWWWWWWWWW(TP2)WWWWWWWWWW--TP3

So you can see that you have a monofilar equivalent here.  There are 100 turns of "distance" between TP1-TP2 and also TP2-TP3.

In most cases you probably will see almost the same waveforms for both coils when you make voltage differential measurements that are 100 turns apart from each other.  It doesn't mean that there isn't any extra energy stored in the "capacitance" of the bifilar.  I used quotations just as a reminder that this capacitance is normally not active or visible at lower frequency ranges.  A capacitor with what can become a dead short across it's "plates" after a short amount of time is a strange breed of capacitor.

It's very important to mention a familiar theme:  If you are playing with the coils in their self-resonant mode, there may be observable differences but the whole operation at that frequency is out of the practical usable frequency range for the coil.  Is there any practical application for a bifilar (or monofilar) coil in self resonance?  Can you do anything with it?  I know it's the question that some people hate, but it's a perfectly valid question.

MileHigh

QuoteIt's very important to mention a familiar theme:  If you are playing with the coils in their self-resonant mode, there may be observable differences but the whole operation at that frequency is out of the practical usable frequency range for the coil.  Is there any practical application for a bifilar (or monofilar) coil in self resonance?  Can you do anything with it?  I know it's the question that some people hate, but it's a perfectly valid question.

MileHigh

This is the fatal drawback of the speed up under load effect in my opinion, and the point I try to make often. Using the coils at a frequency over their capability to output much power due to the restriction brought about by doing so, is kinda counter productive because it also make a high input with no load as well as a reduced possible output.

It is well explained in that MIT lecture on inductance I keep linking. he shows a table, the coil begins to act like a filter. I think.

Thanes video's show clearly the restricted output because his lights don;t light right up, the generator coils can't power them due to the current restrictions induced by the higher frequencies. But it does increase the input with no load, and when a load is placed on the coils while they are over their frequency capabilities doing so "unloads" the prime mover and the speed up occurs.

The series connected bifilar coils do have their uses, as Tesla states in the patent, but that is not the point of this thread MileHigh is it.  ;)

Cheers

Conrad:

>>>To see the increased voltage potential between adjacent wires I have to lead out two adjacent wires?

For the bifilar you lead out two adjacent wires and for the monofilar you lead out one wire only.

>>>In the monofilar coil, a loop of wire from two consecutive turns?

As shown in the diagram, you just lead out one wire.

>>> In the bifilar coil, a loop of wire from the pair of wires?

Yes.

Going back to the frequency domain, lets say for a suggested test you connect your signal generator to a 50-ohm series resistor and then connect that across the coil.  As you sweep up in frequency the AC impedance of the coil will increase.  So more and more of the voltage drop will appear across the coil as the frequency increases.  You can try different resistors.  In all likelihood you will observe the same behaviour for both coils.  When you get to very high frequencies, you may start to see slight differences between the coils.

This is a basic bare-bones test that looks at the frequency response of the two coils.  That's dependent on the inductance of the two coils and since we know that the inductance is the same therefore the frequency response characteristics should be the same.

Permit me to take the stage for a second:  Now is a golden opportunity for someone to suggest some test and/or application that exploits the slightly larger tiny capacitance that has a higher potential difference between the two half-coils of the bifilar coil.  I am talking a real test that can be explained with sufficient clarity that Conrad can consider doing.

MileHigh

Farmhand:

With respect to the patent we have a disagreement.  I say that the patent describes the properties of the coil but it does not describe any use for the coil.  For example, to say that the coil can act like a series LC resonator, but it is not a "use."

There is no reason for disagreement really.  We both agree what the patent fundamentally says.  I am sure there are many patents for things that are more akin to explaining the properties of something as opposed to stating a practical use.

Interestingly enough, I still don't think I have seen a clip where someone shows a series LC self resonant mode for a coil.  However, Gyula made reference to it and said it can be found by frequency sweeping.

MileHigh

As far as filters go, a series LC circuit is a what's called a band-pass filter.   It lets a certain range of frequencies pass power from the input to the output:

(signal source) -> (series LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

A parallel LC circuit in the same setup is called a notch filter because it prevents a certain range of frequencies from passing power from the input to the output, i.e."the notch."

(signal source) -> (parallel LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

If you know the impedances of series LC and parallel LC circuits at resonance it should all make sense.

@Farmhand: thank you for drawing my attention to your coil winding video, the bee wax paper is a good idea. I use a home made winder, see the attached photo.

@MileHigh: thank you for taking the time to explain the tap loops. One could say that it is trivial, but only after one has read your nice explanation. So often the most simple concepts lead to misunderstandings (at least I have that problem).

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: MileHigh on January 28, 2014, 11:05:24 PM
As far as filters go, a series LC circuit is a what's called a band-pass filter.   It lets a certain range of frequencies pass power from the input to the output:

(signal source) -> (series LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

A parallel LC circuit in the same setup is called a notch filter because it prevents a certain range of frequencies from passing power from the input to the output, i.e."the notch."

(signal source) -> (parallel LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

If you know the impedances of series LC and parallel LC circuits at resonance it should all make sense.

I do not understand how to test "speed up under load" with a series LC circuit. Please see the attached drawing.

It is assumed that the coil is excited by a spinning magnet or by help of a "few turn exciter coil".


- The parallel LC circuit in the drawing can swing without a load, just the coil and the parallel cap.

- The series LC circuit in the drawing needs a load to swing, or it would be "open"? (And if the load is just a wire one is back at the parallel LC circuit? But even with a resistor as a load, one could imagine the resistor as being a big resistive component of the cap and one is again back at a parallel LC circuit?)


The only way I can imagine to test "speed up under load" with a series LC circuit is to test with different loads, e.g. a very high resistor (e.g. 10 K) and a very low resistor (e.g. 10 Ohm)?

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on January 29, 2014, 02:48:14 AM
I do not understand how to test "speed up under load" with a series LC circuit. Please see the attached drawing.

It is assumed that the coil is excited by a spinning magnet or by help of a "few turn exciter coil".


- The parallel LC circuit in the drawing can swing without a load, just the coil and the parallel cap.

- The series LC circuit in the drawing needs a load to swing, or it would be "open"? (And if the load is just a wire one is back at the parallel LC circuit? But even with a resistor as a load, one could imagine the resistor as being a big resistive component of the cap and one is again back at a parallel LC circuit?)


The only way I can imagine to test "speed up under load" with a series LC circuit is to test with different loads, e.g. a very high resistor (e.g. 10 K) and a very low resistor (e.g. 10 Ohm)?

Greetings, Conrad

You're right Conrad, but in my opinion if there is no (parallel) load then the parallel capacitor is also a series capacitor as it is the only thing in series with the coil leads just like if there was no load resistor in a series output circuit. Going by one train of thought you could use a 0.1 Ohm resistor in series with the coil and the capacitor and it is a series circuit or you could put a 0.1 Ohm resistor in parallel with the capacitor as a load and you have a parallel circuit. Blurred lines or what, Just adding a CSR in series makes a parallel tank into a series loaded tank.  :)

To see some difference just change the CSR to a higher value and you have more of a series load.

My question would be with series resonance what is the current/voltage phase relationship as compared to the voltage/current phase relationship in a parallel resonant circuit.

Also once the output is heavily load there is no real resonance if no energy is sloshing back and forth. Technical point or Perspective point is all.

Your experiments are very interesting Conrad, congrats on a good job.

Cheers

P.S. On supply side resonance of a supply to a  transformer I think it's different as series resonance is done by a capacitor in series between the supply and the transformer primary and parallel resonance is done by a capacitor in parallel to both, while the output or the secondary of the transformer can have no resonance.

..

Conrad:

I was not clear enough, for these tests there is no motor, just your signal generator and related components:

(signal generator) -> (series LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.
(signal generator) -> (parallel LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

Supposing your LC resonance is 10 KHz.   So if you connect up the two circuits above and you sweep the sine wave output frequency on the signal generator, what will you see on the load resistor at 10 KHz?   What will you see above and below 10 Khz.  Observe the band-pass filter characteristic and then observe the notch filter characteristic by putting your scope probe across the load resistor.  Then switch from the monofilar coil to the bifilar coil and repeat the tests.  Do you see any difference?

Imagine channel 1 of your scope monitoring the signal generator output and channel 2 monitoring the voltage across the load resistor.  That will allow you to monitor the amplitude of the load voltage and also allow you to observe if there are any phase differences between the signal generator and the load resistor voltage.

Let's imagine that you are powering your scope from an isolation transformer so that the scope's ground is independent of the signal generator ground.  We know that at for a series LC resonator at resonance the voltage across the capacitor and the voltage across the inductor cancel each other out.  If you put your scope probe grounds at the junction between the capacitor and the coil, then with one channel you can monitor the voltage across the capacitor and with the other channel you can monitor the voltage across the coil.  You may have to invert one of the channel polarities to make the display "make sense."

At series LC resonance, do you observe how the voltages cancel each other out?  What happens when you are just below the resonance frequency?   What happens when you are just above the resonance frequency?

I am just throwing some ideas at you for fun but by all means, do your own thing!

MileHigh

Quote from: Farmhand on January 29, 2014, 04:18:08 AM
You're right Conrad, but in my opinion if there is no (parallel) load then the parallel capacitor is also a series capacitor as it is the only thing in series with the coil leads just like if there was no load resistor in a series output circuit.

I agree. They are all series, with what we are looking at here The only difference is perspective of where you apply the load, or even just a measuring device.

But once you introduce more than the load in the loop, then the difference is clear as we have to look at the circuit as a whole. Like if we have a parallel LC in the loop, and say a switch in the loop were to open, a series LC cant ring together, but the parallel LC would. So they each have their place in different circuits and are not always in a simple loop.

But here, being that the bifi can ring on its own, even open ended leads, then the comparison would be a simple parallel LC and no need to look at series, when it comes to the goal of the thread really. ;) ;D Not saying a series LC using a coil and cap shouldnt be part of the testing, as that data may as well be included. All in a nice little box. But Im not sure if it will help in the distinction between a normal coil and a bifi.



Mags

Quote from: MileHigh on January 29, 2014, 07:57:58 PM
Conrad:

I was not clear enough, for these tests there is no motor, just your signal generator and related components:

(signal generator) -> (series LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.
(signal generator) -> (parallel LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

Supposing your LC resonance is 10 KHz.   So if you connect up the two circuits above and you sweep the sine wave output frequency on the signal generator, what will you see on the load resistor at 10 KHz?   What will you see above and below 10 Khz.  Observe the band-pass filter characteristic and then observe the notch filter characteristic by putting your scope probe across the load resistor.  Then switch from the monofilar coil to the bifilar coil and repeat the tests.  Do you see any difference?

Imagine channel 1 of your scope monitoring the signal generator output and channel 2 monitoring the voltage across the load resistor.  That will allow you to monitor the amplitude of the load voltage and also allow you to observe if there are any phase differences between the signal generator and the load resistor voltage.

Let's imagine that you are powering your scope from an isolation transformer so that the scope's ground is independent of the signal generator ground.  We know that at for a series LC resonator at resonance the voltage across the capacitor and the voltage across the inductor cancel each other out.  If you put your scope probe grounds at the junction between the capacitor and the coil, then with one channel you can monitor the voltage across the capacitor and with the other channel you can monitor the voltage across the coil.  You may have to invert one of the channel polarities to make the display "make sense."

At series LC resonance, do you observe how the voltages cancel each other out?  What happens when you are just below the resonance frequency?   What happens when you are just above the resonance frequency?

I am just throwing some ideas at you for fun but by all means, do your own thing!

MileHigh

@MileHigh: I am grateful for ideas about how to look for differences. Thank you for giving it so much thought.

Attached please find two circuit diagrams outlining the tests you wrote about. I guess it depicts what you suggest?

Would it be useful to separate the signal generator output and the test circuit with a 1:1 transformer or coil?

Instead of powering my scope from an isolation transformer, which I do not have. Several times since I play with electronics the isolation transformer came up as a necessary item for useful measurements but it would cost around 300.-- EUR which I always put off because of other acquisitions. Sometimes I also wanted a variable transformer but it usually needs an isolation transformer in addition (to be safe). A simple variable transformer would cost around 150.--.

Talking about toys, I am having my sight on a 3D printer. My impression is that a good one still costs up to 3000.-- EUR. So I am waiting till a useful one can be bought for less than 2000.--. The ones available right now for around 1000.-- seem to still have many flaws. I am always reading the reviews.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: Magluvin on January 29, 2014, 09:00:43 PM
But here, being that the bifi can ring on its own, even open ended leads, then the comparison would be a simple parallel LC and no need to look at series, when it comes to the goal of the thread really.

Mags

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Greetings, Conrad

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

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

Conrad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

MileHigh

Quote from: conradelektro on January 30, 2014, 10:08:42 AM
If a bifilar coil can ring on its own open ended (the meaning of which I can not understand) then every coil (also a monofilar) would be able to do it.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Greetings, Conrad

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


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

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

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

Quote from: MileHigh on January 30, 2014, 07:37:34 PM
Note in the pony case the parallel LC resonator is acting like an open circuit just like it is supposed to.  You move your hand and that represents velocity, and you exert almost no force with your hand to sustain the resonance.  So your hand is "outputting" almost zero mechanical power just like it's supposed to and the "load" is at very high impedance.

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

Here a link to the user manual of my scope UNIT-T UTD2102CM 100 MHz 1GS/s (attached is an image of the math functions):

http://www.pinsonne-elektronik.de/media/daten/UTD2000M%20User%20Manual%20V1.0.pdf

The parallel LC resonator (pick up coil plus 10 µF cap) in front of the spinning magnet seems to be a real power hog in the resonance situation, consuming more than a load resistor alone (no cap) or with a load resistor connected (cap plus load resistor). "Cap plus load resistor" in the resonance situation is a bit less efficient than load resistor alone (no cap).

I have this Ferrite rods (50 mm long, diameter 8 mm) which are supposed to work from 0.1 to 3 MHz. I was thinking of winding a 1:1 transformer on one of these rods?

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: MileHigh on January 30, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

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

Hi MileHigh,

The explanation for your question is the loss dissipated at resonance in the DC resistance (26 + 70 Ohm) of Conrad's series bifi coils (tuned to resonance by the 10 uF cap) see results here for air core tests here:
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384371/#msg384371

Watch the AC current (scope CH2) through the 1 Ohm series resistor: in the lack of the 100 Ohm load, i.e. unloaded case, the AC current at resonance is about 184 mA (184 mV/1 Ohm), this dissipates 0.184 A * 0.184 A * 96 Ohm = 3.25 W power in the coils and this caused a certain drag on the prime mover motor (Conrad continuously measured the DC draw of the prime mover motor).

In the loaded case, when Conrad switched the 100 Ohm load onto the LC tank, the AC current in the resonant tank dropped to 104 mA (from 184 mA),  hence the dissipation in the coils also dropped to 0.104 A* 0.104 A* 96 Ohm = 1 W. The loss in the 100 Ohm resistor was (7.6 V * 7.6 V)/100 Ohm = 0.57 W, hence total loss was 1+0.57=1.57 W, less than half of the unloaded case! 
This is why the prime mover motor also had a reduced current draw when the 100 Ohm load was attached across the LC tank  i.e. this less dissipation explains the speed up effect of the rotor under load.

Without the load, the high dissipation was "insured" by continuously maintaining the resonant high AC current circulating in the LC tank by induction from the rotated magnet, the induced voltage across the tank was 22.8 V RMS, while in the loaded case the induced voltage was only 7.6 V RMS (the 100 Ohm attenuated the LC tank) so inside the tank the circulating current was also less, (loaded Q, induced voltage and circulating current in an LC tank are interrelated of course).

These findings indicate the importance of the losses in the generator coils, in the present case mainly due to the DC resistance (and due to eddy current losses in the ferromagnetic core when there is a core) of the coils.

Conrad, you asked:

QuoteI have this Ferrite rods (50 mm long, diameter 8 mm) which are supposed to work from 0.1 to 3 MHz. I was thinking of winding a 1:1 transformer on one of these rods?     

Well, yes and I assume you intend to make a bifilarly wound coil (which can also be used as a 1:1 transformer of course).  Try to use thicker wire if you have got some available, to reduce losses.

Gyula

Hi Gyula, I agree with all that, also there is the associated Lenz drag caused by the generation of the higher wattage in the unloaded case, in other words the unloaded case has more Lenz drag than the "loaded" case. The artificially induced increased Lenz drag caused by the generation of more power in the unloaded case is relieved somewhat when the load is added. So we are actually seeing an increased Lenz effect, made less by load, but it is contrived. And nothing is outside of how it should be. I stated similar about the increased Lenz drag with no load over 1 year ago.  :) I could find the old posts over at EF.

I seen through his folly during the first viewing of the first acceleration under load video I watched. It was obviously very inefficient and yet he was claiming something special, I sensed deception. I think my intuition was correct and i think my long held opinion on how he achieves it is also correct, pretty much.

I think my solid state experiments with Tesla coils and the transformer effects back up what I say about the mechanical effect as does my mechanical demonstrations, show it with differing arrangements.

If Thane is unaware of what his setups do then he does not know much and should be ignored. That also makes me wonder what all the "trained" people who looked at it and said there is something interesting happening there were thinking, if at all.

The BiTT is another nice piece of sillyness. Claiming 1000 times OU with less than flea power and drawing lines on the scope.. Pffft. What a scammer. The piper will come for his dues from Thane, and all the other scammers. I'm surprised NASA allowed him to use their responses to his emails and demo's mentioned to be for them  for so long. If I was them I would have forced him to remove any reference to NASA from his you tube page and his website ect. They look bad enough without associating with scammers like Thane.

In my humble opinion Thane probably paid  the Overunityguide entity to do the tests and post the results and tests that he did for him, a true shill was Overunityguide. No sign of him before or since and no other subject was touched on by him.

It's time Thane was outed, as the body of evidence showing he is actively lying to push his agenda is substantial and damning in my opinion.

How much time and experimenter effort has he caused to be wasted ? And how many people has he put in danger trying to replicate his lies ?

To Thane, come and post in this thread. And explain to us why we should not denounce you as a scammer or a misinformation agent.

Cheers

I never dug deep into what Thane was doing. But Gotoluc said once that Thane wound his coils in a random back and forth style. Luc said that Thane said it increased the capacitance. ??? There is probably fewer times that 2 wires are next to each other than when they are crossing each other. Funny, My coil that read the most capacitance was not wound as critical as the one with less capacitance. ???   Maybe there is a connection there. Cant say just that Thane told Luc means that the coils were really wound randomly. Unless Luc had actually seen the coils or if there is evidence of it out there. Dunno. But I believe Luc believes Thane on that.

But anyway, its an interesting 3rd party coil that could be added to the comparison being the claim is increased coil capacitance. ;)

Mags

.

Conrad:

Your scope can do all the mathematical operations including squaring a waveform.  Pretty impressive, it's all so simple when it comes to the guts.   It's possible it's just a motherboard inside the box running Linux.  So it's possible to generate some interesting waveforms.

Your transformer should work fine on the ferrite rod but it will have less power transfer capability than the equivalent toroidal core.

Gyula:

Thanks for crunching the numbers.  The lady is exposed!  I remember the "delayed Lenz effect" craze about two years ago.  Farmhand spotted it also.  But to make a better case you need real numbers.  It's a pity that this basic measurement was not done very often.  I don't watch many YouTube clips anymore but I don't recall seeing anyone making the power measurements on a delayed Lenz effect clip.

QuoteWithout the load, the high dissipation was "insured" by continuously maintaining the resonant high AC current circulating in the LC tank by induction from the rotated magnet, the induced voltage across the tank was 22.8 V RMS, while in the loaded case the induced voltage was only 7.6 V RMS (the 100 Ohm attenuated the LC tank) so inside the tank the circulating current was also less, (loaded Q, induced voltage and circulating current in an LC tank are interrelated of course).

Exactly, and I have one thing to add.  There were comments about no load with the signal generator driving a parallel LC resonator and the pick-up coil as an LC resonator when you connect a capacitor.  They are not the same circuit at all.

Farmhand:

I posted before how myself and Poynt were on a thread with Thane looking at one of his new setups.  To put it bluntly, it was yet another nonsensical magnetic circuit.  Also, he clearly did not have 'it' - the ability to demonstrate competence and knowledge in analyzing his setup and using his equipment.  I was a bit shocked.

I also suspect that the 'big reveal' about the 'delayed Lenz effect' may be the mechanism behind a lot of his older clips from four or five years ago.

MileHigh

Hi everyone,

Thank you Conrad for starting this excellent topic and sharing your research results.

I would like to share a video I made today of a Bifilar Toroid I am presently testing since I am presently also testing the benefits of Bifilar coils.

Link to video demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQe49jH_3lA&feature=youtu.be

Please note an error in the video, I keep saying the time division in micro seconds when it's mostly all in milli seconds.

Also, please use the link below if you wish to comment about my video so not to create confusion in Conrad's topic.
http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg385814/#msg385814

Luc

Quote from Farmhand,


"The BiTT is another nice piece of sillyness. Claiming 1000 times OU with less than flea power and drawing lines on the scope.. Pffft. What a scammer. The piper will come for his dues from Thane, and all the other scammers. I'm surprised NASA allowed him to use their responses to his emails and demo's mentioned to be for them  for so long. If I was them I would have forced him to remove any reference to NASA from his you tube page and his website ect. They look bad enough without associating with scammers like Thane.

In my humble opinion Thane probably paid  the Overunityguide entity to do the tests and post the results and tests that he did for him, a true shill was Overunityguide. No sign of him before or since and no other subject was touched on by him.

It's time Thane was outed, as the body of evidence showing he is actively lying to push his agenda is substantial and damning in my opinion.

How much time and experimenter effort has he caused to be wasted ? And how many people has he put in danger trying to replicate his lies ?

To Thane, come and post in this thread. And explain to us why we should not denounce you as a scammer or a misinformation agent".


@Farmhand,

This is some pretty damning language coming from someone who appealed to sensitivity towards others in my case. Thane's an acknowledged inventor with excellent academic credentials and deserves at least the minimum degree of respect you demanded from me. You performed one experiment that I'm aware of, with a cockney accent! Thane's BITT transformer has been replicated by numerous respected people. Get off your throne!

I wound two helical coils, one monofilar and the other bifilar.

Coil parameters:

10 mm Ferrite core or air core, length 50 mm
length of coil former 50 mm
length of winding 42 mm
19 layers, ~160 turns each layer, ~3000 turns (~1500 bifilar)
monofilar: tap between layer 8 and 9
bifilar: tap between layer 10 and 11
paper between each layer
0.22 mm wire diameter

DC resistance 77 Ohm

inductance air core L = ~48.8 mH  (100 Hz)
inductance air core one wire of bifilar L = 12,2 mH (100 Hz)

inductance Ferrite core L = 357 mH  monofilar, L = 367 mH bifilar (100 Hz)
inductance Ferrite core one wire of bifilar L = 92,5 mH (100 Hz)

The monofilar coil is wound a bit tighter (more tension during winding) than  the bifilar coil, therefore the diameter of the bifilar coil is about 2 mm greater than the diameter of the monofilar coil (which seems to explain the ~3% higher induction of the bifilar coil with a Ferrite core)


I also made a 1:1 transformer for the function generator:

1:1 transformer:

http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/etd49-25-16-3c90/ferrite-core-half-etd49-3c90/dp/3056417?Ntt=3056417 (http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/etd49-25-16-3c90/ferrite-core-half-etd49-3c90/dp/3056417?Ntt=3056417)
FERROXCUBE - ETD49/25/16-3C90 - FERRITE CORE, HALF, ETD49, 3C90
Farnell Order Code: 3056417 (order 2 halves)

http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/cph-etd49-1s-20p/bobbin-etd49-1-section-20pin/dp/3056338?Ntt=3056338 (http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/cph-etd49-1s-20p/bobbin-etd49-1-section-20pin/dp/3056338?Ntt=3056338)
FERROXCUBE - CPH-ETD49-1S-20P - BOBBIN, ETD49, 1 SECTION, 20PIN
Farnell Order Code:  3056338

http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/cli-etd49/ferritringkern-klammer/dp/105778?Ntt=105778 (http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/cli-etd49/ferritringkern-klammer/dp/105778?Ntt=105778)
FERROXCUBE - CLI-ETD49 - CLIP
Farnell Order Code: 105778 (order 2 clips)

7 layers, ~16 turns, ~110 turns bifilar
0.8 mm wire diameter

DC resistance 0.4 Ohm
inductance 34.7 mH each of the two 110 turn wire windings

I will do some tests soon.

Greetings, Conrad

I measured the self resonance and the self capacitance of my new monofilar and bifilar coil (see photo and other parameters in my last post):

self resonance monofilar air core          101 KHz (harmonic square wave 33.7 KHz)
self resonance bifilar air core                9.3 KHz (harmonic square wave 3.1 KHz)

self resonance monofilar Ferrite core   38 KHz (harmonic square wave 12.8 KHz)
self resonance bifilar Ferrite core         3.35 KHz (harmonic square wave 1.1 KHz)

http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm)  (calculator: Hertz, MilliHenrys --> Farad)

self capacitance monofilar air core                    5 pF (scope probe 1 pF in series)
self capacitance monofilar Ferrite core              5 pF (scope probe 1 pF in series)

self capacitance bifilar air core              6 nF (scope probe 1 pF in series)
self capacitance bifilar Ferrite core        6 nF (scope probe 1 pF in series)


The difference in self resonance and self capacitance are big in these new coils (in comparison with the pan cake coils).

I attache all coil parameters as PDF-file.

Greetings, Conrad

The "Old Scientist" measures one half the resistance 5.86 Ohms in his series bifilar solenoid compared to the single wire solenoid of same wire length and gauge at 11 Ohms. I don't understand why you indicate the same resistance in both types of coil wraps in contradiction to the "Old Scientisit's" measurements, or am I missing something? The disappearance of half the Ohmic resistance in Tesla's SBC amounts to a deep mystery to me. Haven't you tested for this difference yet?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAZ6heorEc&list=UUNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAZ6heorEc&list=UUNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA)

I did a "speed up under load" experiment with the monofilar coil

(because my last speed up experiment was done with an old bifilar coil, see my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXQBpuLu68 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXQBpuLu68)).

It would be nice of the experts to verify my power dissipation calculations (see the scope shot and the calculation on the attached drawing). I did the calculation as Gyula showed in his post http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg385763/#msg385763.


Calculation also here:

monofilar coil (DC resistance 77 Ohm, Ferrite core)

no load, resonance at 90 Hz rotor speed, motor power consumption 5.4 V and 1.12 A
dissipation in LC circuit: 0.148 * 0.148 * 77 = 1.68 Watt   
(motor needs 5,4 * 1.12 = 6.04 Watt)


85 Ohm load, 98 Hz rotor speed, motor power consumption 5.4 V and 0.81 A
dissipation in LC circuit: 0.06 * 0.06 * 77 = 0.27 Watt 
dissipation in 85 Ohm load: (4.8 / 85) * 4.8 = 0.27 Watt
in sum 0.54 Watt
(motor needs 5.4 * 0.81 = 4.37 Watt)

If the load is around 80 Ohm the power dissipation in the LC circuit and in the load seem to be about equal (at least at 98 Hz rotor speed).

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad, you could maybe check the output impedance of the coil using the Thevenin Theorem. It's not as complicated as it looks.
Thevenin's Theorem
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/acthev.html#c1

Simply note the output open circuit voltage then short the output and measure the current through the coil. Then divide the open circuit voltage by the current and it tells us the output "impedance" in Ohms.

Going by your results the output impedance should be about 80 Ohms. The output impedance consists of both the DC resistance and the AC reactance.

Calculations look good to me but I'm no expert.  :-[

Cheers

Quote from: Farmhand on February 03, 2014, 04:14:41 PM
Conrad, you could maybe check the output impedance of the coil using the Thevenin Theorem. It's not as complicated as it looks.
Thevenin's Theorem
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/acthev.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/acthev.html#c1)

Simply note the output open circuit voltage then short the output and measure the current through the coil. Then divide the open circuit voltage by the current and it tells us the output "impedance" in Ohms.

Going by your results the output impedance should be about 80 Ohms. The output impedance consists of both the DC resistance and the AC reactance.

Calculations look good to me but I'm no expert.  :-[

Cheers

@Farmhand: Thank you for looking up Thevenin's Theorem. You can see the "open circuit Voltage" on the scope shot on the left in my last post, it is 25,6 Volt (true rms, at the resonance situation with 90 Hz rotor speed).

I just measured the current through the 1 Ohm resistor if I shorten the output; it is 60 mA (speed goes to 98 Hz).

The Thevenin's Theorem calculation: 25.6 / 0.06 = 426 Ohm


Now, I put a 420 Ohm load resistor (1 K pot, 4 Watt) at the output and the situation is a s follows:

speed goes to 95 Hz, see the attached scope shot, circuit as in my last post

Dissipation in the LC circuit:  0.088 * 0.088 * 77 = 0.59 Watt

Dissipation in the load: (13.6 / 420) * 13.6 =  0.44 Watt (motor needs 5.4 V * 0.97 A = 5.2 Watt)

Well, the situation with a 420 Ohm load seems to be better than with a 85 Ohm load: the total output rose to 1.03 Watt (but there was also more load on the motor)

85 Ohm load:  total power dissipation 0.27 + 0.27 = 0.54 Watt (motor needs 4.37 Watt)

420 Ohm load: total power dissipation 0.59 + 0.44 = 1.03 Watt (motor needs 5.2 Watt)


Just to clarify, all measurements and tests are done like this:

- I set the power supply to 5.4 Volt which causes the rotor to turn at 90 Hz (148 mV over 1 Ohm shunt, 25.6 Volt over coil or 10 µF cap)

- then I shorten the output (60 mV over 1 Ohm shunt)

- or I put a 85 Ohm load resistor over the output (60 mV over 1 Ohm shunt, 4.8 Volt over 85 Ohm load)

- or I put a 420 Ohm load resistor over the output (88 mV over 1 Ohm shunt, 13.6 V over 420 Ohm load)

Greetings, Conrad

Well the theorem seems to hold, it can tell us what resistance will show the most power for a given coil at a certain frequency. if the speed changes during tests and so forth (unlike a wall transformer) then some tuning would be needed, but the Theorem can guide us to max power output maybe. Interesting.

Cheers

Conrad:

In reference to your coil resonance measurements and self-capacitance calculation:

Since you are seeing such a radically different self-capacitance between the two coils you wound, I would think it merits some further consideration and testing.  I believe that others have shown only a marginal difference between the self-capacitances between two similar coils, including you yourself if I recall correctly for a different build.

My suggestion would be to measure the self-capacitance in one or two other ways to see if you get consistent results in accord with your first set of measurements. I am not saying your measurements are wrong.  Rather, I am saying that they merit being double-checked via one or more alternative methods.

MileHigh

Quote from: Farmhand on February 03, 2014, 05:45:20 PM
Well the theorem seems to hold, it can tell us what resistance will show the most power for a given coil at a certain frequency. if the speed changes during tests and so forth (unlike a wall transformer) then some tuning would be needed, but the Theorem can guide us to max power output maybe. Interesting.

Cheers

Hi Farmhand,

Yes, the Thevenin theorem is useful, it reveals (among other things) that the inductive reactance of the generator coil also influences the output power when trying to use a "matched" load: in fact for AC generators a 'complex conjugate' load would represent a perfect power match. IT means a tuned case where the inductive reactance of the gen coil is compensated by an equal value capacitive reactance on the load side and there remains the DC resistance of the generator coil to be also matched for the resistive part of the load (a real power factor compensation if you like).

This condition is nicely fulfilled in this setup, because the coils reactance is surely compensated for by the 10 uF tuning capacitor and there is resonance, still Conrad found that a higher power output can be had by using a cca 420 Ohm load resistor instead of using a load equal to the coil DC resistance.  The explanation is that for a parallel LC resonant tank circuit, when the load comes also in parallel with the tank, it is the unloaded Z impedance of the tank which is to be considered as the impedance to be matched to the load. This unloaded Z impedance is governed by the Q quality factor of the tank, mainly by the coil, the Q is Q=XL/r and then the Z impedance is Q*XL. So the unloaded Q comes out as roughly 2.7 (monofilar coil with ferrite, at 95 Hz, r=77 Ohm) and the Z impedance comes as roughly 575 Ohm (this a little higher than the 425 Ohm Thevenin value but maybe still within ballpark). So perhaps the correct power-matched load would be around 570 Ohm for the monofilar coil case. 

IF you arrange the generator coil so that the load would be connected in series with the 10 uF capacitor (i.e. you would have a series LC tank into which you would insert the load) then the power matched load would really be that of the coil's DC resistance i.e. the 77 Ohm (provided that the core and capacitor losses would be negligible with respect to the loss on the 77 Ohm). This is because in a series resonant LC circuit there is no transformed Z impedance towards a load when inserted also in series into the series LC circuit, while in case of a parallel LC tank with a parallel connected load, the mainly coil's DC resistance gets transformed up by the Q of the LC tank to establish the tank impeadance which is a real resistive value at resonance.

Gyula

That makes complete sense even though I didn't look into the calculations, yet !  :) I hope you guys know we do learn a lot from a well worded response like that.  ;) Thank you very much Gyula.

So it would be interesting if Conrad did try the higher resistance you calculated and also tried to get a similar power transfer via the series circuit. I applaud Conrad for his perseverance and willingness to embrace learning. It really helps others like me as well. I need to be able to calculate reactance to be expected from a given coil at a certain frequency. Would be very helpful to be able to wind to a target "output impedance".

Cheers

Quote from: synchro1 on February 03, 2014, 02:54:16 PM
The "Old Scientist" measures one half the resistance 5.86 Ohms in his series bifilar solenoid compared to the single wire solenoid of same wire length and gauge at 11 Ohms. I don't understand why you indicate the same resistance in both types of coil wraps in contradiction to the "Old Scientisit's" measurements, or am I missing something? The disappearance of half the Ohmic resistance in Tesla's SBC amounts to a deep mystery to me. Haven't you tested for this difference yet?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAZ6heorEc&list=UUNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAZ6heorEc&list=UUNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA)

@Conradelektro,

Voltage is inversely proportional to Ohmic resistance, so it would follow that the SBPC with half the Ohms would only require half the voltage to produce the same magnetic field strength. Why not retry those magnetic compass deflection experiments once more with half the voltage in the SBC pancake, and see if the field strength remains equal?  

Gyula, thank you for the Q factor calculations (I documented this method in the attached PDF file).

I tested a few more load resistors (300 Ohm, 570 Ohm, 1000 Ohm) which were connected after the pick up coil was in resonance (90 Hz) with the parallel 10 µF cap. Depending on the load resistor (short circuit up to 1000 Ohm) the speed up and the reduced power draw were more or less pronounced.

It seems that a load resistor of around 420 Ohm gives the highest output of 0.44 Watt in the load resistor (but also a considerable power dissipation in the parallel LC circuit of 0.59 Watt). A load resistor of 85 Ohm or a short circuit gives the highest speed up, the lowest power draw of the motor and an equal power dissipation in the LC circuit and in the 85 Ohm load of about 0.27 Watt.

See the attached PDF-file for all measurements.

I will now measure the self resonance and the self capacitance of the two coils with different methods (the method I already did was with an exciter coil of three turns), see this post http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg386148/#msg386148 (http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg386148/#msg386148)

Greetings, Conrad

For all who are not closely following  this thread, look at this post to understand the "speed up under load" experiment http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg386184/#msg386184 (http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg386184/#msg386184)

@MileHigh: good that you made me check the numbers, the self resonance frequencies were right (see the attached drawing, I checked with two methods) but I made an error when writing down the self capacitance numbers.

It is ~50 pF (not 5 pF) for the new monofilar coil.
And it is ~6 nF (was right) for the new bifilar coil.

The difference is still a factor 100.


With the pan cake coils the difference was a factor 5:

Self capacitance of monofilar pan cake coil 9 pF  -- calculated from 9 MHz and 34 µF
Self capacitance of bifilar pan cake coil 46 pF -- - calculated from 4 MHz and 34 µF


This can may be explained by the fact that the pan cake coils hat 32 turns and the new helical coils have 3000 turns. So, the difference in self capacitance should be more pronounced.

The new helical coils have paper between the layers which should in general lower the self capacitance (greater distance between the layers).


Greetings, Conrad

P-S.: I also attach a corrected coil parameter PDF-file.

Quote from: conradelektro on February 04, 2014, 02:24:29 PM
....
The new helical coils have paper between the layers which should in general lower the self capacitance (greater distance between the layers).
....

Hi Conrad,

Regarding the effect of paper insulation on the self capacitance of your new coils, it is possible that its dielectric constant (which is > 1 as you looked it up on the web) actually help to counteract or even overcompensate the actual capacitance-reducing effect of the greater distance between the layers. I mean if the paper had exactly the same constant than that of the air, then the greater distance would surely reduce self capacitance versus the case when no paper (or no any other insulating material) were used between the winding layers. But this could only be tested by making another helical bifilar coil without any paper between the layers, using the same number of turns. Of course there is no real need to test that.

When you have a few minutes, please check the capacitance between the two winding end or start wires of your helical  bifilar coil, I would like to know.

You measured 25.6 V (rms) across the unloaded paralel tank circuit. Whatever resonant real impedance the tank has, the rotating magnet maintains that voltage across the tank and when you find a resistive load which just halves the unloaded 25.6 V then it is sure that the load has the same resistance what the unloaded LC tank has. So your 420 Ohm load just made that close: you measured 13.6V across it and 2*13.6=27.2 V, while the 300 Ohm load made 11.2 V from the 25.6 V, these two values indicate perhaps an interpolated 400 Ohm or so tank impedance and I guess when you would attach a 400 Ohm resistor, the voltage would probably be pretty close to 12.8 V across it (25.6/2). (This is why I mentioned earlier the 1 kOhm non wire wound potmeter to use as the load and adjust till half of the unloaded tank voltage can be measured across it.) This 400 Ohm or so tank impedance means that we have not considered or included something in the impedance calculation (probably still there is some loss which reduces the real Q of the tank to be less than the calculated 2.7).

Thanks for all your efforts.

Greetings, Gyula

Quote from: gyulasun on February 04, 2014, 05:55:27 PM
Hi Conrad,

Regarding the effect of paper insulation on the self capacitance of your new coils, it is possible that its dielectric constant (which is > 1 as you looked it up on the web) actually help to counteract or even overcompensate the actual capacitance-reducing effect of the greater distance between the layers. I mean if the paper had exactly the same constant than that of the air, then the greater distance would surely reduce self capacitance versus the case when no paper (or no any other insulating material) were used between the winding layers. But this could only be tested by making another helical bifilar coil without any paper between the layers, using the same number of turns. Of course there is no real need to test that.

When you have a few minutes, please check the capacitance between the two winding end or start wires of your helical  bifilar coil, I would like to know.

You measured 25.6 V (rms) across the unloaded paralel tank circuit. Whatever resonant real impedance the tank has, the rotating magnet maintains that voltage across the tank and when you find a resistive load which just halves the unloaded 25.6 V then it is sure that the load has the same resistance what the unloaded LC tank has. So your 420 Ohm load just made that close: you measured 13.6V across it and 2*13.6=27.2 V, while the 300 Ohm load made 11.2 V from the 25.6 V, these two values indicate perhaps an interpolated 400 Ohm or so tank impedance and I guess when you would attach a 400 Ohm resistor, the voltage would probably be pretty close to 12.8 V across it (25.6/2). (This is why I mentioned earlier the 1 kOhm non wire wound potmeter to use as the load and adjust till half of the unloaded tank voltage can be measured across it.) This 400 Ohm or so tank impedance means that we have not considered or included something in the impedance calculation (probably still there is some loss which reduces the real Q of the tank to be less than the calculated 2.7).

Thanks for all your efforts.

Greetings, Gyula

Could it be a change in the rotor speed that causes the variance ?

Quote from: Farmhand on February 03, 2014, 05:45:20 PM
Well the theorem seems to hold, it can tell us what resistance will show the most power for a given coil at a certain frequency. if the speed changes during tests and so forth (unlike a wall transformer) then some tuning would be needed, but the Theorem can guide us to max power output maybe. Interesting.

Cheers

..

Quote from: gyulasun on February 04, 2014, 05:55:27 PM
When you have a few minutes, please check the capacitance between the two winding end or start wires of your helical  bifilar coil, I would like to know.

You measured 25.6 V (rms) across the unloaded paralel tank circuit. Whatever resonant real impedance the tank has, the rotating magnet maintains that voltage across the tank and when you find a resistive load which just halves the unloaded 25.6 V then it is sure that the load has the same resistance what the unloaded LC tank has. So your 420 Ohm load just made that close: you measured 13.6V across it and 2*13.6=27.2 V, while the 300 Ohm load made 11.2 V from the 25.6 V, these two values indicate perhaps an interpolated 400 Ohm or so tank impedance and I guess when you would attach a 400 Ohm resistor, the voltage would probably be pretty close to 12.8 V across it (25.6/2). (This is why I mentioned earlier the 1 kOhm non wire wound potmeter to use as the load and adjust till half of the unloaded tank voltage can be measured across it.) This 400 Ohm or so tank impedance means that we have not considered or included something in the impedance calculation (probably still there is some loss which reduces the real Q of the tank to be less than the calculated 2.7).

@Gyula:

The capacitance between the two winding end or start wires of the helical bifilar coil is 26 nF .

I did some measurements concerning the "halve of the unloaded tank voltage" with the monofilar coil. The load resistor (1 K Ohm pot) has to be about 345 Ohm in order to halve the Voltage:

no load, resonance at 90 Hz rotor speed, motor consumes 5.5 V and 1.20 A = 6.6 Watt
dissipation in LC circuit: 0.156 * 0.156 * 77 = 1.87 Watt 
Voltage over cap or coil 26.4 V

short circuit, 101 Hz rotor speed, motor consumes 5.5 V and 0.80 A = 4.4 Watt
dissipation in LC circuit: 0.064 * 0.064 * 77 = 0.31 Watt

345 Ohm load, 96 Hz rotor speed, motor consumes 5.5 V and 1.00 A = 5.5 Watt
dissipation in LC circuit: 0.088 * 0.088 * 77 = 0.59 Watt
dissipation in 345 Ohm load: (13.2 / 345) * 13.2 = 0.50 Watt
in sum 1.09 Watt
Voltage over cap, coil or "345 Ohm load" 13.2 V

The coil was newly mounted near the spinning magnet (because I took it off for other experiments) and it seems to be a millimetre closer to the spinning magnet which raises the power output slightly (in comparison to earlier measurements).

@Farmhand:

The problem with the calculations (they vary) is that everything depends on three critical values, first the 1 Ohm shut is not exactly 1 Ohm, second the DC resistance of the coil is not exactly 77 Ohm and the inductance of the coil is not exactly 357 mH. So, all calculations are slightly off. And of course, the frequency is critical for calculating Z and Q.

When calculating the impedance Z of the tank circuit with the Thevenin Theorem

26,4 V (Voltage open circuit) / 0.064 I (I short circuit) = 412 Ohm impedance of circuit

the critical value is 64 mA through the 1 Ohm shunt. It should be 76 mA to give Z = 345 Ohm. And if the 1 Ohm shunt is slightly less than 1 Ohm it could well be 76 mA.

When calculating Z via Q and L

96 Hz resonance frequency --> w = 2 * π * 96 = 603 radian per second
L of coil = 0.357 Henry, R of coil = 77 Ohm
Q = (w * L) / R = (603 * 0.357) / 77 = 2.8 Q factor
w * L = XL = 603 * 0.357 = 215
Z = XL * Q = 215 * 2.8 = 602 Ohm impedance of coil

the critical values are DC resistance of the coil and inductance of the coil. The inductance should be 201 mH to result in an impedance of 345 Ohm (instead of 602).

I measured Z and Q of the coil with my LCR meter at 100 Hz and the values are Z = 240 Ohm and Q = 2.9 (about the same for monofilar and bifilar coil).

There is also the problem of "impedance of the coil" and "impedance of the LC circuit", which should be different?

The experimental value of Z = 345 Ohm (halve of the unloaded tank voltage) seems to be the best. And it must be the Z of the tank circuit. The measured Z = 240 value of the coil (at 100 Hz) with the LCR meter is not far off if we consider that the LC circuit should have more losses than the coil alone. Also the vale Z = 412 Ohm for the tank circuit from the Thevenin Theorem is not too bad.

The value Z = 602 Ohm for the coil calculated via the inductance and the DC resistance of the coil is pretty bad and I can nor explain it?

Greetings, Conrad

I did a test with a "series LC circuit" at the magnet spinner (with the monofilar coil, but it is about the same with the bifilar coil). please see the attached drawing with the circuit diagram and the measured values.

When switching between "short circuit" and "1 K Ohm load" I had to regulate the power supply for the motor down in order to stay at 90 Hz.

When varying the 1 K Ohm pot from "1 K Ohm" to "short circuit" the measurements gradually change between the two extremes noted in the drawing.

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad your spinner is an awesome setup for doing these tests, I wanna join in. If I use my rotary spark gap I can attach another shaft to the end of it and use it to spin a small rotor for testing.

It has a small universal motor rated for 240 VAC, but I just use DC to run it and can get over 6000 RPM with it by applying about 50 volts DC. It must do over 20000 RPM with 240 volts and no load  ;D. However if I use a small rotor made from plastic I will be restricted in RPM by safety reasons. I can use the rotor that is already in the old pulse motor or I can use another very similar, if I use enough magnets on the right size rotor I should be able to get fairly high excitation frequency, and try all the same polarity excitation to resonance in the coil as well, (like all north facing magnets). :)
I should have thought of using that spark gap motor and shaft before, it should be fairly easy to setup similar to yours and even almost mirror some of your experiments. And do some that you might not get time to do. I doubt I will be able to present the results as nice looking as yours, but the numbers should be good, and it will be a lot of fun to spin some magnets again.  :D I've already got a real neat bifilar coil but I don't have a monofilar equivalent yet, I'm sure I can wind one to match well enough. Time to disassemble the pulse motor prototype.

If I use the same rotor then I already have a "MOI" for it I think, or am part way there, at least. I won't be able to spin that rotor at any more than 3000 or 4000 RPM, It was tested up to 5000 RPM but that was some months ago, it'll need inspecting. If I make a smaller rotor I can spin it faster and put the magnets closer together. I think 60 or 70 mm will be the smallest I can go and I have 8 diametrically magnetized tube magnets. No flying magnets unless the rotor itself breaks.

Impressive test and results presentations.

Cheers

@Conradelektro,


Even though I'm away from my shop down here in Costa Rica, I performed an inventory of my equipment and accessories, and determined I have ample material and instruments to re-conduct a magnetic field strength comparison test between the monofilar and series bifilar solenoid coils. I am also equipped with my video camera, so I'll be able to upload a video to youtube.


I have two skeins of magnet wire, a ferrite rod, and a multi meter with good battery, also: I have two new six volt dry cell lantern batteries. I need to buy a compass, some dielectric tape and magnetic material in town. I plan to wrap the coils of equal length wire and gauge on each end of the ferrite rod and see if the Ohmic resistance is half what it is in the monofilar in the SBC, then see if I can produce a field of equal magnetic strength with one six volt battery in the bifilar over the two batteries in series, for twelve volts in the single wire coil. I plan to run this test and upload the video shortly. I'm convinced you did something wrong to get those false results at two hundred milliamps. I think Milehigh helped rig that test for failure by causing a super saturation of the coils!


If these coils differ by twice the resistance, half the voltage should produce the same power in the SBC of lesser ohms!  

@Farmhand: the little 12 V motor only costed about 8.-- EUR (see a photo at http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg386184/#msg386184 (http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg386184/#msg386184)).

One has to look carefully at the motor specs, only the motors for race cars go up to 14.000 rpm. The motor should not be too powerful or you will not see the drop in power demand. It is better to have a weaker motor than a stronger. I attach the specs of my 12 V motor (measurements are in millimetre). It was difficult to find bolts which fitted into the tapped holes at the motor face. Eventually I found some bolts which I had salvaged from old computer equipment, probably from old hard disk drives which I took apart. But one could fasten the motor with a bracket as well.

There is an error in the specs: the maximum power draw is 2.45 A (not 24.5 A).

You might have ball bearings and an axle. The coupling between axle and motor was more expensive, it costed about 12.-- EUR. The coupling is essential because it must be good to avoid vibrations. I can spin the whole thing up to 14.000 rpm (10.000 rpm easily without much vibrations).

I am sure you will know where to get similar stuff in your country. It pays to have a practical and simple set up. Your motor sounds a bit too big.

By the way, the 12 V DC motor was MileHigh's idea.

I am planning to add a rotor with six magnets (instead of the ring magnet) to get three times the frequency (which would be 700 Hz max, 500 Hz easily without much vibrations). I guess I will have to balance that 6 magnet rotor. But there will be the danger that the magnets fly off.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: Farmhand on February 04, 2014, 06:28:44 PM

Could it be a change in the rotor speed that causes the variance ?

..

Hi Farmhand,

The unloaded Q  (X_L/R) of the mono or bifilar helical coils is a low value mainly due to their 77 Ohm wire resistance and I mention this because the low Q defines a wide 'bandwidth'  (B=f/Q  where B is the bandwidth, f is the resonant frequency of the LC tank).  Wide bandwidth means that the resonant voltage amplitude changes slowly across the tank in the function of the frequency.  Putting this latter otherwise: the selectivity of low Q LC tanks is very poor.  Taking f=96 Hz and Q=2.7 we get B=96/2.7=35.5 Hz and placing the half of this B below and above the 96 Hz we get a frequency range between 96-17.7=78.3 Hz and 96+17.7=113.7 Hz  i.e. changing the speed of the prime mover between speeds of say 78 and 113 Hz the resonant voltage changes only a little across the tank and it is difficult to find the highest value at the expected 96 Hz resonant frequency, the response is rather flat, especially flat when a load resistor is put across the tank.  And the resonant voltage changes across the tank as the impedance of the tank changes in the function of the frequency.

So I do not really think the speed would matter much in the impedance of the tank, it surely influences but a little.


Hi Conrad,

You wrote:

Quote
the critical values are DC resistance of the coil and inductance of the coil. The inductance should be 201 mH to result in an impedance of 345 Ohm (instead of 602).

I put in bold the inductance of the coil and I think we have to consider a much dependable component of the LC tank, your 10 uF capacitor in our calculations.  At 96 Hz the 10 uF capacitor has about 165.8 Ohm reactance.  And to get a resonance at 96 Hz with this capacitor, the coil must have about 274.8 mH inductance, okay? (L=X_L/2*Pi*f   and  X_L=X_C)
Now this shows that somehow the coil i.e. its core behaves nonlinearly in the tank circuit when the resonant current flows through the coil.

Now the Z impedance of the LC tank can also be calculated by formula Q*X_C because X_L and X_C must be the same value at resonance, so first let's calculate the Q with the X_L=165.8 Ohm value, that is Q=165.8/77=2.1  and Z now comes as 2.1*165.8=348.1 Ohm,  now this is very close to your 345 Ohm load resistance!

Quote
There is also the problem of "impedance of the coil" and "impedance of the LC circuit", which should be different?

Yes, they are different,  the impedance of the coil is always X_L=2*Pi*f*L  while the impedance of a parallel LC circuit at resonance is Z=Q*X_C or Z=Q*X_L because X_L=X_C at resonance and there are some other formulas for it in textbooks too.

Quote
The experimental value of Z = 345 Ohm (halve of the unloaded tank voltage) seems to be the best. And it must be the Z of the tank circuit. The measured Z = 240 value of the coil (at 100 Hz) with the LCR meter is not far off if we consider that the LC circuit should have more losses than the coil alone. Also the value Z = 412 Ohm for the tank circuit from the Thevenin Theorem is not too bad.
The value Z = 602 Ohm for the coil calculated via the inductance and the DC resistance of the coil is pretty bad and I can not explain it?

Yes, I agree and obviously the Z=602 Ohm came from the 357 mH or so inductance value (what we believed as true from the separately measured coil)  but we did not check what inductance value has really been involved at the actual resonance frequencies (for which I took 96 Hz above for one calculation example) with the rightly assumed stabil value 10 uF capacitor.
If you feel like checking the Z impedance of your 10 uF capacitor with your LCR meter at 100 Hz and at 1 kHZ just out of curiosity, please do it. Maybe it can also show a Q value for that capacitor I wonder.

Thanks for measuring the capacitance between the two winding end or start wires of your helical bifilar coil, the 26 nF is a pretty high value, this must have something to do with the paper insulators between the winding layers. We can notice that this is a much different value from the cca 6 nF self capacitance of this same bifilar coil.

Greetings,  Gyula

Quote from: gyulasun on February 05, 2014, 03:03:06 PM
If you feel like checking the Z impedance of your 10 uF capacitor with your LCR meter at 100 Hz and at 1 kHZ just out of curiosity, please do it. Maybe it can also show a Q value for that capacitor I wonder.

@Gyula: thank you for the explanations. It will take me some time to understand it. There will be no experiments till Monday, but I can study in the evening.

I could do the Z measurement of the 10 µF cap (the one I used in all the tests) with my LCR meter, C = 10.083 µF:


at 100 HZ: Z = 157 Ohm,   ESR = 0.33 Ohm,   Q = 480,   D = 0.002,   Phi = -90°

at 1 KHz:   Z = 15.8 Ohm,   ESR = 0.11 Ohm,  Q = 140,   D = 0.007,   Phi = -90°

at 10 KHz: Z = 1.57 Ohm,   ESR = 0.06 Ohm,  Q = 27,     D = 0.037,   Phi = -88°


Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on February 05, 2014, 09:44:04 AM
...
When varying the 1 K Ohm pot from "1 K Ohm" to "short circuit" the measurements gradually change between the two extremes noted in the drawing.
...

Hi Conrad,

I would like to comment your test results of the series LC circuit magnet spinner. If we assume the 90 Hz was indeed the resonant frequency of the LC circuit, then the AC voltage amplitudes across the coil and across the capacitor should have been the same or at least very nearly the same. But in your upper test setup in your drawing with your 1 kOhm resistor inserted, you measured 13.2 V across the coil and 2V across the 10 uF, unless the 2 V is a simply typo?  When you used the short instead of the 1 kOhm, the AC voltages across the coil and the capacitor were pretty much the same values as they should at resonance.

If the 2 V is not a typo, then something is not okay (it is not only very low but does not change by sweeping below or above the 90 Hz?)  One thing is sure: with the 1 kOhm resistor inserted the circulating AC current in the series tank should be much less than with the short in place, this may indicate that at a certain high enough current via the coil the ferromagnetic core changes its permeability (perhaps it starts saturating), this would also explain the less than 357 mH coil behaviour in your earlier tests as I indicated in my previous post.

In the setup shown in the lower drawing (when your CH2 probe is across the 1 kOhm resistor) the circulating current is 13.2 mA only (13.2 V/1000 Ohm). When the short is used in place of the 1 kOhm the current is about 26.4 V/X_L and now X_L must be about 176.8 Ohm which gives 312.7 mH inductance at 90 Hz with the 10 uF capacitor (X_C should also be 176.8 Ohm at 90 Hz of course).  So the circulating current in this case is about 149.3 mA, more than 11 times higher than with the 1 kOhm in place. This higher current may create a nonlinear core behaviour even if there is no closed magnetic circuit for the core.

Thanks for the capacitor impedance measurements, very good values your meter shows because from normal calculations it also comes that a 10.083 uF capacitor has 157.84 Ohm reactance at 100 Hz, 15.78 Ohm at 1 kHz and 1.58 Ohm at 10 kHz frequency. Please notice that the Z impedance is actually the X_C capacitive reactance of the capacitor (and I assume that for coils the Z impedance is the series combination of the inductance and the coil's DC resistance i.e. the square root of (X^_L2 + R²). Of course when the R value is only a few Ohms with respect to the coil reactance, then the impedance is pretty close to that of the coil's inductive reactance.
The Q is also correctly shown by your meter for the 10 uF capacitor, at least for the lower frequencies but in fact I have no reason to suppose that the Q is not correct at 10 kHz);  Q surely comes from the ESR value of the capacitor and assuming that Z nearly equals X_C (because ESR is much less than X_C at the lower frequencies), so Q=Z/ESR  i.e. say at 100 Hz Q comes out as Q=157.84/0.33=478.3 and the meter showed 480, very close.  Your 10 uF capacitor does not show good Q at 10 kHz, even though its ESR improves a lot from the low frequency values (from 0.33 Ohm to 0.06 Ohm) but the capacitive reactance also reduces as the frequency increases.
If you have questions on this or on my previous post, please ask.

Gyula

Conrad I beg to differ only because the motors are designed for 240 volts but will be used well below that and the power draw of this little universal motor is quite low with 30 volts and a small load, better than the motor I used to show a very pronounced speed up under load effect previously.

Anyway I think I changed my mind and want to build a permanent magnet two phase generator/exciter instead. Will be very useful for some experiments. With two phases I can make four ect.

Cheers

Quote from: gyulasun on February 05, 2014, 05:38:29 PM
If the 2 V is not a typo, then something is not okay (it is not only very low but does not change by sweeping below or above the 90 Hz?)  One thing is sure: with the 1 kOhm resistor inserted the circulating AC current in the series tank should be much less than with the short in place, this may indicate that at a certain high enough current via the coil the ferromagnetic core changes its permeability (perhaps it starts saturating), this would also explain the less than 357 mH coil behaviour in your earlier tests as I indicated in my previous post.

@Gyula: as I recall, I looked several times at the 2 V rms Voltage and was puzzled. But I have to redo it next week and some more tests are necessary to solve that strange behaviour.

I might try with an air core and a 20 µF cap (two 10 µF caps in parallel). And I will try the experiments with a 1:1 transformer between the function generator and a band pass filter or notch filter as mentioned by MileHigh http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg385592/#msg385592

Thank you for demonstrating the various calculations, that teaches me a lot. I am looking up these formulas and the related theory on the internet and take notes. I hope to eventually learn these very important basic concepts. I also got some books.

Electrical engineering always attracted me, as a kid I built simple radios and amplifiers with valves and I always did the electrical installations in my home. But there were other things in my live which became more important (mathematics, computer science, legislation). But since I have retired I can follow up on this hobby. The astonishing thing for me is that the equipment (oscilloscope, function generator and good meters) has become relatively inexpensive (in comparison to 40 years ago) because it is all little computers now. Of course, if one wants to go into the Giga-Hertz region of the modern computers it would become very expensive again. But nobody repairs electronic equipment nowadays, it is thrown away and replaced. And it is virtually impossible to build something in the Giga-Hertz at home.

Greetings, Conrad

I proved "The Old Scientist" wrong! Both the single wire coil and SBC of same wire length and gauge have identical Ohmic resistance. The results appear to be too banal to upload a video.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 06, 2014, 05:42:47 PM
I proved "The Old Scientist" wrong! Both the single wire coil and SBC of same wire length and gauge have identical Ohmic resistance. The results appear to be too banal to upload a video.

Two identical pieces of wire under the same conditions having the same Ohmic resistance is a self evident truth or an axiom, it needs no proving.

Cheers

@Farmhand,


Here's something that might not be so self evident; Upon charging the SBC, the Ohmic resistance increased 60%, from 5 to 8 Ohms, while the charging had no effect on the single wire coil. Conradelektro inquired about making this kind of coil "ring". Resonance acts as an infinite resistor, therefore a test for increased Ohmic resistance is a good simple way to determine wether the coil is alive or not.


The kind of cut and dry statement you just made about your supposed "axiom" amounts to an act of misleading pedantry that's not only a poor credit to yourself but a stumbling block for learners interested in exploring the unique and versatile qualities of Tesla's serial bifilar coil.


I know the SBC is generating a magnetic field while in resonance unlike it's single wire sister, and would deflect a compass needle while "ringing", without running current through it. I'll shop for a "Brujula" in town, that's "Witch Wand" for compass in Spanish, to demonstrate this effect and upload a video. I've been over this facet repeatedly since I succeeded in lifting twice the paper clips with the iron nail core SBC. A spark is near infinite voltage as I've pointed out. The SBC is a hi-voltage coil and requires a hi-voltage charge to reach it's maximum potential. A dead SBC coil is worthless. Simply running low voltage DC current through the coil is no good. Conradelektro went so far as to state that "It's impossible for a coil with open ends to hold a charge". That's just sheer nonsense!  

Quote from: synchro1 on February 06, 2014, 05:42:47 PM
I proved "The Old Scientist" wrong! Both the single wire coil and SBC of same wire length and gauge have identical Ohmic resistance. The results appear to be too banal to upload a video.

It's hard for me to imagine anyone believing otherwise, for the DC resistance. Are you sure you have interpreted "Old Scientist" correctly? He's usually pretty good about this stuff.

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 07, 2014, 08:03:03 AM
It's hard for me to imagine anyone believing otherwise, for the DC resistance. Are you sure you have interpreted "Old Scientist" correctly? He's usually pretty good about this stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAZ6heorEc&list=UUNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAZ6heorEc&list=UUNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA)

Yea, take another look at his video from 2:40. I believed in him enough to double check his findings, but you know what he did wrong; He must have connected the wrong two wires. There's only one right and wrong way to get those wires connected, the continuity connected would leave him with just the half and show the 5.86 Ohms, half of the 11 for the single wire coil of same length and gauge.

Here's the real exciting feature of my recent test. This morning, 10 hours after charging the SBC, the Ohmic resistance has quintupled over the single wire from 5 to 25. There's no measurable power coming through the ends of the coil wire leads in voltage or amperage. All the potential is between the coil wraps. There's nothing to measure on an oscilloscope. The accumulating resonant power is transmuting into a magnetic field, and can only accurately be measured with a flux field measuring instrument, or Ohm meter.

It's critical that a resonant SB coil be wrapped tightly from end to end so that all the winds are touching. I noticed how sloppy Conradelektro's coils looked, with paper instead of restricting plastic dielectric tape between the layers. He reported a 5% bulge over the single wire coil. Those kinds of lax tolerances are unworkable. He'd never get this kind of vigorish from those loose lasso eggs! Just what's going on here?

I wrapped my two coils on the kind of high permeability ferrite core Lasersaber recomended for his "Joule Ringer". Apparently, based on the overnight increase in Ohmic resistance, the coil resonance is spontaneously increasing in strength. This resonance results in a magnetic field that would require constant input of circuital amperian current from a power source to sustain an equal field in the single wrap coil. This is why Tesla patented this SBC as an electromagnet, because the power manifests itself in magnetisem, not electrical output.  

The nature of the Hi Perm ferrite core must be responsible for the increase in resonant field strength in the SBC. What I'm dealing with at this time is the very exciting appearance of an overunity phenomenon!  

P.S. Your new Earth field propulsion videos are awesome!

Best regards,

Synchro

Conrad and Gyula:

You guys are rocking and doing the real thing.  It's much more sophisticated than the typical analysis that's seen around here.  Looking forward to seeing more cool stuff.  You guys are talking about how coils and capacitors _really_ work, and not the misinformed cold electricity/radiant energy/vacuum energy/resonance is magic stuff.

MileHigh

I returned home from shopping with no luck on finding a compass. I did manage to purchase a 12 volt reed switch, and an LED, which is the best magnetic field test equipment I could muster over the day. When I returned I rechecked the Ohmic resistance on the ferrite core SBC, and measured 37 Ohms, 12 more then when I left. This rise was in solid proportion to the hourly gain ratio from a total of over 7 times the original non charged Ohms, so I'm satisfied the reading was correct. Unfortunately, I shorted the clip wire leads I used to connect the wire ends to the multi meter electrodes, and the increased Ohmic resistance vanished and returned to the original value of 5. This is where the single wire value has remained, even though I charged it the same way as the SBC. I didn't even attempt to measure for magnetic field strength, partly because my gear is so paltry right now. I retested and the coil Ohms have remained flat. What just went on here? I'm really puzzled by the reaction I got from charging that SBC coil! I'll try it again after the core settles down. I don't know how high it would have climbed if I had just left it alone.


Magnets are fully saturated cores, unlike this ferrite core and behave a lot differently. I noticed a test video on the "Self Inductance Thread", where the experimenter registers a dramatic decrease in inductance by attaching a magnet to a ferrite core. I feel sure there should some level of detectable magnetic field coupled with this spontaneous rise in Ohmic resistance, but that test will have to wait till another day. I'm sorry I couldn't do better. This was perhaps the most exciting and surprising experimental result I ever stumbled across, and I was very disappointed not to be able to ascertain if a measurable magnetic field was growing into evidence. I really need a sensitive "Magnetometer". I plan to shop for and order one online when I can. This missing measurement would have laid to rest once and for all the question about the value of the SBC as a "Coil for Electromagnets" which Tesla decided was it's most obvious and outstanding application when he patented it as one!



   

Quote from: MileHigh on February 07, 2014, 10:45:06 PM
Conrad and Gyula:

You guys are rocking and doing the real thing.  It's much more sophisticated than the typical analysis that's seen around here.  Looking forward to seeing more cool stuff.  You guys are talking about how coils and capacitors _really_ work, and not the misinformed cold electricity/radiant energy/vacuum energy/resonance is magic stuff.

MileHigh

That's just more of your redundant and irritating "Anti Overunity Propaganda".

Quote from: synchro1 on February 07, 2014, 11:09:49 PM
I returned home from shopping with no luck on finding a compass. I did manage to purchase a 12 volt reed switch, and an LED, which is the best magnetic field test equipment I could muster over the day. When I returned I rechecked the Ohmic resistance on the ferrite core SBC, and measured 37 Ohms, 12 more then when I left. This rise was in solid proportion to the hourly gain ratio from a total of over 7 times the original non charged Ohms, so I'm satisfied the reading was correct. Unfortunately, I shorted the clip wire leads I used to connect the wire ends to the multi meter electrodes, and the increased Ohmic resistance vanished and returned to the original value of 5. This is where the single wire value has remained, even though I charged it the same way as the SBC. I didn't even attempt to measure for magnetic field strength, partly because my gear is so paltry right now. I retested and the coil Ohms have remained flat. What just went on here? I'm really puzzled by the reaction I got from charging that SBC coil! I'll try it again after the core settles down. I don't know how high it would have climbed if I had just left it alone.

Magnets are fully saturated cores, unlike this ferrite core and behave a lot differently. I noticed a test video on the "Self Inductance Thread", where the experimenter registers a dramatic decrease in inductance by attaching a magnet to a ferrite core. I feel sure there should some level of detectable magnetic field coupled with this spontaneous rise in Ohmic resistance, but that test will have to wait till another day. I'm sorry I couldn't do better. This was perhaps the most exciting and surprising experimental result I ever stumbled across, and I was very disappointed not to be able to ascertain if a measurable magnetic field was growing into evidence. I really need a sensitive "Magnetometer". I plan to shop for and order one online when I can. This missing measurement would have laid to rest once and for all the question about the value of the SBC as a "Coil for Electromagnets" which Tesla decided was it's most obvious and outstanding application when he patented it as one!

Synchro, is it possible that you might be able to preserve the oscillation, and still draw from it with a pickup coil?
I'm thinking of Tesla's magnifying transmitter, the heart of which, as I understand it, is a series-wound bifilar coil, then a resonant coil, and pickup coil.
Bob

@Bob Smith,


The coil was patented as a "Coil for Electromagnets". The resonance or ringing in the coil aligns electron spin in the ferrite core and induces a magnetic field rapidly or over time depending on the number of windings. The "Lorentz Force" works like a bell in a room of tuning forks realigning the electron spin in the ferrite core. My bifilar nail was charged one day, put aside then a permanent magnetic field appeared in the iron nail the next. It needed to ring overnight to effect the transmutation! The work is accomplished on the quantum plane. The coil needs to be wrapped tightly together and over the ferrite to do it's work.


The energy only exists between the coil turns. There's nothing in the wire. This is using the serial bifilar as "Single Wire LL Tank in Series". Tesla runs current through the coils in his other Hi Voltage inventions. This is an entirely different application from his "Electro magentisem" ones. The kind of energy he's harnessing in the resonant tank is closer to high frequency radio waves, detectable, but the power is negligable.   

Quote from: Bob Smith on February 08, 2014, 03:51:48 PM
Synchro, is it possible that you might be able to preserve the oscillation, and still draw from it with a pickup coil?
I'm thinking of Tesla's magnifying transmitter, the heart of which, as I understand it, is a series-wound bifilar coil, then a resonant coil, and pickup coil.
Bob

Hi Bob, where did you get this info ? This is a magnifying transmitter. http://www.google.com/patents/US1119732

No serial connected bifilar coils there. None in the spiral coil versions of it either, in other patents.

Cheers

Tesla had to wait for Slayer/Sohei Thoth, for Bob's version:


Quote from Youtube:


"On this video I was testing the difference of the brightness from two 1W led in series connected to a "tesla bifilar" on the bottom of the L4 coil. With an earth ground connection to the Slayer Exciter and without the earth ground".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILXVVcVjCp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILXVVcVjCp4)