Similarities and tendencies show up when various NS materials are considered. Stubblefield himself describes the batteries increasing in power over time. The ground antenna experiments indicate a strengthening of signal over time. This links the NS battery with resonant circuits clearly in my opinion. Resonant circuits present in common radio circuits that is. As it also happens to be, NS was able to do ground based radio transmission.

Now we go back to Tishitang's excellent theories regarding series resonant circuits (Fall of 2009 I believe). One of them was a series resonant circuit through one of the bifilar coils, incorporating ground rods on each end. Looks radio-ish to me. He advanced the theory by having 2 series resonant circuits, through each of the 2 coils (copper,iron) and that current in one coil flowed in the opposite direction of the other coil. A collision sort of effect he describes in understandable layman terms. I do not know if Tishitangs opposite current flow theory was used by Stubblefield but it sure looks like series resonant circuits were employed. I think Tishitang got it right fundamentally.

I never thought I would pick this back up again but these radio circuit constructions clearly need experimentation. I saved my NS constructon materials. I'll dig it all out and start this business up again. I have some nice wire that I had insulated in a water permeable nylon weave. And a nice big roll of battery grade / water permeable polypropylene seperator paper (Hollingsworth-Vose). These 2 items being more or less non-perishable (my former constructions consisted of cotton based insulating materials).

Tishitang made a final post that proposed another possibility. Something about Orgone / Joe cells. A layered conductor - insulator construction. Perhaps there are effects in NS related to this. Those subjects are clearly beyond me at this point. So I am quite interested in the series resonant circuits Tishitang proposed for the time being. The opposite current flow thing is also interesting. People have built coils like this already and they too glow blue.

So coil winding still remains a curiosity to me. Two wires wound down the length of a cylinder. I've got that part. Per Stubblefield, 1 wire was bare iron, 1 wire was insulated copper. OK, I'm still understanding things. So let's lay in 3 layers just like this. For the sake of argument, let them be individually/seperate in nature (open ended connections each side). Therefore 6 open leads per end. Three Coppers, Three Irons. Now how to connect them? Obviously there are choices here.

I think what most people are doing is winding to one end, starting a new layer and winding back the other way. In the end the last winding layer is brought back to the original side one started winding from. Thus four lead wires on that end. It even looks like the patent picture somewhat. OK, but is this right? It seems like it would be high in resistance and also high in self inductance (from just an induction coil point of view) Is this what we want? Many of us have built these things (including myself) and they are not really that impressive from any standpoint (electrochemical + induction qualities). I have considered wire schemes that have current flowing in opposing directions (what most of us seem to be building). I have considered parallel schemes that keep current uni-directional. I have even considered Tesla's version of bifilar which is uni-directional current flow direction but it would compromise the voltaic nature of the Stubblefield design (not to mention make for some screwy construction due to applying Tesla's circuit connection design to a cylindrical coil) So what really is the official Stubblefield correct method in winding? There is another possibility here but I have not quite sorted it out completely yet...

QuoteThus four lead wires on that end. It even looks like the patent picture somewhat. OK, but is this right? 

I would think so. To wind one layer at at time in one direction would make an enormous amount of splices on one end and way to many wires to terminate together at the other end. The iron wire has got to be mainly a magnetic field. Pure iron only has an 18% electrical conductivity and an iron alloy like 1018 annealed is almost half of that. Lots of resistance between the core and iron wire.
I dont think this has been tried with this type of coil. A ford model T coil is wound with the primary winding on one half of the core and the secondary winding on the other half of the core. The secondary on the one I have torn apart has 3 to 4 smaller wires that are twisted together to almost the same circular mills as the primary. This of course is all copper wire. I wonder If iron wire were used in this manner on an Ns coil if it would have any major effect.
http://www.mtfca.com/coils/Coils.htm
Thinking about this it seems the magnetic field would be more condensed and offer a stronger field collapse going into the core.?  Also the amount of turns you wanted for either Iron or copper could be adjusted. You would just need a non conductive materiel in the center to separate them for winding.

I think lightsaber has it right on how to build a NS coil:
http://www.youtube.com/user/lasersaber#p/search/0/xsuw12Qr8wk
This is part 1 of 5.

I'm no expert, so take what I say with a big grain of salt.  It seems to me that the NS coil has two aspects to it: galvanic and magnetic.  The galvanic part gets the current started, and the magnetic part takes over with large amounts of current flowing.  Maybe that is why NS used iron (the magnetic part) and copper (the galvanic part) in the coil.  Maybe the galvanic action of dis-similar metals in an electrolyte (water and earth) causes a small current which attracts the larger magnetic force of the earth to give the real current from this coil. 

QuoteIt seems to me that the NS coil has two aspects to it: galvanic and magnetic.

Its also an electrostatic coil. There is some Galvanic action but its very small.