Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2013, 03:22:10 PM
Jbignes5:

I find your comments depressing and disheartening.  You have people that are beginners interested in learning and experimenting with electronics and they read stuff like you posted and it completely corrupts their understanding.

I can't tell you how many times I have looked at YouTube clips where people are fascinated with their experiments and they are convinced that they are doing something out of the ordinary but it's not true.  They are observing their circuit doing exactly what it is supposed to do and convincing themselves that they are seeing something that "conventional science" does not understand.  Part of that problem stems from reading stuff from people like you.

You just posted a big treatise on what you call a "cap coil" or what we decided to call a "series bifilar coil" on another thread.  So you have a lot to say implying that you think you know what you are talking about.

I will repeat the challenge that I made to you before:  If you think you understand how a coil works I will give you a ridiculously simple circuit that includes a coil.  I will ask you to explain what the circuit does.

If you can't answer the simple question about the operation of the circuit that includes a coil then I would suggest to you that you do some soul-searching because your two posts above are outrageous.

MileHigh

Frankly I don't care what you think. Lets look at what happened to someone on the cutting edge:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ZgJBuq4XY


This is exactly what you are doing.You like the professionals of the day assumed it was impossible without and experimental proof. You pose questions about a certain circuit that you know will fail the quest we are on. Always you talk about another thread that you fully understand this coil. You don't have any clue at all. Nothing in your explanations refute what I said besides you relating to this other thread...


Like I said before I don't much care what you think, just like the man above who didn't listen to any of the professionals saying it was bunk, he really was the father of lasers. Now go bother someone who does care. I'm not here for you or anyone else but my own discoveries and experiments and to share such with others who do want to understand these things.

Jbignes5:

You are the one that doesn't have a clue at all.

You are citing a very legitimate example about a scientist on the cutting edge not being able to convince his peers, it happens all the time.  It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms.

The major problem is that you are trying to draw an analogy with what you are doing and the introduction of the LASER in the early 1960s and nothing could be further from the truth.  You are simply talking clueless pseudoscience junk.  So much of it in fact that it's not worth rebutting it point by point.

Nor are you talking about anything on the cutting edge, you are talking about an inductor.  This is a basic building block of electronics.  It's something that has been understood for more than a century.  So that means that someone from 1910 would look at your two postings about coils and think that you were living in a fantasy land.

The point behind my simple circuit and the question is to see if you can demonstrate to the readers the most basic fundamental understanding of how a coil works.  I am not suggesting the question to "fail the quest you are on," rather, I am suggesting the question because it is so basic and I know that you won't be able to answer it.   So you can talk on and on about all of the pseudoelectronics talk, but you can't answer the most basic question to show that you understand how an inductor works.  That's to make you think and also frankly to give the readers an opportunity to consider your whole pitch.  You are afraid of the question.

Finally, almost none of that mumbo jumbo you talked about in your two postings cold be verified on the bench, and by reading your prose it's obvious you don't have the bench skills to verify them even if you wanted to.

That's it Jbignes5, I am not going to force the issue.  My posting is a posting on principle.  You make a mockery of science and electronics and you aren't even self-aware or you are in denial.  I set the record straight for the readers and they can make up their own minds.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2013, 07:17:23 PM
Jbignes5:

You are the one that doesn't have a clue at all.

You are citing a very legitimate example about a scientist on the cutting edge not being able to convince his peers, it happens all the time.  It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms.

The major problem is that you are trying to draw an analogy with what you are doing and the introduction of the LASER in the early 1960s and nothing could be further from the truth.  You are simply talking clueless pseudoscience junk.  So much of it in fact that it's not worth rebutting it point by point.

Nor are you talking about anything on the cutting edge, you are talking about an inductor.  This is a basic building block of electronics.  It's something that has been understood for more than a century.  So that means that someone from 1910 would look at your two postings about coils and think that you were living in a fantasy land.

The point behind my simple circuit and the question is to see if you can demonstrate to the readers the most basic fundamental understanding of how a coil works.  I am not suggesting the question to "fail the quest you are on," rather, I am suggesting the question because it is so basic and I know that you won't be able to answer it.   So you can talk on and on about all of the pseudoelectronics talk, but you can't answer the most basic question to show that you understand how an inductor works.  That's to make you think and also frankly to give the readers an opportunity to consider your whole pitch.  You are afraid of the question.

Finally, almost none of that mumbo jumbo you talked about in your two postings cold be verified on the bench, and by reading your prose it's obvious you don't have the bench skills to verify them even if you wanted to.

That's it Jbignes5, I am not going to force the issue.  My posting is a posting on principle.  You make a mockery of science and electronics and you aren't even self-aware or you are in denial.  I set the record straight for the readers and they can make up their own minds.

MileHigh

"It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms."

Now see, this is where I have issue with some of your replies. You make it seem like everything has been found out about everything. In your statement I put in quotes above, you are claiming that everything about lasers and what they can be used for has already been done and there is nothing left to find. That is wrong. I see new things that lasers are used for all the time. Maybe there hasnt been for 2 months lets say. Does that mean there done and thats all? Well I guess so, till someone comes up with something new, when ever that happens. And it does. Your statement discourages innovation. It discourages possible discovery of new kinds of apple pie! lol

Is that statement something you want to stick with? Or does it need editing for correction?

The same goes for bifilar coils. Not 'everything' has been tried yet. I mean like, is there only one kind of apple pie? Are there only a small number of types of apple pie? Is it impossible to bake an apple pie that might taste better than any apple pie ever made before? Now, the books you might have read may say there are only so many kinds of apple pie, and thats all there is or can be. If we went to a baking forum, Im sure many would be up for the 'Can there be a new apple pie' challenge. Would you reply to them calling them pseudobakers? Accuse them of bakery??  lol

Im putting in the time on this one and so far, lets just say Im not discouraged.

Lets just say what I have learned so far, is what direction I need to go with it. 


Mags

Magluvin:

You are reading into my simple sentence that you quoted and extrapolating and drawing the wrong conclusions.  I am fully aware that the photonics industry is amazing and new things are being developed on a daily basis.  In the 1990s I worked in the photonics industry and used to flip through Photonics Spectra magazine.  It was a "hard core" magazine and I mostly just read the headlines and flipped though it.   I did the search and this is what came up:

http://photonics.com/

Honestly, the whole photonics industry is absolutely mind blowing.  It's amazing to think how it just materialized out of nowhere (more or less.)

For coils, on the other hand, that's a pretty established and understood thing.  Many people that read this forum may not be aware that there is an entire magnetics industry and it has been around for a very long time.

http://www.intl-magnetics.org/aboutima.php

Seasoned professionals in the magnetics industry would read Jbignes5's postings and either laugh, or look for a straightjacket.

Here is the real point that I think sums it up nicely:  Any coil, and I mean any coil, will have it inductance and frequency response characteristics, and the associated stray capacitance characteristics, the DC pulse response characteristics, magnetic field pattern, etc.  Certainly there is room for a lot of variation when you look at those characteristics.  But the key point is that they are still all fundamentally coils and will work as per the differential and integral equations that define that two-terminal device.

Why do I say, "two-terminal device?"  Because when you strip it down to the bare bones, all that you have is two terminals and you can apply some sort of stimulus to those two terminals (pulse, AC, etc.) and then see how those two terminals respond.  You can put any kind of inductor across those two terminals hidden inside a black box and by observing how those two terminals respond you can deduce that there is an inductor connected to those two terminals.  (That's why I hate the fact that you guys call the Tesla cola a "bifilar" coil.)

So you can put any standard coil, or a Tesla series bifilar coil, or a Rodin coil across those two terminals and by making measurements you can determine that yes indeed it is a coil and then you can determine the other parameters.

In that sense, a "Rodin coil" or a "Rodin starship coil" are simply exercises in nonsensical folly.  The star points don't do much, they might add a smidgen of extra capacitance.  There is nothing that a "Rodin" coil can do that a regular coil can't do better and more efficiently.

MileHigh

P.S.:  Part two coming up.

Part two - just to make it more manageable....

Let's assume that there are some niche applications for the Tesla series bifilar pancake coil.  That's all fine and dandy, it just represents the application of coil technology to meet certain design requirements.   For example they use regular pancake coils to induce eddy currents into pots and pans in an induction stove.  That's great, but is it some kind of amazing thing that is "outside the norm of conventional electronics?"  The answer is absolutely not.

So my challenge stands, if anybody can demonstrate something totally amazing and out of the ordinary about the Tesla series bifilar coil, or they can come up with a special unique application that is outside the realm of "conventional electronics" then bring it on and we can discuss it.  If nobody can do that then my previous comments stand.  There is no magic to the Tesla series bifilar patent from the late 19th century, none.  Instead of studying the patent, you should be studying how an inductor works first to give yourself a foundation to work from.  The same applies to capacitors and transistors and MOSFETs.  I have seen people that have been building pulse motors for two or more years and they have an oscilloscope but they still don't know how to use their scope to check how well or poorly the transistor is functioning in their pulse motor.

But when you get into what Jbignes5 says about the Tesla series bifilar coil, most of it is ridiculous nonsense.  I dropped into a recent EF thread about the same stuff and about half of the posters are posting similar fantastical claims and they clearly believe what they are posting.

I am not here to save the world and in the final analysis I don't care, it's just a forum.  But there are some real principles involved and it's fun to state the truth and expose the people that try to sound authoritative for what they really are.  Look at the case of the person that got his hand ripped to shreds by the ball bearing motor.  Perhaps one day an amateur experimenter, egged on by someone like Jbignes5, will be be doing some crazy experiment with a big coil and emitting tons of RF noise.  On the other side of his apartment wall there will be somebody in bed  hooked up to some kind of neural stimulator and the RF noise will fry the neural stimulator and crash it.  Then the person hooked up to the now dead neural stimulator will have a brain seizure and die.  (Has anybody looked at Itsu's clips where he scrambles the brains of his modern DSO when he makes his spikes go too high in voltage?)

So seriously, to everybody, don't listen to Jbignes5's talk about inductors.  The guy doesn't even understand how one works.  I say this from reading many of his postings over the years and from my own technical background.  By all means have fun experimenting but don't listen to Jbignes5's crap.  Find other legit sources of information and have some fun.  There are literally hundreds of legitimate YouTube clips that teach you the basics about electronics.

MileHigh