I sent the following email to Stefan and Jbignes5 because I am going to cover my behind and not get railroaded by Jbignes5:

Stefan,

Myself and Jbignes5 had a strong debate and he said that he was going to run to you.

Here is the quote:

<<<
Don't rightly care what you think anymore. I will leave this up to a third party and that party is named Stephan. I will have him look at all your posting and see that you are the liar. If need be he will moderate you to clear up this mess you have made of this thread. You my "friend" are the one playing games here. You say that I did not answer your question but I did in post 319.

Here is the quote if you are too lazy to go find the post. " A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current."

So who is the liar now?
>>>>>

I asked Jbignes5 to answer my question several times after he claimed that he answered it.   In fact, his "answer" was embedded in a paragraph and he gave no indication that he was answering my question at all.

Here is his supposed "answer," just one of several paragraphs in a longer posting.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Again the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I asked him several times for the answer but he did not have the courtesy to 1) indicate that he was answering the question in the first place, and 2) simply copy/paste the answer after I asked him the first of several times.

This is gratuitous belligerence on Jbignes5's part for who knows what reason.

Yes we argued and had strong words but I was not the instigator of the strong words.  The worst was when Jbignes5 called me "scumbag."

I brought a lot of value to this thread by getting the contributors to take a serious look at the Tesla series bifilar coil patent without the just blindly believing that "everything that Tesla ever did must be amazing."  It's just a patent for a coil winding configuration and it's applications and possible advantages (or not) have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I am not going to be "railroaded" by Jbignes5.  We had a good healthy strong debate in the overall thread and when Jbignes5 joined the thread very recently, the debate continued on.  The types of things that Jbignes5 said were too far out to not be challenged.  That is part of what this forum is about.  If we don't challenge ideas and debate them from both perspectives then we all lose.  The simple truth is that many many people would disagree with Jbignes5's claims and there is the issue of technical competence also, very similar to the Rosemary Ainslie case.

With respect, I am going to take the liberty of posting this message in the thread itself.  I will not be held 'hostage' to Jbignes5's threats to go to you and complain about me.  If you do actually read the thread you will sometimes see "push back" from me but only after I have been pushed first.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your forum.  It's very seriously arguable that when Jbignes5 makes wild claims that go unchallenged that that's to the real detriment of your forum.

What I can assure you is that my debate with Jbignes5 is now over because it's hopeless.

Respectfully,

MileHigh

 ugh.. rofl...


Here is what i think of your message.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOcoWqGg3mY


It is very clear you were the instigator to this Debate and the name calling started from your side.


In every case I told you I answered your question that was a loaded question. I knew you would throw the ideal case out on the floor and when faced with your outright lies you have no choice but to, how did you put it, Call mommy.


So to be fair this was a test. A test to see if you felt threatened by the proof of your lies. When faced with that truth you thought to preemptively bring Stephan into this Before I had a chance to lay it all out. But the proof is in the thread. The video in this reply tells the tactics you are applying as well. This is an old problem and we need to weed out the ones who do not follow a modicum of civility. My name calling was a direct result of you calling me snide names and remarks and now you think that Stephan is going to rescue you with the poof still in the thread about what you have done?


The thread Name is Tesla's "Coil for Electro-magnets" All you have been doing is trying to derail conversations over this topic and distract us from talking about such. We asked you many many times to keep it civil and at least keep the nay saying to a minimum to allow us to further this topic, of which you are quick to respond every time with more distractions and out right disinformation. Stephan knows my character and of which he had to do investigations before on my behalf to ferret out the bad element.


My initial suspicion was that you didn't read anything and understood very little in the "Debate". This is never more evident when i replied about your question but you failed to look back and check. Then you called me a liar and a troll and before that even stronger language. I mean really how many times does someone have to tell you to look for yourself and reread the posts that you said I never wrote.


I don't go to Stephan often because he likes to do real experiments like most of us. He is busy with his own investigations but when someone has the logical fallacies that you put forth as facts then ignore when people reply to them showing you of your Fallacies, What are we to do. I mean I actually knew you were going to do what you did. The proof is in the thread and Stephan is a very smart man. I trust that he will see the games much like he has done before when people like you try to derail any progress in a thread and tend to belittle anyone that counters your disinformation.

And for the fact of the matter I joined the conversation at reply #9 Not later as you say. Yet more disinformation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

   The Tesla secondary is excited due to I guess you would call it parasitic capacitance.    The entire secondary is a tank that converts impulses from the primary into highvoltage  high frequency oscillations in the secondary.  Each impulse is saved in the tank and not radiated.  Below is a link to Tesla's pancake coil inside a 2 turn primary under experimentation back in 1988.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFa-IymyWHM

Hey everybody,

Let's dip into the Energetic Forum for a second.  In the "The Solenoid/Electromagnt" thread a lot of posters make comments related to the Tesla bifilar coil patent.

I am going to quote some of the comments here:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've been advocating this particular "improvement" for some time for particularly efficient electric motors using magnetic attraction. If you take a coil with the same number of turns, and compare it to this configuration using the same power supply, you will find this coil design produces a much stronger field for the same applied power (about 75% gain).

These coils also store much larger amounts of energy in the electric field, which causes huge current spikes (amperage = change in the electric field/time) along with huge voltage spikes (voltage = change in the magnetic field/time) when the power is "Abruptly Disrupted".
----------
Well Chain,  looking at the patent I see why it's an improvement as the coil b. acts as gears working with each other if you picture the direction of the flux spinning around the wire.  figure a. being a standard coil has every flux orbit in a state of reluctance with the ones adjacent to it.
----------
A coil will heat up if it produces a magnetic field (stator) in opposition to another magnetic field (rotor). When you smash two opposing fields together, alot of heat is produced, much akin to slamming two cars together head on.
----------
P.S. I did read the patent many, many times. I have not "deciphered" it incorrectly. Tesla doesn't really mention magnetism even though it's part of the title. The claims of a stronger field per watt are coming from me. I don't know where you gathered that I was claiming Tesla.
----------
If that happen surely it will give more power to the created magnetic field, which is in other cases consumed into resistance heating. In such case pancake bifilar coil wound be essentially close to room temperature superconductor or self-adjusted tank circuit at resonance.
----------
I have never understood the pancake coil but thought
it was about Tesla's high voltage high frequency work,
and a coil which generated a good magnetic field
without the inductance that interferes with HV/HF
circuits. Is this right?
-----------
I believe a finely tuned/designed a coil can have a tighter stronger flux if aligned properly like a north/south halbach. Or a looser general field.  These modifications would require very precise latices with magnetically resistive and conductive layering.
-----------
I notice that when the power is applied there is a huge surge of field strength that dampens out. A single wire wound coil also possesses this interesting phenomena, however the bifilar coil in either configuration (series or parallel) causes a much more pronounced effect. The currents circulating inside the coil by it's own induction could have something to do with it based on the formula (Amp = change in electrification / time). But as to why the coil produces a stronger field per watt, I don't know. All I know is it does based on the experiments of 2 others and myself.
What this means is that less power is needed to saturate a core with the lines of force.
-----------
So to properly tune a Coil for electro-magnets, the voltage to be used is also
a consideration. A coil wound for effect at 100 Khz using 10 000 volts will not
work the same if 10 volts is used due to the capacitor plate separation
(thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self
capacitance to be less.
------------
I found a page where someone also compared field strengths of bifilar coils compared to single wire coils. They also state that the magnetic field is stronger.
------------
And I have conducted the experiment myself using the same amount of wire and the same power supply and came to a very different conclusion. I did not use nails, I used a compass. Nails are another way to go but a compass is far more accurate. You will see a gain in field strength. 1 coil with 100 turns of wire is equal to 2 coils with 50 turns of wire on the same diameter core.
------------
I've noticed something about the pancake style coil, from the spin of the magnetic force in the wires it appears that the coil fields would resemble a north/south Halbach array.   The north south Halbach increases the density  restricting the flux field to a small area.  Has anyone been able to measure if the field size and shape between the two coils differ?
------------
The geometry and the advantage of pancake types coils is one of dimensional usage, the shape of the field and the compact form.
-------------
It is not the increase of field strength when you energize the coil with an AC,IC,OC input, it is the simple result of reduced reluctance in its inherent geometry, it acts in mutual inductance to the second winding reinforcing its magnetic component.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Every single one of the statements above has a mistake or an error in conceptual reasoning.

And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate.  Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people.  And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.

MileHigh