how to convert this 2500 times energy stored into magnetic field  ?
that's what was removed from the patent

Quote from: tinman on April 25, 2017, 01:34:26 AM
Ok-let's cut through the BS,and carry out some side by side test's between a BPC,and a single wound coil-of the same physical size,same size wire,and same length of wire.

My first test was to take a close look at a quick pulse sent through each coil.
I have a diode on one of the input leads to each coil,so as we get a DC pulse going into the coils only.
I am running at a frequency of 20KHz,and this allows the coils to ring down to a stop before the coil is hit with the next pulse.
Duty cycle is a mere 1%--so a very quick pulse.

I read in one of the replies here,that the BPC has no inductive kickback.
Well,we just found that to be incorrect with this simple test.

Looking at the two scope shot's below,we can clearly see the inductive kickback spike,followed by a small forward spike of larger amplitude,but shorter duration-the beginning of the ringdown of each coil.
We also see(as i stated before)that the BPC has i lower resonant frequency.
But as we look at the induced voltage,and the inductive kickback,we see there is no difference between the two coils.

We can see from the scope shot's,that both coils were subject to an identical input pulse,at the same frequency,where the voltage across both coils reached 8.5v during the on time.
We can see that the inductive kickback from both coils is also exactly the same.

So,we have eliminated one myth associated with the BPC-that being that the BPC has no inductive kickback,when in fact it is identical to the single wound coil.

Next test is the electromagnetic field strength of each coil,for a given P/in.


Brad

Hey brad

In your scope shots, it looks as if something is altering the ring of the oscillation when the trace gets near the neg peaks. If what you say and show is just that first pos 1% duty input(circled in blue), and after that it lets go, that first neg part of the cycle should be more than the peak of the pos portion of the cycle after that???

Its like there is a 13v zener diode pulling the bottom part of the trace (circled in red)to a lower neg peak than the pos peaks. Never have I experienced what you show there. I cannot see how your first neg peak is 13.6v and then it swings back up to 20v, and even 25v respectively.

Something is clamping down on your neg side of the wave.   Would be nice to see the setup you did that test with.

I cannot say your testing there is correct.  Dont you see it?

Mags

I realize this thread is about a bifilar pancake coil, but did you know that nowhere in the Tesla patent 512340 Coil for Electromagnets is a flat or pancake coil mentioned?

Before the drawings are pointed to for evidence, the first drawing depicts a coil wound in the ordinary manner.

Just thought I would mention it.

Regards

Quote from: Cadman on April 25, 2017, 01:10:47 PM
I realize this thread is about a bifilar pancake coil, but did you know that nowhere in the Tesla patent 512340 Coil for Electromagnets is a flat or pancake coil mentioned?

Before the drawings are pointed to for evidence, the first drawing depicts a coil wound in the ordinary manner.

Just thought I would mention it.

Regards

And Tesla says that the idea can be used in any coil design well known to exist. (is similar words) I had mentioned this earlier that the flat coils were most likely used in the diagrams for easier understanding of what he is describing. If it were a cylinder coil with multi layers, it would be harder to see what he means in the description. He also could have shown like the 3d bifi coil we see going around, which works for understanding value, but i think he had his reasons for displaying it as a flat coil for that purpose.

So I agree with you.

Mags

Quote from: tinman on April 25, 2017, 06:38:37 AM
Ok,the second test is to see which of the two coils is better at inducing a secondary coil.
So a P/in for P/out test.

The secondary coil is the secondary from a MOT,where i am using 1 half of the windings-->coil is split into two sets of windings--from other projects.
The MOT has a 680 ohm resistor across it as a load.

First,with a set V/RMS of 1.6v across the BPC,the frequency was raised until maximum V amplitude was achieved across the 680 ohm resistor on the secondary coil(the MOT coil),by doing a sweep from 500HTz to 2MHz.
Once maximum output frequency was found,we then placed the scope across the 2.2 ohm CVR on the BPC,and the second channel to read the voltage across the coils-so as we could calculate P/in.

The very same test was done for the single wound coil.

So here are the results.

BPC

P/in=1.6v @ 216mV/RMS over the 2.2 ohm CVR
P/in= 157.088mW
Power dissipated by CVR=21.207mW

P/out=1.56VRMS over 680 ohms
P/out=3.578mW


Single wound coil

P/in=1.6VRMS @ 208mV across the 2.2 ohm CVR
P/in= 151.264mW
Power dissipated by CVR=19.66mW

P/out=1.68VRMS over 680 ohms
P/out= 4.150mW

So,from this test,it would seem that the single wound coil out-performs the BPC in electromagnetic induction-or energy transfer to another coil.


Brad

Well thats interesting. Your single wire coil seems to outperform inducting the square coil.  For sake of argument, those screw terminals in the middle of the coils look to be different sizes and could be acting as cores in what is suppose to be an air core test. Just thinking. The one in the single is larger.

Did you record the freq for each result? Or were both coils results happening at the same freq?

This would be a first for me that a supposed identical single wire coil actually outperforms a bifi of the same. If the resistance and inductance are the same, where do you suspect the loss to be credited to?

Mags