PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[JouleSeeker]

  OK -- now for results, as promised.

Attached, we observe the Hall-probe readings for the bifilar-wound coil on the left, and the single-wound coil on the right.  The current through both coils (connected in series) is 3.0 amps. The two readings are repeated, as shown in the second attached photo-pair, showing that the readings are repeatable. 

Recalling that the ambient field reading is 1.0 mV (see above), we have:
B-bifilar ~ 3.2 mV - 1.0 mV = 2.2 mV
B-single ~ 1.8 mV - 1.0 mV = 0.8 mV.

Consistently in these experiments, I have found that:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

Since both coils have identical currents and the same number of turns (30 in these cases) and the same cores (nails from the same box), I do not understand the physics that causes the bifilar-wound coil to have higher readings, consistently.  But that is the observation.

As a scientist, I would like to see the experiment tried again (and again).  In particular, I would like to use a calibrated Gaussmeter for the comparisons.

[JouleSeeker]

  I tried variations, reversing the current direction, changing the order in which the coils were connected (always in series), changing the current -- consistently the same result:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

I had two different pairs (4 coils total), and the second pair gave the same conclusion and approximately the same numbers on the Hall-probe readings (within roughly 8% measurement error-bar).  I learned as I went along that changing the angle of the probe with respect to the coil axis and with respect to North made some difference; and this may account for the estimated 8% measurement error-bar (1 sigma; approximate). 

In the proposed follow-up experiment, I would fix the angles of a calibrated Gaussmeter and the coil, with respect to North, and that should reduce measurement error to less than 8%.

The tests shown above are with the coils wound CW (clock-wise, as the winding proceeded away from the starting point.) The attached test shows the result when I re-wound one of the single-wound coils, so that it is in the CCW sense, whereas the bifilar wound coil remains in the CW sense, and the current was set at 2.0 Amps.

Recalling that the ambient field reading is 1.0 mV (see above), we have:
B-bifilar ~ 1.8 mV - 1.0 mV = 0.8 mV
B-single ~ 0.6 mV - 1.0 mV = -0.4 mV.

Note that the B-field in the CCW coil is reversed from that of the CW coil, as expected; again we have the result:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

Furthermore,
THE HIGHER THE CURRENT, THE LARGER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIFILAR AND SINGLE-WOUND FIELDS,

although this conclusion is tentative since it is based on only two currents, 2.0 and 3.0 Amps DC.

Comments are welcomed.  Whew!  lots of fun!   Makes me wonder if ou can better be achieved using bifilar-wound coils.  IIRC, this type of winding originated with Tesla.

[Hope]

IF and I say only if there is a condensed zero point inside a magnetic vortex (like a Rodin coil in operation) could we insert a ground plane into it and hold a wire extending up and out to a variable resistor or cap with a load on the far side can we measure any electrical characteristics? And thank you for being here Steve, your making a difference.

[jbignes5]

  OK -- now for results, as promised.

Attached, we observe the Hall-probe readings for the bifilar-wound coil on the left, and the single-wound coil on the right.  The current through both coils (connected in series) is 3.0 amps. The two readings are repeated, as shown in the second attached photo-pair, showing that the readings are repeatable. 

Recalling that the ambient field reading is 1.0 mV (see above), we have:
B-bifilar ~ 3.2 mV - 1.0 mV = 2.2 mV
B-single ~ 1.8 mV - 1.0 mV = 0.8 mV.

Consistently in these experiments, I have found that:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

Since both coils have identical currents and the same number of turns (30 in these cases) and the same cores (nails from the same box), I do not understand the physics that causes the bifilar-wound coil to have higher readings, consistently.  But that is the observation.

As a scientist, I would like to see the experiment tried again (and again).  In particular, I would like to use a calibrated Gaussmeter for the comparisons.

First thing I would do is this: Do not use a core. Make them air cored or plastic cored. This way you are measuring the real field and not the cored channeled field. Try not to put them in series as one will effect the other and use an amp controlled power supply. This way each coil will receive exactly 1.5 amps and not interfere with each other.
The hall effect sensor I believe has been mistakenly taken for a magnetic sensor and I think this is in error. What it is, is actually an electric field sensor and only applies to that if the sensor is put into a normal magnetic field with all it's components it read the electric field and then we can compare that to the magnetic field rules.
If I am mistaken then lets try to rule it out. Try detecting a voltage only field like Tesla used and you are now playing with. Very little current and higher voltage and see if the Hall effect responds in the same way. This way if the hall effect detector responds with the electric field then you know it is a misuse of the probe and can correct for the error.

Read the Tesla patent and see if you can understand what he says about his coil.
Here is a link: http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets?pq=Y29pbA==
His coil is much different then yours. They commonly call them pancake coils now because of their flat appearance. What Tesla states is that the bifilar coils act like capacitors allowing for much higher capacity of the electric field between the windings and some how reduce the magnetic field or counter(False) currents as well. The reason Tesla used them was to convert the planar bursts of high voltage he was using to collect the energy from around the bursting wire. This was termed longitudinal waves. Of course if used in an active way it increases the electric field density and you get a stronger e-field.

When a Core is used you are channeling the magnetic lines into that effectively increasing the e-field around the wires of the bifilar coil. When you use a toroid core this is a unique core. Very special things happen here. The magnetic field is locked into the core and the full electric field is free to play with a substantial boost to the density. When the core is axial the magnetic field come back into play after a short channel through the core.

[JouleSeeker]

First thing I would do is this: Do not use a core. Make them air cored or plastic cored. This way you are measuring the real field and not the cored channeled field. Try not to put them in series as one will effect the other and use an amp controlled power supply. This way each coil will receive exactly 1.5 amps and not interfere with each other.
The hall effect sensor I believe has been mistakenly taken for a magnetic sensor and I think this is in error. What it is, is actually an electric field sensor and only applies to that if the sensor is put into a normal magnetic field with all it's components it read the electric field and then we can compare that to the magnetic field rules.
If I am mistaken then lets try to rule it out. Try detecting a voltage only field like Tesla used and you are now playing with. Very little current and higher voltage and see if the Hall effect responds in the same way. This way if the hall effect detector responds with the electric field then you know it is a misuse of the probe and can correct for the error.

Read the Tesla patent and see if you can understand what he says about his coil.
Here is a link: http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets?pq=Y29pbA==
His coil is much different then yours. They commonly call them pancake coils now because of their flat appearance. What Tesla states is that the bifilar coils act like capacitors allowing for much higher capacity of the electric field between the windings and some how reduce the magnetic field or counter(False) currents as well. The reason Tesla used them was to convert the planar bursts of high voltage he was using to collect the energy from around the bursting wire. This was termed longitudinal waves. Of course if used in an active way it increases the electric field density and you get a stronger e-field.

When a Core is used you are channeling the magnetic lines into that effectively increasing the e-field around the wires of the bifilar coil. When you use a toroid core this is a unique core. Very special things happen here. The magnetic field is locked into the core and the full electric field is free to play with a substantial boost to the density. When the core is axial the magnetic field come back into play after a short channel through the core.

First, I'm not saying this is the Tesla "flat" bifilar coil, just thought the general concept should be credited to him.
2.  I did the test with air core, and with aluminum-core.  Both of these tests -- with either loop -- showed the ambient field level, 0.9 to 1.0 mV.  It would be interesting to do the tests with air core AGAIN, but it would have to be at much higher current.
2b.  Moreover -- the interesting application IMO would be with a core, such as in the wound-ferrite-toroids described in this thread, and in the Gabriel device.  So the differences between single-wound and bifilar-wound with a CORE become the most interesting (OK, to me anyway).

3.  As I said, I would like to follow up with another instrument, a calibrated gaussmeter.
4.  However, I do not see how there is an electric field present (external to the Hall probe), since the magnetic field is constant, not changing.
5.  I saw no evidence that the two coils interfered in terms of the measurement -- I made sure that the distances were far apart; and in any case, I varied things a great deal and saw the same effect.
Note the cast above where I rewound one coil in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION... surely that would change the mutual interactions, if any.  Yet the results were consistent, so I find no evidence for interference between coils when taking these B field measurements.  The Hall probe measures B field quite effectively when fields are static, as in this case.  See, e.g.,
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DjPDHlVvvcsJ:online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys401/spring11/Files/Hall%2520Probe/E67_Spring09.pdf+hall+probe+qv&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgg5KRmlDboxxVd0WJ5ZRxAgzhzcKjqUWjDzzjLVZOl8uliKRzfzLaSENOUiIXXHKloQfsvj6JptAMcc_ENK_a2pQhFJurBB4CuBZ1wd2n-h9okhRsuoA3TR6c-ZTUD--vXgPOr&sig=AHIEtbSUT96ZzoxR-9IFQHTb2WcxvsDQrw