Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect

[MileHigh]

Synchro1:

It seems like there is a communication gap and let me try to bridge it here.  In your posting you seem to be attributing a lot of things to me that are both incorrect and I did not say.  So let's try to address them.

Milehigh maintains that the bifilar draws twice the amperage to generate twice the magnetic field.

I didn't say that.  I said that if you compare a 100-turn regular coil and a 50 + 50 turn pseudo-bifilar coil that they will be the same:  same inductance, same wire length, same resistance, same power consumption, same magnetic field generation.

Milehigh's inference is that; The single wrap is equally efficient as an electromagnet with twice the power input, to equal the bifilars, and not that, "The bifilar yields twice the magnetic force per watt".

See above, equally efficient with the same power input.  There is no such unit as "the magnetic force per watt."   The coil's resistance and the coil's inductance are two completely separate things.  Magnetic force is related to the number of turns and the current and the core material.  Once the magnetic field has been created by the coil, there is zero power consumption to maintain it.  All the power that is being consumed is turned into waste heat by the resistance of the wire.

I find it ludicrous that Milehigh continues to debunk Tesla's cornerstone achievement as a so called "Psuedo" bifilar.

I will gladly explain this in more detail.  I am choosing to use that terminology myself because it's clearer.  On a schematic the pseudo-bifilar coil would be represented as a single inductor with two terminals.  "Bifilar" is "bi" which means "two" plus "fil" which means wire.  i.e.; "Bifilar" means "two wires."  The pseudo-bifilar coil only has one wire.  In my 30+ years of being around electronics, I have never encountered pseudo-bifilar coils except for here.  There is no electronics terminology in common use for the pseudo-bifilar coil.

Does anyone believe that the bifilar would somehow mysteriously consume twice the power if shorted accross a "D" cell battery, then the single wrap coil of equal wire length? How could that be possible? No one's stupid enough to believe that.

Sorry but I have to emphasize that I never said that.

Please stop ridiculing Nicola Tesla.

I haven't done that and I don't know why you would feel like that.  It looks to me like Tesla was the first person to start playing and experimenting with high power electronics and using LC resonators and stuff like that.  Not every experiment he did carried through to how we currently do things.  I am not aware of any current-day usage for the pseudo-bifilar coil.  If you want to make an LC resonator, you just connect a capacitor across a coil, simple as that.  That's the easy way to do it and it's possible that pseudo-bifilar coils are simply not used at all in the electronics industry.

I hope that it's clearer now.

MileHigh

[Farmhand]

With all due respect to MileHigh what he says seems correct to me, but somewhat off the point.

Synchro did you read the claims of the patent ?

What I claim as my invention is
1 A coil for electric apparatus the adjacent convolutions of which form parts of the circuit between which there exists a potential difference sufficient to secure in the coil a capacity capable of neutralizing its self induction as hereinbefore described.

2 A coil composed of contiguous or adjacent insulated conductors electrically connected in series and having a potential difference of such value as to give to the coil as a whole a capacity sufficient to neutralize its self induction as set forth.

NIKOLA TESLA Witnesses ROBT F GAYLORD PARKER W PAGE

What I see is the effect of the increased capacitance on the resonant frequency as the main benefit of the way the "COIL FOR ELECTRO MAGNETS" is wound.
I think it's easy to see the inductance stores more energy than the capacitance but Tesla does not state that it does that.
So I don't understand why it is being made an issue. I don't think the inductance storing more energy than the capacitance is relevant.

But I do think that winding a coil so that it has a few hundred pF more self capacitance will lower the resonant frequency considerably,
and I think this is the point of the patent. It is about cancelling the self inductance for a certain frequency, and doing it that way can
negate the need for an external capacitor.

Seems straight forward to me. I don't understand the argument. Why complicate things ?

Cheers

What seems troubling to me is how people think they can make claims for Tesla when the claims are laid out in the patents.
How dare people do that. Misunderstanding a patent is one thing, but making claims for a patent that Tesla or any patent holder
didn't make is wrong. Especially saying it like it is fact.

What claims do you say Tesla makes about the device in this patent Synchro. Why do you need to even make claims of
what it does or is for, when the inventor has already done it.

..

[synchro1]

@Farmhand,

The Tesla bifilar, miscalled a "Psuedo Bifilar" was patented as an ELECTROMAGNET. I'm not claiming anything else. Milehigh says it dosen't work as described. He asks where are they in use? The answer is: Every automotive junkyard. Big as manhole covers, the thick gauge wire Tesla Pancake electromagnet coils lift tons of scrap powered by six volt lantern batteries. These are the most powerful electromagnets in industrial use. Why would anyone have to ask a question that inane?

Milehigh just boldly states "Tesla Coil Builder's" wrong, without spending the few minutes it would take to expose him as a fraud by failing to replicate his experiment. Milehigh expects us to brand "Tesla Coil builder" a hoax artist with no counter evidence. He says we should spend thousands of hours of internet research to find out for ourselves how wrong his two minuite experiment is. What would Milehigh do to someone like me who successfully replicated the experiment?

[MileHigh]

Some comments about the delayed Lenz' effect and measuring it.  For this discussion I am assuming the motor is some kind of pulse motor.

I know this concept has been discussed in depth over many months and I just glanced at the threads from time to time.  I will give you my take on it with the caveat that I would have to do some verification on the bench myself to make sure what I am saying checks out.  I am pretty confident of what I am saying.

The basic idea is that you put a load on a pick-up coil and observe that the rotor speeds up.  The assumption is that somehow the Lenz' Law repulsion force is "delayed" so that the rotor magnet gets to pass the pick-up coil with less resistance.  I think that's too far a leap, and you can't really be sure unless you do some testing of the hypothesis.

Please see my posting #919 and #927 for a way to see the voltage/current for a pick-up coil load resistor and compare it to the rotor magnet position.  This test bridges the gap between the assumption that the Lenz drag is being delayed and the visual check to see if that is actually true on your scope display.

You can look at a coil as operating in three possible modes for the purposes of this discussion:

1.  Coil being energized like the drive coil in a Bedini motor.  The outside power source is expending energy to create the magnetic field around the coil.  There is an L/R time constant for energizing the coil where R is equal to the output impedance of the battery in series with the switched-on transistor or MOSFET.

2.  Coil discharging energy through a load.  The magnetic field is collapsing and turning the coil into a power source.  There is an L/R time constant for the discharge where R is the resistance of the load on the coil.

3.  Coil acting like a pick up coil and driving a load.

When the coil is acting like a pick-up coil it has no relationship to either mode (1) or mode (2) above.  It's a totally different animal and the L/R time constants don't apply.

What's happening is that the coil is kind of a passive device and will react to the changing magnetic field.  The passing magnet sort of looks like the primary of a transformer.  The passing magnet generates EMF in the coil and that drives a load resistor. The coil's EMF output is a slave to the changing magnetic flux due to the passing rotor magnet.

So it looks to me like there is no "delayed Lenz effect."  There are no phase shifts.  The amount of current flowing through the coil does not correspond to the the amount of stored energy like in mode (1).  It's all dependent on the external moving rotor magnet and the load resistor.

That begs the question why does the rotor speed up when you put a load on the pick-up coils?  I don't have the answer but the first thing I would do would be to make before and after average-power-in and total average-power-out measurements.  You can also easily calculate the power dissipated in the pick-up coils themselves.

You can arrive at this equation:  average-power-in equals average-power-out (pick-up coil loads) plus coil-resistive-power plus unknown-power.

In other words the "unknown power" is just your input power minus the power you can measure with your multimeter; the power dissipated in the load resistors and the power dissipated the resistance of the pick-up coils themselves.

So does the unknown-power increase when the rotor speeds up?  You would think it might.  Alternatively or in combination, does the input power increase when the rotor speeds up?  Some people report that the input power decreases.  What about the radial load on the bearings no-load vs. load?  Perhaps that's one of the causes of the rotor speed up.  There has to be a reason for the rotor to speed up, but I don't think you will find it with a "delayed Lenz effect."  I suspect the answer lies somewhere else.

MileHigh

[Farmhand]

Well I've been arguing against the claims of it being able to produce over 100% efficiency, I see no evidence of that.
The effect of the rotor of a generator speeding up when loaded is real, I did it, but it isn't OU and it isn't delayed Lenz effect either in my opinion.
I also disagree with most people's reasons for the effect of the speeding up rotor under load " I don't consider it delayed Lenz effect" it is what it is.
I'm no expert in this field but I think I have some understanding of things in a practical way or visualization.
And a good memory for snippets of info I pick up that seem like they are important.

In my opinion accelerating under load effect when a prime mover and a PM generator is used is that the unloaded drag on the rotor is significant because of
increased Lenz effect ( above normal), because of all the energy being stored in the coils I guess, then when the load is added or the output short circuited
the drag is reduced and the rotor speeds up because the coils cannot store as much energy and so the Lenz effect is decreased.

It's a case of placing a huge artificial and unnecessary drag on the rotor so that when a load is added the drag is reduced.

Because of the frequency and reactance is restricting the current, when the load is added the waveform is flattened. Less voltage, less energy being stored/transferred, less drag
as a result of the loaded Lenz drag being less than the ridiculously high and artificial Lenz drag without load (by design).

Using the theory I state above anyone can get an accelerating rotor under load fairly easily. But to what end ? Fool people and raise money ?

The magnitude of the Lenz drag is relative to the energy transferred, with that I do agree.

Cheers

There is no need to try to discredit Tesla, most of the claims people say he made he did not make.


...