Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

[forest]

Yes, Gyula, as I said many times this is the trick. Once you knew how to eliminate reactive power from the context (well, almost) then there is only the power of LC circuit. Then you have to find other trick and your Q become COP.
That's the essence of real ou without explaining the theory....  (sorry,don't ask)
Took me 12 years to realize that but building a prototype is a hard task not finished yet. First I started from Meyer HHO and his clever videos, tried to build Lawton circuits, Daniel Dingel and many others which obviously don't work without the "backend". Then furtunately I started reading Tesla lectures (sometimes 10 times the same lecture)and old patents. To my surprise I found many ou devices originating from probable the same common concept.Or course I've spotted Bedini and Bearden and still cannot comprehend what they are doing ? If they knew the concept then why they are not telling it clearly ? It's obvious there are some factors which I start to see , to keep it in silence. Again, I don't have the concept proof yet, mainly because my health and ability is bad and I have no support. Quite common, do you agree ? all this free energy devices seems to arise from a garage experiments,to mention just a few guys : Richard Willis, Tariel Kapanadze, Melnichenko and so on.
I hope the future generations would not judge us too severely. The main problem is that "the concept" seems to be in exact opposite to the current economical world with all those corporations and oil/energy cartels.
Let me be a prophet for a moment and foresee that God wants us to change the whole concept of living which is now without any reason for the humanity itself (did anybody asked what is the living purpose of the whole humanity ?). All I know is that energy from ambient should be taken only in small quantities uniformly spread around the whole Earth. Answer yourself if that is in agreement with current world....

[gyulasun]

Hi forest,

Well you play the same game Tito does even if you say you have not built a prototype.

I wonder why you are certain your theory on extracting reactive power from a resonant LC tank is correct? And as you have not tested it, the chance is only 50%... no? 

Are you familiar with Hector's rotoverter setup where he uses a capacitive divider (C1, C2 and C3) and a switching circuit to extract some part of the stored energy in the capacitors of the LC tank. Is your theory similar?

What do you lose on telling your theory? 

Bearden etc have theories only there are no working setups they have shown nothing in practice so far with COP > 1.

What is purpose of humanity you ask? Someone just aswered it here (nothing personal against you):
http://www.overunity.com/13485/new-domain-in-deep-space-discovered-here-at-overunity-com/msg359877/#msg359877

Greetings,  Gyula

[gyulasun]

double post

[Farmhand]

In the patent where we says the coil has a greatly increased "capacity", he is referring to the energy it can store not the coils "self capacitance". So he isn't saying that the coils "capacitance" itself will be increased, he is saying that the capacity for the coil to hold energy  between the windings is increased because of how it's wound.

The 250 000 times as much energy is in reference to the increase in energy the capacitance holds because of the potential difference. It is an increase in the ability of a "coils" capacitance to hold energy. Not an increase in actual capacity.

I was tripped up by the different meanings of capacity. All the energy stored in the coil still is supplied by the supply that charges it.

However a bifilar wound coil does have a lower resonant frequency than the same amount of wire wound as a normal coil, so a bifilar coil does "also" have more inherent self capacitance. At least all the ones I have wound do as compared to the same wire length and core ect.  And the resonant frequency is lower, many people might say that a few pF capacitance is nothing but the effect it has on the resonant frequency is a lot.

I issue a challenge, can anybody wind a regular coil and a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS, solenoid, spiral or other coil using the same wire length,size and core ect. and have them both end up at the same resonant frequency ?

I think not, I think the bifilar coil will have more self capacitance in almost every case, and the storing of the extra energy it can hold in the potential between the windings will take time.

Try it. See if it is possible to wind the same wire length as a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS and get anything but a lower resonant frequency for the COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS.

It's an additional effect, be it wanted, intended or just coincidence. My test showed me a much lower resonant frequency, so the self capacitance was more. Regardless even if the self capacitance was the same it must take time for the extra energy stored in the bifilar coils self capacitance to be delivered. Mustn't it ? Capacitors don't charge to higher voltage instantly, it takes time.

Cheers

P.S. What I say is this. "Even if a Coil For Electromagnets had the same self capacitance as the control coil in my test in the second post, the COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS would still have a lower resonant frequency because the extra energy stored in the higher potential between the windings will take time to deliver". However I make that prediction based on Logic alone so I may be wrong. I won't believe anything but the test though so when someone has two "same wire" coils, one regular and wound as a coil for electro-magnets with the same self capacitance then it can be tested.

..

[gyulasun]

Hi Farmhand,

I agree with the 'capacity' and 'capacitance' clarification, albeit Tesla often used word 'capacity' where we now would use 'capacitance' but it was okay for his era. 
 
There is one issue which is not yet a 100% clear for me (English is a second language for me). 

It is the following quote from the patent:

If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it, and the end of A be connected with the starting point of B, the aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns is the same, viz., one thousand, then...     

So in case Tesla meant to use the same length of wire for conductor B, does not it mean he actually doubled the total (aggregate) length of the original winding made first from conductor A?   i.e. he meant to make another 1000 turns in parallel with conductor A which already had 1000 turns?  Alltogether he had 2000 turns in series, no?

Or the two conductors together had to have a total of 1000 turns, then this means that from conductor A 500 turns should be removed, right?  but he did not write it specificaly, it simply comes from the second part of the above quote?  (Because Tesla started with 1000 turns for conductor A in Figure 1 as a single wire coil.)

This is what I am unsure in. Is it a 100% sure for you that conductor A should be reduced to 500 turns and conductor B should have also 500 turns to get the total 1000 turns in the series (bifilar) connection?

...
However a bifilar wound coil does have a lower resonant frequency than the same amount of wire wound as a normal coil, so a bifilar coil does "also" have more inherent self capacitance. At least all the ones I have wound do as compared to the same wire length and core ect.  And the resonant frequency is lower, many people might say that a few pF capacitance is nothing but the effect it has on the resonant frequency is a lot.

In my Reply #63 above I included a link to a PDF file which tested the same situation you wrote in the above quote. The lower self resonant frequency is obvious for a bifilarly wound coil using the same amount of wire like the single wire coil:
http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf   

Thanks,  Gyula