Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

[gyulasun]

...

--- Quote from: neptune on July 01, 2011, 07:06:21 PM ---@ Nulpoints , and also in reply to Pm from Mikestocks 2006 , 
Bifilar in my case is as follows . Take 2 wires , A and B . Wind them "2in hand2 side by side . do not twist the wires together , and try to avoid crossed turns . All 3 electromagnets are wound single layer . Connect the start of wire a to the power supply . Connect the END of wire A to the START of wire B. Connect the connect the END of wire B to the power supply . So current flows from start of A to the end of A which is then connected to the start of B . The source makes no mention of the shape factor of the coil , but shows a similar arrangement to above . The nails I used were three-quarter inch upholstery tacks (tin tacks).
...

Hi Synchro1,

You omitted a very important sentence from the text Neptune posted above, the omitted sentence just followed the sentence I put in bold above,  and this is it also in bold (first the last sentence from above): "The nails I used were three-quarter inch upholstery tacks [tin tacks ].  Smaller nails would give a more accurate measurement,  my tests were quick and dirty."

So Neptune acknowledges that smaller nails (i.e. smaller than three-quarter inch long nails) would give more accurate results and that his tests were quick and dirty.  And don't you find it strange that he did not measure difference between the performance of the bifilar and the quadfilar electromagnets??  Or just the quick and dirty test is to blame in this latter case too?

If you recall, I asked you to use smaller iron pieces than your big paper clips you used in your video (I even asked you to chop them up to have much smaller pieces, remember?) to refine the measurements. This is why I repeated my own tests with small sized iron nuts and found no difference because earlier I did not find difference with my paper clips test either but I felt the paper clips were too big for the test.

And remember: Magluvin also did this test and he did not find any difference either. I agree with him that there is no difference between the DC performance of a series bifi electromagnet and a normal electromagnet when they have the same Amperturns, shape factor, same length of wire, same core properties etc.

Gyula

PS this is the link to Neptune's original post from which both synchro1 and I quoted:
http://www.overunity.com/3842/muller-dynamo/msg293547/#msg293547 

[synchro1]

@Gyulasum,

I just came across "Neptune's test report" while trying to research Itsu's rotor speed. Itsu says his parallel LC coil see's the rotor RPM at 150 hertz. What's the meaning of that? If the LC resonant coil lowers the "critical minimum frequency" for "Lenz acceleration" by 75%, that would really amount to something! It sounds to me like his rotor's doing more like 9,000. Can anyone tell me wether or not Itsu is spinning his rotor at 2,250 or 9,000 rpm in his resonant output coil video?

The other thing is, I actually managed to pick up a third trombone clip with my nail core bifilar electromagnet in my video at first, just like Neptune!

[tim123]

I repeated my own tests with small sized iron nuts...
Magluvin also did this test and he did not find any difference either....

If the two types of coil had the same measured inductance - but different strength magnetic fields - that really would be 'magic'...

[gyulasun]

...

Also, I saw something once when I was a kid that was so cool.  It was a big disk that stood upright.  There was a big tuning dial on it.  You put it next to your AM radio and you could pull in far away stations and make them sound clear.  You moved the big dial to find the tuning spot.  Even as a kid I thought it must be some kind of tunable resonator, and now as an old kid I agree.  I should try looking it up online.  A passive LC resonator that resonates on the AM band.

Hi MileHigh,

If you are interested, here are some comments on the "true equivalent circuit" (comments to a certain author, Mr Mueller's earlier article on coax traps):

https://web.archive.org/web/20130321175059/http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/QexKom.htm 

Very briefly: it turns out that Mueller paper ( http://ebookbrowsee.net/gdoc.php?id=281896620&url=0fde726e1bf7bf65a20ee3d7db51914f&c=26010868 ) gave an 'equivalent' circuit for coaxial traps, which gave the first parallel resonance frequency but did not give any further higher frequency series or parallel resonances, and some works from other authors included some mistakes too, this paper has them listed: http://n6mw.ehpes.com/CT5.pdf 

Regarding your recalling "A passive LC resonator that resonates on the AM band", it indeed has been a useful device, and still is used by some AM radio fans pulling in distant AM broadcast stations. Recently I saw a youtube video on such an antenna version using several ferrite cores inside a big solenoid coil, see this for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqYZcRXCGxM 
Of course there have been many shapes and frames, I guess what you saw as a kid may have had a spider coil like shown here: http://makearadio.com/coils/spider.php (with a variable capacitor of course).

I mention this because an interesting "spin off" is also shown here: http://makearadio.com/coils/contracoils.php called as contra wound coils and although they are not 'classical' bifilar windings, they still manifest the 4 times inductance increase (due to the mutual inductance) when the two coils are connected in series, versus the the inductance value when the same two coils are connected in parallel.

Thanks,
Gyula

[gyulasun]

If the two types of coil had the same measured inductance - but different strength magnetic fields - that really would be 'magic'...

Hi Tim,

Yes they had the measured inductance within a few percent.
Here are the two tests, you may not have seen them, one with paper clips and the other with small nuts:
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357838/topicseen/#msg357838
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952

Gyula