Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

[Farmhand]

Farmhand:

Wiki quotes....

The charge flows back and forth between the plates of the capacitor, through the inductor. The energy oscillates back and forth between the capacitor and the inductor until (if not replenished by power from an external circuit) internal resistance makes the oscillations die out. Its action, known mathematically as a harmonic oscillator, is similar to a pendulum swinging back and forth, or water sloshing back and forth in a tank. For this reason the circuit is also called a tank circuit. The oscillation frequency is determined by the capacitance and inductance values. In typical tuned circuits in electronic equipment the oscillations are very fast, thousands to millions of times per second.

In a series configuration, X_C and X_L cancel each other out. In real, rather than idealised components the current is opposed, mostly by the resistance of the coil windings. Thus, the current supplied to a series resonant circuit is a maximum at resonance.

The parallel LC circuit connected in series with a load will act as band-stop filter having infinite impedance at the resonant frequency of the LC circuit. The parallel LC circuit connected in parallel with a load will act as band-pass filter.

.......

I view a self-resonating coil as a parallel LC circuit.  Which would mean it blocks a signal passing through it at the resonant frequency.  I am just not sure how you are applying whatever resonance concepts to your circuit or motor.  If either form of resonance is associated with "neutralizing the self inductance" keep in mind we are talking about a pure sinusoidal excitation waveform.  You don't normally see a pure sinusoid and deviations from the pure sinusoid mean that there is other harmonic content in the waveform that is not in resonance and does its own thing.

I do understand what you are saying in a layman's way, and I have read that series resonance means no resistance and parallel resonance means infinite resistance, but I don't buy it. Simply because if a condition of parallel resonance actually meant infinite resistance we would never see it because it would be impossible, unattainable.

And likewise no resistance would mean superconductor current from very low voltages and we don't see that.

If a parallel resonance condition created an infinite resistance then how can current flow to cause it. When we tune a crystal radio receiver output coil to parallel resonance at the frequency we want to hear it works. Maybe at some point there is infinite resistance but at what point. Can you show us what infinite resistance looks like in a circuit tuned to parallel resonance ?

Bottom line is it sounds impossible to me.

When we tune a Tesla coil primary to parallel resonance we see to begin with when there is no resonance the input is very small, not much power can be input without resonance, but when we get the primary and secondary tuned to each other the primary can have parallel resonance or very close to it and much more power can be input.

Maybe not actually at full resonance but close to it. Thing is without the parallel resonance on the Tesla coil primary less power can be input. How can more resistance mean easier current flow ?

EDIT: The control circuit in these two video's is a fixed frequency CMOS logic gate oscillator with a fixed pulse width and it is not changed so the exciting pulses are unchanged, the only change in the video is tuning the primary to parallel resonance. JUst ignore the ringing on the gate I fixed that I think from memory.

In the video below when I adjust the primary capacitor to parallel resonance the input increases a lot and the secondary resonates much stronger. How is that possible with infinite resistance ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJZoENDhero

If I tune away from resonance the output and input is virtually nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEX9MKBhVZk 


So you can see why I don't buy it.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

No no. what I mean is that other side of the coil , for imaginary purposes, can drive another rotor without speed drop of the first rotor. Geddit?      So if you had a core that directs the N and S of the coil to just one rotor where the N of the coil is pulling on the rotor magnet and the S of the coil is pushing at the same time, you will get more motive force on the rotor.  That was all I was suggesting.


Mags

Mags I don't think that is the case, my experiments tell me that if the coil pushes a rotor from both ends less energy will be recovered from the collapsing magnetic field because more energy is imparted to the second rotor. So basically I think if the input is fixed voltage and current then driving a second rotor will slow down the first one or return less energy from the magnetic filed collapse, if the input power is not fixed then I think the input power would increase.

Bottom line is I don't think it is free work to drive a rotor with a coil. How can it be ? How could the rotor get energy if not from the coil ? And if it gets energy from the coil then the coils energy must decrease or the input must increase. Seems like good logic to me.

I can actually see the voltage in my charging cap increase when I move the charging coil away from the rotor and the cap voltage decreases when I move it in to speed up the rotor. It's pretty conclusive to me when the coil drives a rotor energy is imparted to the rotor from the coil and the coils magnetic field energy decreases. As it must, or the rotor would get no energy and not turn.

Just what I'm seeing, I've got video of that.

Cheers

[Magluvin]

Mags I don't think that is the case, my experiments tell me that if the coil pushes a rotor from both ends less energy will be recovered from the collapsing magnetic field because more energy is imparted to the second rotor. So basically I think if the input is fixed voltage and current then driving a second rotor will slow down the first one or return less energy from the magnetic filed collapse, if the input power is not fixed then I think the input power would increase.

Bottom line is I don't think it is free work to drive a rotor with a coil. How can it be ? How could the rotor get energy if not from the coil ? And if it gets energy from the coil then the coils energy must decrease or the input must increase. Seems like good logic to me.

I can actually see the voltage in my charging cap increase when I move the charging coil away from the rotor and the cap voltage decreases when I move it in to speed up the rotor. It's pretty conclusive to me when the coil drives a rotor energy is imparted to the rotor from the coil and the coils magnetic field energy decreases. As it must, or the rotor would get no energy and not turn.

Just what I'm seeing, I've got video of that.

Cheers

Oh, then why build it as a motor at all if the 'object' to collect collapse currents? You could just pulse the coil alone and do that. Or are you just trying to split the difference and  get some motive force and some collapse gathering in what your saying?

From what I have found is that if im driving a rotor with an air core while collecting collapse currents, when I introduce a core to the coil my rotor is faster and I get increased collapse output. The core helps control, concentrate and direct the coils field increasing the coils ability to do both better at the same time.

Maybe what you are doing and your goals are different somehow.

Mags

[Magluvin]

Magluvin:

The only way to get a faster reaction out of the coil is to increase the drive voltage.  The coil integrates voltage with respect to time to yield current.  How do you get a flywheel to spin up faster?  More torque.

Without increasing the voltage your impulse might charge some capacitance.  That will not give the coil any push against the rotor.  The only way to get the coil to push is to have it generate a magnetic field which leads back to the question of the drive voltage over time.

Your point about the higher RPM meaning less switch-on time and hence lower maximum current through the coil is dead on.  It's all part of the pulse motor finding a quiescent speed.  You can try to optimize stuff like Farmhand is doing and that's finding a higher quiescent speed.

The parameters are the amount of inductance, the switch timing, and the drive voltage.  Faster RPM by default limits the switch-on time, so you can experiment with the amount of inductance and the drive voltage to pump more power into the coil which pumps more power into the rotor to balance out the air and bearing friction.  Hence my fantasy of slowly cranking up the voltage to see what fails first.  Push the sucker past its design limits.

So the inductance is still a wall that you have to push against, series bifilar or not.

I will rephrase that as a question:  What happens when Coil A with current A discharges into Coil B with current B?

Exactly, but that won't push on the rotor!  But what happens after that and how does that relate to the question above?

MileHigh

"The only way to get a faster reaction out of the coil is to increase the drive voltage."

You are talking about a normal coil. You ignore what Tesla, TK(above) and I have been saying about the bifi coil. You just revert back to there is only inductance in the coil. You deny that anything is different in the bifi coil, yet never built one nor tested one as I read it.


"Without increasing the voltage your impulse might charge some capacitance.  That will not give the coil any push against the rotor."   

So what level of voltage does it take to give 'any' push to the rotor?  You are not making any sense. People run motors off of less than 1.5v and up.

"So the inductance is still a wall that you have to push against, series bifilar or not."

Again you are ignoring and refuse to accept what we are discussing in this thread and never built or experienced a bifi coil.   If the bifi were made to oscillate at say 1khz, the pulsing that coil with a 1ms pulse would be accepted into the coil very well as it is in the freq range.


"I will rephrase that as a question:  What happens when Coil A with current A discharges into Coil B with current B?"

Again, and I went over this in my post, you are ignoring facts about the bifi operation because you just cant get past the idea that the bifi is any different than a normal coil.  There really isnt much sense in me trying to describe it to you any further as its clear you are in denial and full rejection of what is being stated in the patent, or you are just not understanding it. I, or anyone can only go so far to break down your wall of disbelief. 

Mags

[Farmhand]

Oh, then why build it as a motor at all if the 'object' to collect collapse currents? You could just pulse the coil alone and do that. Or are you just trying to split the difference and  get some motive force and some collapse gathering in what your saying?

From what I have found is that if im driving a rotor with an air core while collecting collapse currents, when I introduce a core to the coil my rotor is faster and I get increased collapse output. The core helps control, concentrate and direct the coils field increasing the coils ability to do both better at the same time.

Maybe what you are doing and your goals are different somehow.

Mags

Mags, It doesn't have anything to do with collecting the magnetic field energy, it just proves to me that driving a rotor uses some of the magnetic field energy.

When I see that when the charging coil of a resonant charging circuit is helping to drive the rotor is producing less voltage into the charging capacitor than when it doesn't help drive the rotor that is conclusive proof to me that using both ends will reduce the magnetic field energy more than using one end and so the first rotor will get a weaker field for the same input power. It makes no difference if the collapse is collected or not afterwards, driving a rotor takes energy from the field so driving two will take some away from the first.

It's an easy experiment to do and see the actual result.

In case you haven't noticed or don't remember I'm returning the unused magnetic field energy to be reused mainly. So what the rotor uses and losses is the input.

I'm designing and testing a motor to try to make best use of one switching phase and the collapse of magnetic fields to produce torque in a pulse motor.

What is your objective ? I was responding to you saying not using both ends is wasteful, it isn't necessarily wasteful. A boost converter can be well over 90 % efficient and it uses no ends of the coil core. It's solid state. Waste is losses and there are not losses involved in not using one end of a coil if the remaining magnetic field energy is utilized.

Why have a pulse motor and not collect or reuse the remaining energy of the magnetic field to cause more current.

Remember I first doubted the current from the collapse went through the coil, and did the comparison between a snubbed motor coil and one that allows an orderly field collapse
and when snubbed the coil current stops immediately. This means the coil stops pushing the rotor suddenly rather than tapering off the push and pulling the next opposite polarity magnet. 

I'm trying to build a more efficient, more powerful and useful form of pulse motor. So far it looks good.

Cheers