Vortex Coils - Design and Measurements

[earthbound0729]

Good day to all.
earthbound here. I have done a recent search here related to anything Vortex and it seems to be lacking to some degree in hits,
albeit there were some interesting posts, but going way back.

Any new systematic research being done?

Last year I built my first Star-Challis counterwound coil based on Mike Powers video on Youtube after spending considerable
time looking at other videos and reading about the Vortex design in general:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c7tt7XVd-I

Unfortunately, I didn't have the setup to even get it running until recently. The help by cifta and others here dealing with my
earlier 8 filar Bedini problems helped me a great deal to get a dependable working SSG circuit, which then was easily used to
get my Star-Challis design working. No need for Hall Effect sensor setup, although I built one.

As I mentioned in an earlier post as well, I don't have an oscilloscope to do really accurate and convincing research to go into depth
concerning this coil design (or others) and regarding the electronics of the coil and circuit, and maybe like so many others, I never even thought
about measurements of lengths of copper wire, etc. to  be able to make useful comparisons for the future.

Allow me to give a brief synopsis of this particular study as a preview for the background of my questions and comments.
1. Star-Challis counterwound vortex coil design- bifilar- trigger is 28 gg and the Main is 24 gg- both common magnet wire type
2. Various sized neodymium spheres from 1/4 - 3/4"
3. Circuit -SSG Bedini--transistor C5027-R, various diodes 1N4001 and 1N4007, Neon lamp 100v, No resistor used at the moment and no potentiometer
4. Breadboard to hold components
5. Homemade bridge rectifier with soldered leads
6. 12 volt 18ah rechargeable batteries- 1 for Run, 1 for Charge (if I'm using it-otherwise the 200 v caps act like the Charge battery in my circuit)
7. Various electrolytic capacitors: 35 volt 1000uf, 200 volt 680uf (2 in parallel), 330wv 120uf photo flash type
8. Hall effect sensor with length of cabling-available but not needed
9. The neo sphere sits inside of a small plastic medicine cup
10. My meter is a Klein Tools CL200 from Home Depot.

Comments or Observations I have made
1. Using a 3/4" neo sphere the system easily starts-the exact RPM is not known- no measuring equip for that. I have seen
    calculations of up to several hundred thousand RPM listed on Youtube vids.
2. The sphere does not spin down inside the coil very much but must at least be flush with the top surface of the interior parts
    for best results.
3. Voltage measurement with a common digital meter shows an AC voltage of approx 9.7 coming from the Main wires.
4. The 200 volt caps charge much faster (probably) because of the increased voltage, than they did on my trials with my Bedini
    energizer using a skateboard wheel rotor and 4 neo magnets on the same circuit
5. The magnetic field on this air core coil should not create the same amount of magnetic flux as I would expect on my iron core
    8 filar coil, all things being equal, according to current magnetic theory.
6. The only moving part is the 3/4" neo sphere
7. Maybe my increase in voltage is due to:
    a. More linear feet of Main copper wire in this coil
    b. Greater discharge frequency due to the rotational speed of the neo sphere compared to my Bedini 4 magnet rotor
    c. Combination of the 2 above
    d. Something else altogether
8. The transistor stays cool without a heatsink.
9. The coil wires do not get more than noticeably warm. Always easy to touch.
10. The Star-Challis doesn't charge the Charge battery any better than my standard Bedini rotor rig, but definitely charges the
      200 volt parallel caps better.

What I am most most interested in would be substituting the batteries for a complete capacitor switchout, since I've read that
the capacitors have a very high efficiency for the energy input, especially compared to batteries.

As I mentioned to cifta, my bridge rectifier circuit should be rebuilt using Schottky diodes or another type of diode having low
forward voltage loss and useful voltage and amperage ratings for my system.

I appreciate any comments and insights, factual knowledge, either personal or gleaned from other's research.

TY,
earthbound

[TinselKoala]

Now, you should wind another coil pair with the same amount of wires and the same number of turns, but as a simple cylindrical (solenoidal) coil. Compare the spinning of the neo ball with your "vortex" coil and the ordinary cylindrical coil when driven by the same circuitry and the same power levels.

Doing systematic research involves setting up and performing the _correct_ control experiments to test your hypotheses. Here, the hypothesis seems to be that there is something special about this "vortex" coil that justifies all the extra effort involved in constructing it. But you'll never know if this is correct or not, unless you actually do the appropriate comparison (control) experiments.

[earthbound0729]

TinselKoala, thanks for the reply. Definitely setting up a hypothesis is something I can do.
A couple of things please.

1. Do I need the actual number of turns to be the same,
2. Or should I be looking rather at the resistance in each set of coil wires to be sure they are the same?


With my Bedini coil for instance, I used the length of each filar wind of 125' as recommended by Bedini.

Here is a table of wire resistences from which I should be able to calculate the unknowns against my knowns.
http://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/AWG.phtml

Thanks,
earthbound

[TinselKoala]

TinselKoala, thanks for the reply. Definitely setting up a hypothesis is something I can do.
A couple of things please.

1. Do I need the actual number of turns to be the same,
2. Or should I be looking rather at the resistance in each set of coil wires to be sure they are the same?


With my Bedini coil for instance, I used the length of each filar wind of 125' as recommended by Bedini.

Here is a table of wire resistences from which I should be able to calculate the unknowns against my knowns.
http://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/AWG.phtml

Thanks,
earthbound

Well, what I'd like to see is a test of the hypothesis that there is something special about the "vortex" coil winding architecture that makes it perform differently than a normal, solenoidally or cylindrically wound coil. So the first thing to do is to answer the question of whether or not it really does make a difference.

The behaviour of the spinning sphere magnet, in terms of RPM vs. applied frequency and voltage, is the "Dependent Variable" of interest, that should show some differences if the coil type matters. Right? So you want to test just the coil winding type in your comparison. (This is the "Independent Variable" that is under the experimenter's control, to see if it affects the "Dependent Variable".)

So you should try to keep all other factors, other than the vortex vs. cylindrical winding method, the same between the two test articles. Using the same length of wire(s) should give you the same DC resistance and, if you are careful, the same number of overall turns.

It might be nice to measure the inductances of the two types of windings to see if they are significantly different, and if they are different, another experiment might be performed where a standard coil was made with the same inductance of the vortex coil, which might require using a different wire length and/or different DC resistance values.

You'd be using the same driving method for each experimental run, of course, because you don't want to introduce "third variables" that would make the interpretation of your results more difficult. Just vary one thing (the Independent Variable) at a time, to see the effect on the Dependent Variable (the spinning of the sphere magnet.)

[earthbound0729]

Thank you TinselKoala for your insights.
It may take a little while to get the coil wound up to specs, but that will be my current energy expenditure for a bit.
I have plenty of 20 gg wire and some 24 and 28.

Another thing, should this new coil have an iron core or not, since we are trying to compare apples to apples?
It would be easy enough to add after doing experiments as an air core.

The same number of turns should actually be difficult to keep the same just because of the geometry of the Star-Challis, its
over width on its points especially.

TY again,
earthbound