The bifilar pancake coil at its resonant frequency

[synchro1]

@Tinman,

Here's a diagram of positive and negative current traveling in the same direction. The "Negative Current" is represented by the green colored upside down curve below the zero line:

[synchro1]

As MH said,your question makes no sense.

The Tesla is a measure of magnetic field strength-not magnetic flux density.

It's no wonder no one wants to answer your questions--they make no sense.


Brad

@Tinman,

"A flux density of 1 Wb/m2 is 1 tesla".

[synchro1]

Doubling down on a losing hand AGAIN?

The "problem" here is that you don't understand your chosen topic, and your "explanations" are bogus, simply wrong. When the magnetic field collapses in a coil, the current continues in the SAME DIRECTION out of the coil, driven by the magnetic field's collapse. We have been over and over this, you have been presented with many references and demonstrations, but you persist in your easily falsifiable claims.

Why is there a "flyback diode" across a relay coil? Why do the LEDs behave as they do in my demonstrations? Why do Mile High, Cifta, TinMan, and every other knowledgeable poster here agree on this issue, but you don't?  It is because you don't know what you are talking about.

"Negative current" is your misnomer for CURRENT flowing one way, "Positive current" is your misnomer for CURRENT flowing the other way. CURRENT in wires is the flow of CHARGE, that is, the NEGATIVE UNIT CHARGE carried by electrons. The AMPERE is the unit of CURRENT, and it is measured in COULOMBS of CHARGE per SECOND.

@Tinselkoala,

You're right, when the magnetic field collapses, the current continues to travel in the same direction except it's the bottom half of a sine wave with a negative value. You, Milehigh, Citfa and Tinman and a host of others continue to confuse people about the nature of A.C. current, like the current that's generated by the Ruhmkorff coil secondary when the current's interrupted in the primary. You are a shameless fraud.

Lawrence Tseung stated that "Negative Current" is the pathway to Overunity. That's why you continue to help keep people confused about it. You don't want it! Everyone knows you Judas Priests are nothing but paid Lackeys for the "Fossil Fuel Lobby". Go to hell and burn there for all eternity you Satanic fraud, and take your pack Jackels with you!

[MileHigh]

First I have to say that you simply interpreting that the coil is 10ohms gives your offering whatever outcome you are trying to convince others of.

Why cant the coil be 1ohm? or even .5ohm? Clearly he is not using wire that would have a 10ohm outcome. Looks to be 18 to 20ga, where 10ohms on that would mean he is using some resistive wire of sorts. Im only pointing that out as you used his 34uh coil and 49pf in your example. Saying or say, assuming his coil is 10ohm just by looking at it is a pretty big misstep in my opinion and using that 10ohm example changes what the actual outcome that you show and id say its totally misleading. Take another look at those coils. Did he say they were 10ohm? How many feet of wire do you think are on those coils? lets say that we can agree that the wire looks to be even 20ga. Do you still 'feel' that the resistance would be anything close to 10ohms? When you buy a cheap stereo system for the home and it comes with 2 10ft roles of say 20ga wire and the speaker is, now a days, 4ohm, what would 10ohms of resistance in the wire do to the outcome of the speaker output?

I just measured a 100ft roll of 18ga wire. 100ft!  1.4ohm     So would you say that his coils look like there is 700ft of wire there?

Now, if the coil did have 700ft of wire in order for the resistance to be 10ohm, then that completely changes the outcome of the inductance AND capacitance of which you are using in your example, big time. So you may need to rewrite you thesis on that one.


You say that he is feeding the coil 10w to keep it going at resonance. In my experience, at resonance the input is largely minimized. Where did you get that number??

Mags

Sure, I made a mistake, but I certainly didn't make it on purpose.  I know Conrad documents himself very well, but in this case I failed to read his text description and I just didn't have the stomach to watch the clips again to see if he mentioned the resistance.  I had just watched TK's clip where his resistance reading was about 10 ohms so I used that.  That's why I say, "if we assume a 10-ohm coil."

So Gyula did the calculation based on the true resistance of 0.4 ohms.

We go from this:  114 watts dissipation for 392 microjoules of energy storage

To this:  4.59 watts dissipation for 392 microjpules of energy storage

In the wrong case we have 10^2 dissipation for 10^-4 of energy storage, that's six orders of magnitude difference.

In the correct case we have 10^0 dissipation for 10^-4 of energy storage, that's four orders of magnitude difference.

The conclusion?  The point I made still stands, you pump a lot of power into a self-resonating series bifilar pancake coil to store a minuscule amount of energy.

What you also should appreciate is that you and others have been talking about bifilar coils for something like seven years, and I am willing to bet that you have never seen anyone do this very simple approximate power and energy analysis for a bifilar coil.  Why is that if you are supposed to be so fascinated with this patent?

You say that he is feeding the coil 10w to keep it going at resonance. In my experience, at resonance the input is largely minimized. Where did you get that number??

Just go read the posting again to see where I get the number.

Finally, I will highlight (and correct) what I said again below because I am looking for an answer from you and from all people that talk about this patent and glorify the Tesla series bifilar coil:

So the questions must be asked:  SO WHAT, and WHY?

Why would I want to store a measly 392 mircojoules of energy in a resonant cavity blazing away at 3.9 megahertz when I have to continuously pump 4.59 watts into the series bifilar pancake coil to sustain the resonance?

What precisely is that going to do for me?

[MileHigh]

I was on chat with someone that while we were talking, he inspired me to think beyond what is known commonly with the bifilar coils. He would not give me any answers, but made me think as we went along. So i came up with, is there a difference between the induction of 2 coils of a transformer if when the windings are separate, like side by side, or 1st layer and second layer, as compared to a bifilar winding used as a pri and sec for each conductor in the winding, and he said, "now your thinking"

So that is my next experiment. Never though to try that. Hopefully others will give it a go.  This was some weeks ago. I have recently thought, well what if we want a step up or step down? What happens with the extra turns of the step up secondary if it doesnt have any more primary to roll with?  Anyway, Ill go for the 1 to 1 and do some things to see if there is anything to it.

When you are talking about a conventional transformer with a core, then the differences are essentially going to be zero.  There is no logical or rational reason for there there to be any real differences.  It doesn't matter if the windings are separate or side by side or on opposite sides of the core.  The primary winding will pump almost 100% of its flux into the high-permeability core irregardless of if the secondary winding is separate from it or inter-meshed with it.  Likewise the only thing that the secondary winding cares about is the fact that it sees changing flux through the core that it is wrapped around.

It sometimes blows my mind how people can't seem to work these things out in their heads by applying their knowledge.  It seems so many people chase after imaginary things like some sort of fairy tale superstition.  It's the same deal with the series bifilar coil, pancake or otherwise.  They are almost indignant that you pose questions about it's application and practicality.  Yet, so far, it seems nobody can actually answer these questions.