The bifilar pancake coil at its resonant frequency

[MileHigh]

@ MH, TK, Zephir,

Yeah, you guys are right!  Only a fool would rely on stupid scope measurements and I wanna know, how do these guys at Tektronix sleep at night?

pm

I am surprised at the sarcasm in your reply.  For starters, an inductor does not give you OU so why should a pancake coil give you OU?  Your apparent results are easily verifiable with calorimetry considering you are quoting a COP of 1.67.

I reached way back into my memory from my numerical analysis course and the way to compensate for sampling and quantization errors is to use true random sampling of a waveform.  There is a general area of study with many useful applications called "Monte Carlo methods."

Here is a link about using Monte Carlo methods for calculating an integral with discrete samples:

https://www.scratchapixel.com/lessons/mathematics-physics-for-computer-graphics/monte-carlo-methods-in-practice/monte-carlo-integration

Quote:

As you may remember, the integral of a function f(x) can be interpreted as calculating the area below the function's curve. This idea is illustrated in figure 1. Now imagine that we just pick up a random value, say x in the range [a,b], evaluate the function f(x) at x and multiply the result by (b-a). Figure 2 shows what the result looks like: it's another rectangle (where f(x) is the height of that rectangle and (b-a) its width), which in a way you can also look at a very crude approximation of the area under the curve. Of couse we maybe get it more or less right. If we evaluate the function at x1 (figure 3) we quite drastically underestimate this area. If we evaluate the function at x2, we over estimate the area. But as we keep evaluating the function at different random points between a and b, adding up the area of the rectangles and averaging the sum, the resulting number gets closer and closer to the actual result of the integral. It's not surprising in a way as the rectangles which are too large compensate for the rectangles which are too small. And in fact, we will soon give the proof that summing them up and averaging their areas actually converges to the integral "area" as the number of samples used in the calculation increases. This idea is illustrated in the following figure. The function was evaluated in four different locations. The result of the function as these four values of x randomly chosen, are then multiplied by (b-a), summed up and averaged (we divide the sum by 4). The result can be considered as an approximation of the actual integral.

I seriously doubt your DSO is using Monte Carlo methods and since you are in pretty grainy territory the confidence that your measurement is OU is very low.

MileHigh

[Zephir]

The oscilloscope is great until you're tinkering and if you need to find a working point of transistor or resonance frequency of circuit - but once you claim overunity, then the self-looped (self-running) circuit cannot beat any preliminary test. The power measurements are notoriously unreliable due to (displacement) power factor poorly defined at high frequencies, crosstalks of signal into scope probe and so on..

an inductor does not give you OU so why should a pancake coil give you OU

Because the pancake coil has the evanescent scalar wave phenomena enhanced - whereas the normal inductors have them suppressed. The tunneling of EM wave through evanescent field runs with superluminal speed, whereas EM wave in classical circuits always propagates with speed of light or lower. The overunity is extradimensional, normal causality violating effect in essence and the normal spreading of EM waves along conductors cannot achieve it.

[MileHigh]

Lol   Nowadays we are arrested for having and not having.
If you do not show them any shot scope, they would ask for those same shot scope ...

Then they will say that it needs to be validated by people competent for this work ... I can only think of someone with enough knowledge to do this validation, MH or TK Team marvel. or should i call cheezburger team ?

Nelson Rocha

Well, thanks for the sarcastic comment stating that I must possess enough knowledge.

Do you remember saying this?

like you told   "Sorry, but I personally have very low confidence in TheOldScientist" i feel exactly the same in relation to you .

Did you read the thread about understanding coil discharges that Carroll linked to?

http://overunity.com/16203/inductive-kickback/

Did you see how hard I worked to help other people in that thread?  Did you see how I offered multiple explanations to help people understand?  I must be such a terrible person, eh Nelson?  On a side note, I looked through that thread again and when I read it I recalled good old Luc calling me a "troll" a few months ago.   He deserves a swift kick in the ass for saying that.

And in this thread I have read many really nasty and ugly ad hominem attacks from you against me.  In case you don't know what that means, let me remind you:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

And I have read lots of straw man arguments from you about me.  In case you don't know what that means, let me remind you:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

I have asked you to back up your technical claims with logical arguments and you have never done it once.  I am operating on the assumption that you are a beginner and you simply were unable to back up your technical claims.  You simply said those things because they are "buzz phrases" that beginning amateur experimenters use all the time.

So, going forward, I welcome any contribution to this thread by you.  But I don't want any more ad hominem attacks on me, nor do I want any straw man arguments being made about me, nor do I want any fake technical claims being made by you that you can't back up with logical arguments.  Does that sound reasonable?

If the subject matter is above your technical level, then try to learn, keep your hands in your pockets, relax, and watch the blinking lights.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Because the pancake coil has the evanescent scalar wave phenomena enhanced - whereas the normal inductors have them suppressed. The tunneling of EM wave through evanescent field runs with superluminal speed, whereas EM wave in classical circuits always propagates with speed of light or lower. The overunity is extradimensional effect in essence and the spreading of EM waves along conductors cannot achieve it.

Before you get into your esoterica I suggest that you read the thread that Carroll linked to and try to understand how a coil discharges.  The dawning of the Age of Aquarius is going to have to wait.

[citfta]

MileHigh,

I love that sign!  We used to have one just like it on one of the beam welders I used to work on.  You gave me a nice laugh posting that.  I saved it so I can put it up in my shop.

Thanks,
Carroll