Author Topic: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils (Read 55348 times)

MileHigh · « **Reply #30 on:** February 01, 2014, 02:01:40 AM »

Conrad:

Your scope can do all the mathematical operations including squaring a waveform. Pretty impressive, it's all so simple when it comes to the guts. It's possible it's just a motherboard inside the box running Linux. So it's possible to generate some interesting waveforms.

Your transformer should work fine on the ferrite rod but it will have less power transfer capability than the equivalent toroidal core.

Gyula:

Thanks for crunching the numbers. The lady is exposed! I remember the "delayed Lenz effect" craze about two years ago. Farmhand spotted it also. But to make a better case you need real numbers. It's a pity that this basic measurement was not done very often. I don't watch many YouTube clips anymore but I don't recall seeing anyone making the power measurements on a delayed Lenz effect clip.

Quote

Without the load, the high dissipation was "insured" by continuously maintaining the resonant high AC current circulating in the LC tank by induction from the rotated magnet, the induced voltage across the tank was 22.8 V RMS, while in the loaded case the induced voltage was only 7.6 V RMS (the 100 Ohm attenuated the LC tank) so inside the tank the circulating current was also less, (loaded Q, induced voltage and circulating current in an LC tank are interrelated of course).

Exactly, and I have one thing to add. There were comments about no load with the signal generator driving a parallel LC resonator and the pick-up coil as an LC resonator when you connect a capacitor. They are not the same circuit at all.

Farmhand:

I posted before how myself and Poynt were on a thread with Thane looking at one of his new setups. To put it bluntly, it was yet another nonsensical magnetic circuit. Also, he clearly did not have 'it' - the ability to demonstrate competence and knowledge in analyzing his setup and using his equipment. I was a bit shocked.

I also suspect that the 'big reveal' about the 'delayed Lenz effect' may be the mechanism behind a lot of his older clips from four or five years ago.

MileHigh

gotoluc · « **Reply #31 on:** February 01, 2014, 07:09:43 AM »

Hi everyone,

Thank you Conrad for starting this excellent topic and sharing your research results.

I would like to share a video I made today of a Bifilar Toroid I am presently testing since I am presently also testing the benefits of Bifilar coils.

Link to video demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQe49jH_3lA&feature=youtu.be

Please note an error in the video, I keep saying the time division in micro seconds when it's mostly all in milli seconds.

Also, please use the link below if you wish to comment about my video so not to create confusion in Conrad's topic.
http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg385814/#msg385814

Luc

synchro1 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 02, 2014, 03:48:50 AM »

Quote from Farmhand,

"The BiTT is another nice piece of sillyness. Claiming 1000 times OU with less than flea power and drawing lines on the scope.. Pffft. What a scammer. The piper will come for his dues from Thane, and all the other scammers. I'm surprised NASA allowed him to use their responses to his emails and demo's mentioned to be for them for so long. If I was them I would have forced him to remove any reference to NASA from his you tube page and his website ect. They look bad enough without associating with scammers like Thane.

In my humble opinion Thane probably paid the Overunityguide entity to do the tests and post the results and tests that he did for him, a true shill was Overunityguide. No sign of him before or since and no other subject was touched on by him.

It's time Thane was outed, as the body of evidence showing he is actively lying to push his agenda is substantial and damning in my opinion.

How much time and experimenter effort has he caused to be wasted ? And how many people has he put in danger trying to replicate his lies ?

To Thane, come and post in this thread. And explain to us why we should not denounce you as a scammer or a misinformation agent".

@Farmhand,

This is some pretty damning language coming from someone who appealed to sensitivity towards others in my case. Thane's an acknowledged inventor with excellent academic credentials and deserves at least the minimum degree of respect you demanded from me. You performed one experiment that I'm aware of, with a cockney accent! Thane's BITT transformer has been replicated by numerous respected people. Get off your throne!

conradelektro · « **Reply #33 on:** February 02, 2014, 08:52:32 PM »

I wound two helical coils, one monofilar and the other bifilar.

Coil parameters:

10 mm Ferrite core or air core, length 50 mm
length of coil former 50 mm
length of winding 42 mm
19 layers, ~160 turns each layer, ~3000 turns (~1500 bifilar)
monofilar: tap between layer 8 and 9
bifilar: tap between layer 10 and 11
paper between each layer
0.22 mm wire diameter

DC resistance 77 Ohm

inductance air core L = ~48.8 mH (100 Hz)
inductance air core one wire of bifilar L = 12,2 mH (100 Hz)

inductance Ferrite core L = 357 mH monofilar, L = 367 mH bifilar (100 Hz)
inductance Ferrite core one wire of bifilar L = 92,5 mH (100 Hz)

The monofilar coil is wound a bit tighter (more tension during winding) than the bifilar coil, therefore the diameter of the bifilar coil is about 2 mm greater than the diameter of the monofilar coil (which seems to explain the ~3% higher induction of the bifilar coil with a Ferrite core)

I also made a 1:1 transformer for the function generator:

1:1 transformer:

http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/etd49-25-16-3c90/ferrite-core-half-etd49-3c90/dp/3056417?Ntt=3056417
FERROXCUBE - ETD49/25/16-3C90 - FERRITE CORE, HALF, ETD49, 3C90
Farnell Order Code: 3056417 (order 2 halves)

http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/cph-etd49-1s-20p/bobbin-etd49-1-section-20pin/dp/3056338?Ntt=3056338
FERROXCUBE - CPH-ETD49-1S-20P - BOBBIN, ETD49, 1 SECTION, 20PIN
Farnell Order Code: 3056338

http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/cli-etd49/ferritringkern-klammer/dp/105778?Ntt=105778
FERROXCUBE - CLI-ETD49 - CLIP
Farnell Order Code: 105778 (order 2 clips)

7 layers, ~16 turns, ~110 turns bifilar
0.8 mm wire diameter

DC resistance 0.4 Ohm
inductance 34.7 mH each of the two 110 turn wire windings

I will do some tests soon.

Greetings, Conrad

conradelektro · « **Reply #34 on:** February 03, 2014, 03:35:50 PM »

I measured the self resonance and the self capacitance of my new monofilar and bifilar coil (see photo and other parameters in my last post):

self resonance monofilar air core 101 KHz (harmonic square wave 33.7 KHz)
self resonance bifilar air core 9.3 KHz (harmonic square wave 3.1 KHz)

self resonance monofilar Ferrite core 38 KHz (harmonic square wave 12.8 KHz)
self resonance bifilar Ferrite core 3.35 KHz (harmonic square wave 1.1 KHz)

http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (calculator: Hertz, MilliHenrys --> Farad)

self capacitance monofilar air core 5 pF (scope probe 1 pF in series)
self capacitance monofilar Ferrite core 5 pF (scope probe 1 pF in series)

self capacitance bifilar air core 6 nF (scope probe 1 pF in series)
self capacitance bifilar Ferrite core 6 nF (scope probe 1 pF in series)

The difference in self resonance and self capacitance are big in these new coils (in comparison with the pan cake coils).

I attache all coil parameters as PDF-file.

Greetings, Conrad

synchro1 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 03, 2014, 08:54:16 PM »

The "Old Scientist" measures one half the resistance 5.86 Ohms in his series bifilar solenoid compared to the single wire solenoid of same wire length and gauge at 11 Ohms. I don't understand why you indicate the same resistance in both types of coil wraps in contradiction to the "Old Scientisit's" measurements, or am I missing something? The disappearance of half the Ohmic resistance in Tesla's SBC amounts to a deep mystery to me. Haven't you tested for this difference yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAZ6heorEc&list=UUNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA

conradelektro · « **Reply #36 on:** February 03, 2014, 09:59:10 PM »

I did a "speed up under load" experiment with the monofilar coil

(because my last speed up experiment was done with an old bifilar coil, see my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXQBpuLu68).

It would be nice of the experts to verify my power dissipation calculations (see the scope shot and the calculation on the attached drawing). I did the calculation as Gyula showed in his post http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg385763/#msg385763.

Calculation also here:

monofilar coil (DC resistance 77 Ohm, Ferrite core)

no load, resonance at 90 Hz rotor speed, motor power consumption 5.4 V and 1.12 A
dissipation in LC circuit: 0.148 * 0.148 * 77 = 1.68 Watt
(motor needs 5,4 * 1.12 = 6.04 Watt)

85 Ohm load, 98 Hz rotor speed, motor power consumption 5.4 V and 0.81 A
dissipation in LC circuit: 0.06 * 0.06 * 77 = 0.27 Watt
dissipation in 85 Ohm load: (4.8 / 85) * 4.8 = 0.27 Watt
in sum 0.54 Watt
(motor needs 5.4 * 0.81 = 4.37 Watt)

If the load is around 80 Ohm the power dissipation in the LC circuit and in the load seem to be about equal (at least at 98 Hz rotor speed).

Greetings, Conrad

Farmhand · « **Reply #37 on:** February 03, 2014, 10:14:41 PM »

Conrad, you could maybe check the output impedance of the coil using the Thevenin Theorem. It's not as complicated as it looks.
Thevenin's Theorem
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/acthev.html#c1

Simply note the output open circuit voltage then short the output and measure the current through the coil. Then divide the open circuit voltage by the current and it tells us the output "impedance" in Ohms.

Going by your results the output impedance should be about 80 Ohms. The output impedance consists of both the DC resistance and the AC reactance.

Calculations look good to me but I'm no expert.

Cheers

conradelektro · « **Reply #38 on:** February 03, 2014, 10:53:27 PM »

Quote from: Farmhand on February 03, 2014, 10:14:41 PM

Conrad, you could maybe check the output impedance of the coil using the Thevenin Theorem. It's not as complicated as it looks.
Thevenin's Theorem
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/acthev.html#c1

Simply note the output open circuit voltage then short the output and measure the current through the coil. Then divide the open circuit voltage by the current and it tells us the output "impedance" in Ohms.

Going by your results the output impedance should be about 80 Ohms. The output impedance consists of both the DC resistance and the AC reactance.

Calculations look good to me but I'm no expert.

Cheers

@Farmhand: Thank you for looking up Thevenin's Theorem. You can see the "open circuit Voltage" on the scope shot on the left in my last post, it is 25,6 Volt (true rms, at the resonance situation with 90 Hz rotor speed).

I just measured the current through the 1 Ohm resistor if I shorten the output; it is 60 mA (speed goes to 98 Hz).

The Thevenin's Theorem calculation: 25.6 / 0.06 = 426 Ohm

Now, I put a 420 Ohm load resistor (1 K pot, 4 Watt) at the output and the situation is a s follows:

speed goes to 95 Hz, see the attached scope shot, circuit as in my last post

Dissipation in the LC circuit: 0.088 * 0.088 * 77 = 0.59 Watt

Dissipation in the load: (13.6 / 420) * 13.6 = 0.44 Watt (motor needs 5.4 V * 0.97 A = 5.2 Watt)

Well, the situation with a 420 Ohm load seems to be better than with a 85 Ohm load: the total output rose to 1.03 Watt (but there was also more load on the motor)

85 Ohm load: total power dissipation 0.27 + 0.27 = 0.54 Watt (motor needs 4.37 Watt)

420 Ohm load: total power dissipation 0.59 + 0.44 = 1.03 Watt (motor needs 5.2 Watt)

Just to clarify, all measurements and tests are done like this:

- I set the power supply to 5.4 Volt which causes the rotor to turn at 90 Hz (148 mV over 1 Ohm shunt, 25.6 Volt over coil or 10 µF cap)

- then I shorten the output (60 mV over 1 Ohm shunt)

- or I put a 85 Ohm load resistor over the output (60 mV over 1 Ohm shunt, 4.8 Volt over 85 Ohm load)

- or I put a 420 Ohm load resistor over the output (88 mV over 1 Ohm shunt, 13.6 V over 420 Ohm load)

Greetings, Conrad

Farmhand · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2014, 11:45:20 PM »

Well the theorem seems to hold, it can tell us what resistance will show the most power for a given coil at a certain frequency. if the speed changes during tests and so forth (unlike a wall transformer) then some tuning would be needed, but the Theorem can guide us to max power output maybe. Interesting.

Cheers

MileHigh · « **Reply #40 on:** February 04, 2014, 01:00:56 AM »

Conrad:

In reference to your coil resonance measurements and self-capacitance calculation:

Since you are seeing such a radically different self-capacitance between the two coils you wound, I would think it merits some further consideration and testing. I believe that others have shown only a marginal difference between the self-capacitances between two similar coils, including you yourself if I recall correctly for a different build.

My suggestion would be to measure the self-capacitance in one or two other ways to see if you get consistent results in accord with your first set of measurements. I am not saying your measurements are wrong. Rather, I am saying that they merit being double-checked via one or more alternative methods.

MileHigh

gyulasun · « **Reply #41 on:** February 04, 2014, 01:42:35 AM »

Quote from: Farmhand on February 03, 2014, 11:45:20 PM

Well the theorem seems to hold, it can tell us what resistance will show the most power for a given coil at a certain frequency. if the speed changes during tests and so forth (unlike a wall transformer) then some tuning would be needed, but the Theorem can guide us to max power output maybe. Interesting.

Cheers

Hi Farmhand,

Yes, the Thevenin theorem is useful, it reveals (among other things) that the inductive reactance of the generator coil also influences the output power when trying to use a "matched" load: in fact for AC generators a 'complex conjugate' load would represent a perfect power match. IT means a tuned case where the inductive reactance of the gen coil is compensated by an equal value capacitive reactance on the load side and there remains the DC resistance of the generator coil to be also matched for the resistive part of the load (a real power factor compensation if you like).

This condition is nicely fulfilled in this setup, because the coils reactance is surely compensated for by the 10 uF tuning capacitor and there is resonance, still Conrad found that a higher power output can be had by using a cca 420 Ohm load resistor instead of using a load equal to the coil DC resistance. The explanation is that for a parallel LC resonant tank circuit, when the load comes also in parallel with the tank, it is the unloaded Z impedance of the tank which is to be considered as the impedance to be matched to the load. This unloaded Z impedance is governed by the Q quality factor of the tank, mainly by the coil, the Q is Q=XL/r and then the Z impedance is Q*XL. So the unloaded Q comes out as roughly 2.7 (monofilar coil with ferrite, at 95 Hz, r=77 Ohm) and the Z impedance comes as roughly 575 Ohm (this a little higher than the 425 Ohm Thevenin value but maybe still within ballpark). So perhaps the correct power-matched load would be around 570 Ohm for the monofilar coil case.

IF you arrange the generator coil so that the load would be connected in series with the 10 uF capacitor (i.e. you would have a series LC tank into which you would insert the load) then the power matched load would really be that of the coil's DC resistance i.e. the 77 Ohm (provided that the core and capacitor losses would be negligible with respect to the loss on the 77 Ohm). This is because in a series resonant LC circuit there is no transformed Z impedance towards a load when inserted also in series into the series LC circuit, while in case of a parallel LC tank with a parallel connected load, the mainly coil's DC resistance gets transformed up by the Q of the LC tank to establish the tank impeadance which is a real resistive value at resonance.

Gyula

Farmhand · « **Reply #42 on:** February 04, 2014, 03:33:18 AM »

That makes complete sense even though I didn't look into the calculations, yet !

I hope you guys know we do learn a lot from a well worded response like that.

Thank you very much Gyula.

So it would be interesting if Conrad did try the higher resistance you calculated and also tried to get a similar power transfer via the series circuit. I applaud Conrad for his perseverance and willingness to embrace learning. It really helps others like me as well. I need to be able to calculate reactance to be expected from a given coil at a certain frequency. Would be very helpful to be able to wind to a target "output impedance".

Cheers

synchro1 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 04, 2014, 05:02:22 AM »

Quote from: synchro1 on February 03, 2014, 08:54:16 PM

The "Old Scientist" measures one half the resistance 5.86 Ohms in his series bifilar solenoid compared to the single wire solenoid of same wire length and gauge at 11 Ohms. I don't understand why you indicate the same resistance in both types of coil wraps in contradiction to the "Old Scientisit's" measurements, or am I missing something? The disappearance of half the Ohmic resistance in Tesla's SBC amounts to a deep mystery to me. Haven't you tested for this difference yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAZ6heorEc&list=UUNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA

@Conradelektro,

Voltage is inversely proportional to Ohmic resistance, so it would follow that the SBPC with half the Ohms would only require half the voltage to produce the same magnetic field strength. Why not retry those magnetic compass deflection experiments once more with half the voltage in the SBC pancake, and see if the field strength remains equal?

conradelektro · « **Reply #44 on:** February 04, 2014, 02:59:04 PM »

Gyula, thank you for the Q factor calculations (I documented this method in the attached PDF file).

I tested a few more load resistors (300 Ohm, 570 Ohm, 1000 Ohm) which were connected after the pick up coil was in resonance (90 Hz) with the parallel 10 µF cap. Depending on the load resistor (short circuit up to 1000 Ohm) the speed up and the reduced power draw were more or less pronounced.

It seems that a load resistor of around 420 Ohm gives the highest output of 0.44 Watt in the load resistor (but also a considerable power dissipation in the parallel LC circuit of 0.59 Watt). A load resistor of 85 Ohm or a short circuit gives the highest speed up, the lowest power draw of the motor and an equal power dissipation in the LC circuit and in the 85 Ohm load of about 0.27 Watt.

See the attached PDF-file for all measurements.

I will now measure the self resonance and the self capacitance of the two coils with different methods (the method I already did was with an exciter coil of three turns), see this post http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg386148/#msg386148

Greetings, Conrad

For all who are not closely following this thread, look at this post to understand the "speed up under load" experiment http://www.overunity.com/14235/some-tests-on-mono-and-bifilar-coils/msg386184/#msg386184

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils (Read 55348 times)

MileHigh

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

gotoluc

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

synchro1

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

synchro1

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

Farmhand

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

Farmhand

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

MileHigh

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

gyulasun

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

Farmhand

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

synchro1

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils