Author Topic: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS". (Read 508493 times)

MileHigh · « **Reply #435 on:** July 19, 2013, 08:26:10 AM »

It was just proven and the good readers of this thread have no problem recognizing a troll.

Magluvin · « **Reply #436 on:** July 19, 2013, 08:48:26 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 08:26:10 AM

It was just proven and the good readers of this thread have no problem recognizing a troll.

Lol. The guy that pushes people to prove everything they say, yet is immune to his own rules he pushes upon everyone else. Hmmm. I know a guy like that. Spittin image. You know, that guy on tv every once in a while, been around about 41/2 years or so. You know.

Yes, the readers see that you are telling stories that you cannot prove. Like the way you treat Jbigs and Syncro for their ideas and pester them to death to prove what they say or else they will never hear the end of it.

So now it is you that needs to step up and prove your story. And if you cant then nobody here needs to answer any of your questions. None. Why should they? You dont do it for them or me. A bit one sided Ay? Hmmm???

Yes, this is what the readers are reading.

Been over 100 of them today alone. Gota love them readers.

Sleep tight.

Mags

MileHigh · « **Reply #437 on:** July 19, 2013, 08:54:27 AM »

Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection.

Hopefully you and others will generate some legitimate data about the coil configuration as per Tesla's patent. Easier said than done.

Rational analysis of this special coil configuration is telling us that it is marginally different from a regular coil of the same number of turns and dimensions. That's what we are trying to examine here. The claims and the fantasy claims versus the rational analysis and the actual bench testing. Which ones are real? Which ones are the truth? I think of the excellent contributor Itsu and his great clips. He has been examining Kapanadze claims on his bench for months and months and none of the claims and speculations from the various Kapanadze threads have ever turned out to be true.

I have done the testing on the bench myself, and yes, it was a long time ago. BFD. I have measured the inductance by looking at the L/R time constant of a coil. I have measured the energy stored in a coil. I have done the AC and pulse analysis of a coil on the bench. I have measured the core saturation level. I have sat through all of the derivations based on looking at the geometry of the coil. I understand the differential and integral equations that describe the behaviour of a coil. I have done the S-parameter modelling for a coil. I have done the linear network analysis that allows you to solve for all loop currents and node voltages in a circuit where coils are some of the circuit elements.

So going back to the basics: What can we say about this coil configuration in looking at the patent, and looking at what we know about how a coil actually works, and what we can see on the bench? For this most basic of components are we going to try and understand it, or is the "free for all" mentality going to extend down to the most basic circuit components that people work with on a daily basis? Do we delude ourselves and listen to anything anybody says about the coil or do we try to really understand how a coil works so we can apply that knowledge to other circuits and other experiments?

This notion that I am somehow a "bad guy" for trying to get enthusiasts to understand the basics so that they can get more out of their bench experimenting and circuit analysis is just plain ridiculous. I am fully aware of the self-defeating patterns that happen over and over on the threads. The fact that we can't even try to get on the same page for a bloody coil says a lot about the state of free energy research.

MileHigh

Artoj · « **Reply #438 on:** July 19, 2013, 10:08:57 AM »

Hi All, while I was reading this thread, I am also working on my basic coil designs, so I decided to show the readers how easy it is to work out some of the simple coil parameters required before winding. I hope this helps those who need to wind a coil suitable for their experiments. Regards Arto.

Magluvin · « **Reply #439 on:** July 19, 2013, 04:31:24 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 08:54:27 AM

Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection.

Hopefully you and others will generate some legitimate data about the coil configuration as per Tesla's patent. Easier said than done.

Rational analysis of this special coil configuration is telling us that it is marginally different from a regular coil of the same number of turns and dimensions. That's what we are trying to examine here. The claims and the fantasy claims versus the rational analysis and the actual bench testing. Which ones are real? Which ones are the truth? I think of the excellent contributor Itsu and his great clips. He has been examining Kapanadze claims on his bench for months and months and none of the claims and speculations from the various Kapanadze threads have ever turned out to be true.

I have done the testing on the bench myself, and yes, it was a long time ago. BFD. I have measured the inductance by looking at the L/R time constant of a coil. I have measured the energy stored in a coil. I have done the AC and pulse analysis of a coil on the bench. I have measured the core saturation level. I have sat through all of the derivations based on looking at the geometry of the coil. I understand the differential and integral equations that describe the behaviour of a coil. I have done the S-parameter modelling for a coil. I have done the linear network analysis that allows you to solve for all loop currents and node voltages in a circuit where coils are some of the circuit elements.

So going back to the basics: What can we say about this coil configuration in looking at the patent, and looking at what we know about how a coil actually works, and what we can see on the bench? For this most basic of components are we going to try and understand it, or is the "free for all" mentality going to extend down to the most basic circuit components that people work with on a daily basis? Do we delude ourselves and listen to anything anybody says about the coil or do we try to really understand how a coil works so we can apply that knowledge to other circuits and other experiments?

This notion that I am somehow a "bad guy" for trying to get enthusiasts to understand the basics so that they can get more out of their bench experimenting and circuit analysis is just plain ridiculous. I am fully aware of the self-defeating patterns that happen over and over on the threads. The fact that we can't even try to get on the same page for a bloody coil says a lot about the state of free energy research.

MileHigh

"Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection."

Squirm??? First off you said you 'taught' me about AC DC a couple weeks ago lastnight and I called you on it, and the link you give is from a couple days ago??? Nice try liar. Or maybe your memory was off when you wrote that yesterday.

Anyone who reads what we talked about lastnight will know now that you LIE. And thats a fact.

lol, how do you live with yourself lying like that? Compulsive? Or you just have to always be right even when wrong(lying)? You are a fool to think that 'we the readers' cant see though what you are saying. I rank you up there with Rose Ainslie's lies. From one page to the next, lies.

Lets see what you come up with today.

The readers are watching. 300 more since my last post about 7 hours ago. lol

I gota go to work. Have a nice LIE, I mean day.

Mags

MileHigh · « **Reply #440 on:** July 19, 2013, 06:12:29 PM »

The link was from July 4th and you have been reduced to a parrot whizzing into the wind.

My intention was to give some explanation to my question about the ideal inductor driven by the ideal voltage source. And you have done nothing but attack me and dig yourself into a hole and demonstrate your moral bankruptcy, just a troll.

This 'debate' is over and thanks for showing everyone your true colours.

jbignes5 · « **Reply #441 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:57:43 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 08:54:27 AM

Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection.

Hopefully you and others will generate some legitimate data about the coil configuration as per Tesla's patent. Easier said than done.

Rational analysis of this special coil configuration is telling us that it is marginally different from a regular coil of the same number of turns and dimensions. That's what we are trying to examine here. The claims and the fantasy claims versus the rational analysis and the actual bench testing. Which ones are real? Which ones are the truth? I think of the excellent contributor Itsu and his great clips. He has been examining Kapanadze claims on his bench for months and months and none of the claims and speculations from the various Kapanadze threads have ever turned out to be true.

I have done the testing on the bench myself, and yes, it was a long time ago. BFD. I have measured the inductance by looking at the L/R time constant of a coil. I have measured the energy stored in a coil. I have done the AC and pulse analysis of a coil on the bench. I have measured the core saturation level. I have sat through all of the derivations based on looking at the geometry of the coil. I understand the differential and integral equations that describe the behaviour of a coil. I have done the S-parameter modelling for a coil. I have done the linear network analysis that allows you to solve for all loop currents and node voltages in a circuit where coils are some of the circuit elements.

So going back to the basics: What can we say about this coil configuration in looking at the patent, and looking at what we know about how a coil actually works, and what we can see on the bench? For this most basic of components are we going to try and understand it, or is the "free for all" mentality going to extend down to the most basic circuit components that people work with on a daily basis? Do we delude ourselves and listen to anything anybody says about the coil or do we try to really understand how a coil works so we can apply that knowledge to other circuits and other experiments?

This notion that I am somehow a "bad guy" for trying to get enthusiasts to understand the basics so that they can get more out of their bench experimenting and circuit analysis is just plain ridiculous. I am fully aware of the self-defeating patterns that happen over and over on the threads. The fact that we can't even try to get on the same page for a bloody coil says a lot about the state of free energy research.

MileHigh

This isn't just a bloody coil. There is somethingt that the capacitance of the coil, being so high, that brings other effects to the table. Adding more of the Voltage conversion does do something. Something rather odd with very high oscillations or impulse currents.

Do anything you want but do not try to compare the DC component of this coil. It will not work because it is not based off of the DC end of things. The capacitor inside of the coil is a very important role in this design. It not only cancels self inductance but also creates a larger capacity inside of the coil. Hence my naming it a Cap/Coil. There is nothing wrong with stating the coil as it is and that is a Cap/Coil.

There is also a phase relationship between the two coils that are series connected. Both coils have currents that move from outside to inside and each could be considered to be in a different phase to each other. My ideas on the acceleration type of operation are but only an observation from previos work,the only thing that will tell the two is to measure the first coil on an oscilloscope and the second coil on channel b. This should show the phase relationship and if it modifies one to the other through the capacitance and induction. As for proof it will come but on my time and not your demands. If you can not wait or are impatient then maybe you should get a bench together like I have done.

My scope isn't the best and I have to get another probe. They are not cheap. The scope is a B+K Precision 1477, 15Mhz Max.

So accurate data collection will be high on the list. My next buy will be a damn good fluke Multi meter, Hopefully the best but we will see what I can afford. I have shown the Oscilloscope before on Energetic forum with my work from the Joule thief thread there and with the addition of the Captret experiments.

The Captret experiments led me an Ibpointless to the crystal batteries. Then I started on the bifilar design because I wanted to see every aspect of the captret. From the self charging of a capacitor to the inductive relation of the plates to the case(induction).

So the bifilar I believe is the culmination of all of these investigations. My investigations.

There is also another investigation that I am planning on doing. Two coils of different metals suspended in a crystalline medium like alumn. Further experiments will be tried on the medium of oils as well. This will improve the dielectric value and increase the capacity even further. This does two things: A: it raises the capacity. B: increases the dielectric break down incase the magnet wire looses it's sheath of dielectric. Oils have been shown to extend the range of Peak voltage of the coil. Extreme voltage potential of the impulses will need to be dealt with and this is the perfect way. The drive caps of the exciter and driver unit will be oil filled as well to include these properties in the AC operation of the bifilar coil. This should augment the AC current even further.

It might be that hese coils are polarized as well. This means two coils should be used on a battery source. One positive and one negative. I would think we could figure out the n/s of these coils from the faces of the flat pancakes. We could either increase current bucking compressing or increase voltage by current aiding or acceleration mode.

The output I would think should be augmented AC via laser like excitation of the current going through the bifilar coils but I'll have to experiment more before determining that route.

Like I said the videos of tinman are very telling about the coils abilities to create an imbalance. I would think there would be some kind of standing wave on the surface of the flat coils. Like a surface that can be impulsed like a drum head. In this analogy you could think of it like this glorious video shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5u5nXZqYq0

This is what we are looking for. This exactly type of action.

I think if you check out the water hammer you might see how this concept works.

Magluvin · « **Reply #442 on:** July 20, 2013, 01:30:24 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 08:54:27 AM

Magluvin squirm all you want. Go to post #434 and have another look. I know you saw it but you can't acknowledge that you are wrong and you end off the night with an attempt at deflection.

Hmm. Well you did say post 434, which is only a page back. I didnt read it and just thought how could that be weeks ago. But I see it was a copy of an original post now. So you can see MY train of thought at nearly 3am, or was it 2. Ok. I apologize for saying you lied based on the point of my confusion of weeks ago. lol I was 2 hours late for work this morning and posted what I did before I left.

Then you posted a bit later and I saw it on my phone. I went back through posts and I could not find what post where you said what I pasted above. I was like, jimmy edited his post!!

Seriously.

I was kinda po'ed most of the day planning on figuring out what is what when I got home. But then I found it, then found the post and read it.

But on the statement that you taught me something with that post, well just because you posted it doesnt mean that I dont know much until you posted it.

You said you were into car audio. Ever make a custom passive crossover for a system? This is old school for sure. Low pass, band pass and high pass. I learned a lot back then working with a guy that developed home speaker systems. His stuff was not cheap. $2000 for a pair of 6 1/2 with 2 tweeters. Vented, no sub needed. He would test them with just a high end cd and a nice stereo amp with just a volume control. This guy spent ridiculous money on wire and cable. He would sit you down in a room with 1 chair and tell you to close your eyes and hit play. It was a beautiful thing.

Also back when I had first met Poynt in Roses thread, couple years back. I had some conflicts with statements like 'back emf" or counter emf when describing what happens during a field collapse. The problem I have with it is there is nothing, back, reverse or counter about it. The current continues in the same direction as the input. Though, that isnt always the case, as you and I have argued before at OUR.
I think I made a vid on YT that shows it. Will look. I had a pulse motor that I used 1 diode to capture the collapse current into a cap. But when I reversed the diode, I still got more than input voltage into the cap. Now that is what I would call BEMF. I even wrote theories on why I thought it would do so. And the reason I proposed was due to that tiny ity bitty capacitance in the coil. I believe it was the Energy Amplification here and one on an OUR thread. Now granted, when I reversed the diode, when the reed closed, the reed sent power to the coil and to the cap(through the diode) directly from the source. No inductors inline with the diode/cap. So how did the cap reach just about as much voltage beyond input voltage with the diode in either direction?

Anyways, sorry about the confusion there. Its the man thing to do.

I dont hold on to my mistakes, I clear them up when realized. Been here before.

Ok, gota eat and check out this LCR meter. Now that I got it, it seems a bit cheap compared to what I thought. Instructions on folded paper.

Mags

Farmhand · « **Reply #443 on:** July 20, 2013, 06:52:58 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 02:45:01 AM

It's quiet around here, perhaps we are waiting for some test results. So I will go back and comment on my question and the answer.

The question: You have an ideal inductor of three Henries. You connect the inductor to an ideal voltage source of seven volts. What will happen?

The answer: i = 7/3 t

So the current flow is zero when the voltage source is first connected (t = 0). Then the current rises in a linear ramp, at one second, the current is 2.33 amps. At two seconds, the current is 4.67 amps. After ten minutes, the current is 1400 amps.

Notice that as time goes on, more and more power is being pumped into the coil. At one second, the power flow into the coil is 16.33 watts. At ten minutes, the power flow into the coil is 9800 watts.

The coil is soaking up all of this power supplied by the voltage source and storing it.

A mechanical inductor is simply a flywheel that spins on a a high quality bearing. You substitute the voltage for torque. You substitute the current flow for angular velocity. You substitute the inductance for the moment of inertia.

The question could have been rephrased: You have a flywheel on perfect bearings with a moment of inertia of three kilogram-meters-squared. You connect a constant torque source to the flywheel of seven newton-meters. What will happen? I am sure that you can all imagine what will happen if you think about the flywheel example.

People talk about doing all sorts of fancy lab experiments and Tesla impulse experiments but they can't even answer a basic question about how a coil functions. That means there is a good chance your lab experiments are just going to be a fuzzy walk down a garden path of your own creation, and not real research.

I'll give another example. Nowadays most people are just average Jow Blows when it comes to performing maintenance on their car engine. They open the hood and see a network of hoses and cables, you can barely even see the engine block. It's not like looking under the hood in the 1960s. They have no clue what the majority of those hoses are. The average Joe Blow does not have the umbilical connector and equipment to jack into the engine computer and read the error codes and interpret them and know what action to take. So the average Joe Blow would not even consider doing an engine overhaul, it's just too complicated and outside of his area of expertise.

But on the forums, people that don't understand the basic building blocks of electronics are more than happy to do "research" into high frequency impulse effects and play with coils, etc, etc. A wise person would want to master the basics before doing that. That ties into the whole "intense" debate that transpired here. Not one person was willing to say, "I don't know the answer but I would like to learn."

So we can now return to the quiet time on the thread and wait for results or whatever...

As soon as you start talking of "Ideal" components you stray away from physical reality.

Why not just say an inductor with three Henries and 100 Ohms resistance ? The ideal voltage is OK because that can be pretty much made to happen in reality if there is sufficient DC resistance.

The ideal situation is so far from reality it is funny.

MileHigh can you do the sums for us to show the difference between your "ideal inductor" situation and a similar situation using an inductor with the three Henries and also with 100 Ohms DC resistance ?

Then with AC excitation or pulsed DC excitation (Alternating polarity pulsed DC or unipolarity pulsed DC) and tuned to minimum reactance with the 100 Ohms DC resistance. We can deduce that if the effect of the self induction is cancelled and the coil only faces the DC resistance the delay for the maximum current is practically negated. That is what the patent is about and that is basically the claims of the patent. Is it not ?

Cheers

P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have great respect for the knowledge you higher educated guys bring to the table. I can see your point in your example, but can you see the point I'm trying to make ? The coil is like a flywheel yes, but a flywheel has windage and bearing drag, a coil has DC resistance, it cannot be avoided and should not.
The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !

At times it seems you almost try to provoke people to try to say they know more than they do, so that you can make them look bad or silly. Not saying you are trying to do that just that it seems that way at times. I do see where you are coming from. To me it seems like a sport to you, I and the others here are not your playthings, just sayin, just in case.

By all means debate is good but as far as I am concerned the debate is over the patent is explained. Not trying to brag but for an uneducated man in this field I think I hit the nail on the head with the turn spacing (self capacitor plate spacing or insulation thickness) meaning the voltage applied has to be considered, and differing voltages will produce different resonant frequencies because of that. Do you agree that insulation thickness or distance between conductors means different voltages will secure differing levels of self capacitance in a given coil ?

...

sparks · « **Reply #444 on:** July 20, 2013, 07:21:24 AM »

Consider for a moment an oscillator inside an electrostatic generated field. The energy leaves the oscillator as electromagnetic waves or as particle boys call it photons or light. The space volume the oscillator occupies is less energy dense upon each radiation from same. Mean while the electrostatic field permeating the same space is non variant in field strength. It's Tesla's bottle in a lake. The electrostatic field moves electricity (the water) continually into the tank which transforms it into electromagnetic waves that radiate from the same space. There is this whole dimensional field of energy density.
I really think his bifilar pancake coils is a tank inside his transformer. The below link gives some pretty good insight into what Tesla was into. No gain from the medium yet just plain old power distribution using one wire. His radar-like ground waves came later as he got into microwave bands. [size=78%]http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm[/size]

Magluvin · « **Reply #445 on:** July 20, 2013, 07:52:35 AM »

Quote from: Farmhand on July 20, 2013, 06:52:58 AM

As soon as you start talking of "Ideal" components you stray away from physical reality.

Why not just say an inductor with three Henries and 100 Ohms resistance ? The ideal voltage is OK because that can be pretty much made to happen in reality if there is sufficient DC resistance.

The ideal situation is so far from reality it is funny.

MileHigh can you do the sums for us to show the difference between your "ideal inductor" situation and a similar situation using an inductor with the three Henries and also with 100 Ohms DC resistance ?

Then with AC excitation or pulsed DC excitation (Alternating polarity pulsed DC or unipolarity pulsed DC) and tuned to minimum reactance with the 100 Ohms DC resistance. We can deduce that if the effect of the self induction is cancelled and the coil only faces the DC resistance the delay for the maximum current is practically negated. That is what the patent is about and that is basically the claims of the patent. Is it not ?

Cheers

P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have great respect for the knowledge you higher educated guys bring to the table. I can see your point in your example, but can you see the point I'm trying to make ? The coil is like a flywheel yes, but a flywheel has windage and bearing drag, a coil has DC resistance, it cannot be avoided and should not.
The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !

At times it seems you almost try to provoke people to try to say they know more than they do, so that you can make them look bad or silly. Not saying you are trying to do that just that it seems that way at times. I do see where you are coming from. To me it seems like a sport to you, I and the others here are not your playthings, just sayin, just in case.

By all means debate is good but as far as I am concerned the debate is over the patent is explained. Not trying to brag but for an uneducated man in this field I think I hit the nail on the head with the turn spacing (self capacitor plate spacing or insulation thickness) meaning the voltage applied has to be considered, and differing voltages will produce different resonant frequencies because of that. Do you agree that insulation thickness or distance between conductors means different voltages will secure differing levels of self capacitance in a given coil ?

...

"The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !"

Exactly!

"the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance." That is what Im going after. Im not looking for AC cycle functions nor cycle resonance Like MH implies that I do. I had that idea a while back, but Ive deduced it to working with a portion of one cycle. All I want when the reed or transistor turns on is for the coil to avoid the inductive climb of the field till peak. So instead of when the switch goes on, there is a climb to peak, limited by resistance, of which is always there

, there will be quicker build of the field. Not saying that more input wont be required. But I do know the difference between a bullet thrown at something and a bullet shot at something. Add up all the energy that I used to throw it as hard as I can and compare it to the energy the target received and there will be 'big' losses. Then compare the energy put out by the gun and compare the target again. Much better efficiency.

Impact. Bruce Lee 1 inch punch vs picking them up and throwing them as far. If some motors today are near 90% efficient by picking up the armature and throwing it with a load, what might we get with the repeated 1 inch punch?

Imagine Lasersabers motor running at say 5v 1ua as seen in the vids. Now if we stacked, just for example, 30,000 of these motors together. Would there be good output at 5v 30ma???

This is another thing Im keeping in mind along the way.

I should have this motor going tomorrow and start winding the bifi bobbins on sunday.

Mags

MileHigh · « **Reply #446 on:** July 20, 2013, 09:04:49 AM »

Jbignes5:

It is just a bloody coil in the sense that a regular coil has some associated minuscule capacitance and the Tesla patented coil has somewhat more associated minuscule capacitance. Normally "more minuscule" is still "minuscule" in the overall scheme of things. It's more a question of shades of grey than anything else. I am perfectly fine if you want to call it a cap/coil, but be aware that the inductance might be 10,000 times or even a million times the capacitance when equating Henries to Farads. You must examine the relative proportions and try to draw some conclusions from that information.

For example, take a resistor in a circuit. There is always inductance associated with a resistor. However, under "typical" operating conditions you can ignore it. In the case of the Rosemary Ainslie circuit, the conditions are not "typical" because of the high-frequencies associated with the MOSFET switching and you can't ignore the inductance in this case.

The capacitance will have a role in the operation of the cap/coil but only under certain conditions. You can expect typical series or parallel LC type effects to take place, which in an of themselves are not remarkable but certainly worth exploring. I am not sure specifically what you mean by the "phase" relationship between two coils in series. You have to keep in mind that the current will be the same in both coils in series but the voltage certainly doesn't have to be the same. But good luck and have fun investigating it.

Your 15 MHz bandwidth scope has enough bandwidth to do all sorts of experiments for sure. You talk about a Joule Thief, on a Lawrence Tseung thread I gave the full flywheel-based mechanical equivalent "circuit" for a Joule Thief to illustrate how it can't possibly be a source of over unity in case you are curious.

You discuss putting a coil in oil or another medium to increase the capacitance and increase the breakdown strength of the dielectric. Both statements are true. However, preliminary analysis suggests increased capacitance is going to reduce your maximum voltage output. Do you follow the rationale for that preliminary conclusion? It's still possible that your stronger dielectric will "win out" and be more significant than the potential voltage snubbing effects of the increased capacitance, I don't know and it sounds like an interesting investigation. You have to keep in mind that the current flow through the coil and the switching off speed will always be the two dominant variables that affect the output voltage.

See, now when you talk about coils being "polarized" you get into territory that can lead into heated debate. In my entire life I have never heard of polarized coils. So that might be your terminology. Let's leave it at that for now. I don't want to prejudge you or upset your test plans. However, if a day comes where you do experiments and make clips where you discuss polarized coils, and I look at the clip and see you are completely off base, then I will tell you what I see and why I think you are off base. Is that fair enough?

I just read further and you make reference to north and south faces of pancake coils. So perhaps I misunderstood you and by "polarized" you just mean the field generated by the coil. If that's the case ignore what I state above.

There should be no issues characterizing the output of a coil. You can think of the discharge of the energy stored in a coil through a load resistor being kind of like a firecracker going off. With a very high-value load resistance you get a very fast and energetic high-voltage "firecracker explosion" energy discharge. With a very low-value load resistance you get a very slow burn low-voltage "firecracker explosion" that's very "mellow." With a zero ohm load resistance and an ideal inductor the "firecracker" simply doesn't explode and retains its energy.

Please tell me Jbignes5 seriously, the business about the value value of the load resistance and the discharge speed and corresponding voltage - were you aware of that or had you ever heard of it? I am really curious and I am asking you to be honest with me.

The crab pulsar video is very cool, I saw it several years ago and I read that it took a few years to "film."

Anyway, if you make a video with coils. there is a decent chance that I will be able to tell you exactly what is going on. The real thing, and all that I ask is that you work to try to understand "my point of view." I hope that's fair for you.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #447 on:** July 20, 2013, 09:35:04 AM »

Magluvin:

Apology accepted. I have never made a custom passive crossover for a speaker system. But like any curious teenager I opened up various speakers and examined the crossovers and had somewhat of an inkling of what was going on. Coils block high frequencies and let low frequencies pass and for caps it's vice-versa, one of the first things you learn when you read about audio. During the disco era I worked for a sound and lighting company. There were active crossover rack-mount modules that were programmable with plug-in cards. They may have been made by JBL. The cards had something like six sets of caps and resistors/inductors and I got the impression that the audio signal was run through six consecutive high pass filters that all did the same thing so that you ended up with a very sharp roll-off in the crossover, almost like a "step" functon. If I am right I am still wondering how cycling the same analog audio signal through six consecutive filter stages did not cause any S/N issues.

I suspect the term "back EMF" comes from most people seeing a negative voltage spike on their scope when they first start experimenting. If you switch your ground and signal scope leads around then you see that the negative spike all of a sudden becomes a positive spike. As you know the coil is trying to keep the current flowing in the same direction, a kind of "let's keep going forward" EMF.

Too hard to make more than a few basic comments about the diode. If you reverse the diode, you get the "fast firecracker explosion" effect. The coil discharge will be short and fast and plow straight though the reversed diode and there is a good chance you will destroy the diode if there is enough energy available.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #448 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:32:50 AM »

Farmhand and Magluvin:

Here is the real answer for the real-world inductor with internal resistance:

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/ph/p/id/217

I tried to find a "friendly" link. What you might notice is that at time t =0, the circuit acts _exactly_ like an ideal inductor. As time goes on the resistive effects start to come into play and the current reaches an asymptote.

What's wrong with asking yourselves, "what would happen if there is no resistance" so that you can understand the pure effects of inductance without the complication and distraction of the resistance coming into play? It's just being a Luddite to reject valid concepts that try to isolate the inductor from extraneous effects. The goal is to try to understand how the inductor works, gain that insight, and then other aspects can fall into place. It's anti-science and anti-learning to reject these ideas.

I can't think of a decent example but let's use audio. When you listen to an old-fashioned LP record you insist on listening to a record with dirt and dust in the grooves and a scratch or two because that's the "real world." You refuse to listen to a virgin dist-free record because that's not "real." It's a sucky example but I think it makes the point a bit.

But then you have no problem with dealing with a pure voltage source with zero internal resistance because that's easy to relate to and you can understand that. By the same token you are comfortable with a normal voltage source with some internal resistance.

How often do you guys worry about the series resistance in capacitors? Not too often. So you don't care about ignoring the resistance in capacitors, you are quite pleased to treat your capacitors as ideal capacitors most of the time and ignore the resistance. But then the s*it hits the fan when someone dares suggest that you look at coils without resistance.

Going back to the real example, if you aren't familiar with the exponential function with the natural base of "e" as shown in the equations in the link, you should look it up if you want to advance your knowledge. "e" = 2.7182818, Googling it would be a start. The whole natural world (including electronics) revolves around this function. The first derivative of e^x = e^x. That means the nth derivative of e^x = e^x and the nth integral of e^x = e^x. A capacitor discharges at a rate that is proportional to the current voltage in the capacitor. So that means that a capacitor never fully discharges in the ideal sense, it just keeps on slowing down forever. Same thing for an inductor, in theory it never fully discharges either. It's all tied into e^x and the concept exists pretty much everywhere.

What is the ideal zero-resistance for the inductor example really showing you? Well, you know when you push on the flywheel it's storing the energy from each push. That's integration. So the ideal inductor is performing the act of integration when you excite it with a constant DC voltage, or an AC voltage. It integrates the voltage over time and the result of the integration is the energy storage in the inductor and the corresponding current flow. So what you are really supposed to be thinking about when you consider an ideal inductor is the fact that it is an integrator of voltage. By the same token a capacitor is an integrator of current. Just like a flywheel is integrating and storing energy when you apply torque to it.

So all of these endless experiments about pulsing real-world coils with resistance all of a sudden don't seem so fantastical. Every time you hit the coil with a short high-voltage pulse the coil just integrates on that pulse. You are giving the coil a nudge and it slowly starts to roll, and current starts to fliow. When I look at a scope shot of a coil being pulsed I can see the integration taking place on the screen. But perhaps more importantly, I don't even need to see scope shot, I _know_ that the coil is going to integrate on the voltage pulses. I can just look at the schematic. There are no "fantastical effects" it's all pretty boring in a sense. Coils and capacitors can perform both integration and derivation depending on what you are doing. When in doubt, think of the flywheel.

Different voltages will not produce different resonant frequencies, period, and I am too tired to argue it. Chew on what I said above for the hell of it.

I went off into the wild blue yonder in this posting but what the hell.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #449 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:08:23 AM »

"The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !"

I can do it with my eyes closed.

So you have a horizontal flywheel on a vertical shaft and the shaft is affixed to to a nice solid marble table. Let's say the flywheel is made of granite and roughly the dimensions of a small tire, say 15 inches in diameter.

So you can spin the flywheel and watch it integrate your finger pushes.

Now, you take something that looks like a big watch spring and you mount it under the flywheel and connect one end of the spring to the table and the other end of the spring to the bottom of the flywheel.

Well, lo and behold, you have something that looks like a big watch spring movement. Let's say that it resonates at about one cycle per second.

Sitting at the table with your beers and your spring + flywheel, you start make it oscillate just with a few fingers. Slowly the amplitude of the resonance increases, and since the bearings are so good, the flywheel will happily resonate for five minutes or more before it stops. (We know in the ideal case it will never actually stop.)

So, the boys have their beers and fiddle with the flywheel with their fingers. Then Farmhand puts his finger on the oscillating flywheel and says, "Look Ma, just one finger!" Farmhand doesn't do any real work with his finger, it just follows the oscillating flywheel at the resonant frequency. With really good bearings and a really good spring with almost no hysteresis, he will barely have to expend any energy at all. He could keep the flywheel oscillating all day just with his pinky if he wanted to.

What was that question?

"The patent talks of the DC resistance, the goal is to pass currents with no other significant opposition than the DC resistance. Lets see you do that with a flywheel !"

Note the instantaneous angular velocity of the flywheel corresponds to the current.

Meanwhile, Magluvin is now stymied about his "get out of jail free" card because he starts his experiment staring at a non-moving flywheel-spring combination. The flywheel is not just going to magically start oscillating so that he can get his "free ride" to get his "instant current flow." You have to put ENERGY into the flywheel-spring combination to get it to start resonating. Note, in Magluvin's example he wants to get the flywheel to start turning without a spring. He doesn't want the flywheel to resonate. But in either case, spring or no spring, you start off with a stone cold dead flywheel that is not moving. The only way to get it to start spinning or start resonating is to push on it and expend energy. Intuitively, everybody knows that the flywheel is going resist any sudden movement.

So Magluvin just wants to get the flywheel instantly spinning - ain't gunna happen. He is making the mistake of equating getting the flywheel spinning with no spring, to the case of the flywheel resonating with a spring where you have already put the energy into the system before the "start" of the experiment.

Note the spring only "appears out of nowhere" when you push the flywheel back and forth at a very high frequency (the self-resonance effects of the coil). So we are talking apples and oranges like I have already stated.

MileHigh

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS". (Read 508493 times)

MileHigh

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

Magluvin

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

MileHigh

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

Artoj

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

Magluvin

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

MileHigh

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

jbignes5

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

Magluvin

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

Farmhand

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

sparks

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

Magluvin

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

MileHigh

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

MileHigh

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

MileHigh

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".

MileHigh

Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".