Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => Tesla Technologgy => Topic started by: Farmhand on April 21, 2013, 03:00:24 PM

Title: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 21, 2013, 03:00:24 PM
Hi all, This coil arrangement is an interesting one for many of us so this thread is for discussion of the coil and it's uses/effects.
This includes all types of coils as stated by Tesla in the patent. Careful reading of the patent is encouraged.  :D

Patent 512340 "COIL FOR ELECTRO_MAGNETS"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=baRZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lines 33 to 38 of Page one of the patent.
Quote
I would here state that by the term coils I desire to include generally helices solenoids or in fact any conductor the different parts of which by the requirements of its application or use are brought into such relations with each other as to materially increase the self induction.


There is a lot of discussion in a thread here --  http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/975/#.UXPhyrXPVqA
Starting at about page 67.

I wanted to bring the discussion to a more appropriate place.

I've done some testing and will elaborate in my next post.

Regards all.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 21, 2013, 03:31:08 PM
Ok so I wound two coils, both with the same length of wire, (measured and cut side by side).  Wire is 0.5 mm enameled wire,
wire length is about 4.35 meters in each coil. The coils are each wound on individual iron powder cylinders 38 mm long x 10 mm diameter.
The core is insulated by home made bee's wax paper and each layer is insulated by a sheet of bee's wax paper as well, there are about 2.5 layers.

Here are the specs.

Single winding coil (control coil)

Turns - 140 (approx.)
Resistance - 0.2 Ohms
Inductance - 401 uH
Capacitance - 43.4 pF (determined)
Resonant Frequency - 1210 kHz (By experiment, square wave excitation)

---...---

Serial connected bifilar coil. "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS"

Turns - 140 (approx.)
Resistance - 0.2 Ohms
Inductance - 406 uH
Capacitance - 117 pF (determined)
Resonant Frequency - 735 kHz (By experiment, square wave excitation)

Capacitance between open windings - 410 pF (measured)

Attached is some pictures and scope shots. Last is the coils and how they are connected for testing,
there is a 10 K resistor is series with the function generator.

The shots show the single winding control coil, first at resonance, then at a harmonic,
then the last two shots are the serial connected bifilar coil.

EDIT: I think the last scope shot is the wrong one, I'll see if I can find the correct shot,
the scope can be tricked into reading the incorrect frequency by the harmonics.  :-[

Correct shot found and added.

Cheers









Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 04:15:10 PM
Farmhand:

I think I saw you make reference to the harmonics present in a square wave and how they might possibly be picked up by a ball magnet rotor to make it spin very fast.

The same idea applies to when you are sweeping frequencies with your signal generator to find the resonant frequency of your coil.  You must use a "pure tone" without any harmonics present - a sine wave.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 21, 2013, 04:27:18 PM
Farmhand:

I think I saw you make reference to the harmonics present in a square wave and how they might possibly be picked up by a ball magnet rotor to make it spin very fast.

The same idea applies to when you are sweeping frequencies with your signal generator to find the resonant frequency of your coil.  You must use a "pure tone" without any harmonics present - a sine wave.

MileHigh

Yes I am aware of that. Thanks. One shot is the resonant frequency for that coil and one shot is one of the harmonics of the coil.
I did that for each coil. First two shots are for the single wound coil and the second two shots are for the bifilar coil.

The function generator doesn't lie. It tells me the frequency in numbers when I see resonance. Meaning when all the harmonics disappear.
That's why I use the square wave to excite the coils. Full resonance is very obvious. I do know how to find the resonant frequency of a coil
with a function generator and a scope.

The coils have very different resonant frequencies.

..
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 04:31:24 PM
My double strength "SB Spiral" monopole:
 
Quote from Farmhand:
 
                                          "The coils have very different resonant frequencies"
 
Farmhand's SBC resonant frequency is in tune with the oscillating frequency of magnatisem. 7.83 Hz for Schumann resonance is nearly a thousand times less then the 735 khz, but on a close harmonic. The SBC resonant frequency is in L-C synch with Earth's pole resonance, along with the neo sphere's inherent magnetic oscillation frequency.


 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 21, 2013, 04:49:30 PM
Regarding the increased capacity of the coil for storing energy, would the bifilar coil release all of that
extra energy it takes in and stores if it was used as a series inductor ? As in a charging inductor for a
resonant charging circuit for a Tesla coil pre-primary ect.. It could be useful for that purpose maybe.
The one I made above just happens to be the same frequency as some of my Tesla coils.

As far as for any application, the lowering of the resonant frequency could be very useful.

I remember Slider from EF found some bifilar type/wound coils in an old TV or something, he
talked about it in the Romero Muller thread at EF.

It would seem the self capacitance was increased by almost a factor of 3 in the coils I wound above.

..
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 04:59:16 PM
This underscores my "Magnetic Resonance Theory".
 
Quote from Farmhand:
 
"The one I made above just happens to be the same frequency as some of my Tesla coils".
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 21, 2013, 05:14:55 PM
My function generator is a bodgy unit, the frequency drifts badly for some reason. I've built oscillators and pulsing circuits
that hold a nice steady frequency, I don't get why the bought FG frequency drifts, No one should buy one like the one I
have it isn't very good in that way.

That's why I can't get the frequency to stay spot on where it should be so I apologize for that.  :-[
I see there are cheap digital ones on ebay but the output of those is less.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 05:37:52 PM
Heartbeat frequency:
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on April 21, 2013, 05:59:11 PM
 I am so very glad you have started this Farmhand. I applaud your exploration of the coil that will change our lives.


 The problem with bifilar coils is they are designed for pulsed operation. They do not respond well to analogue stimulation. At least not equalled response.  The impulse method is where Bifilar coils excel. With a suitable capacitor one can make the bifilar output way more magnetic response then any other coil in existence if a core is included. In no core operation they only emit the electric field because the bifilar coil accelerates the charges from one end to the other. This is done by passing opposite charges from opposite ends. As they approach each other they are accelerated out the other end via the induction of the opposite wind. This acceleration raises the voltage present at the charge.
 Using traditional measurements and measuring instruments will not yield anything of value in my opinion. This is mainly due to the devices created for measurement were not designed properly for pure electric measurement.


 Tesla was known to say that he didn't use the magnetic component in his systems designed after the AC system. The gain came from suppression of the magnetic field and only allowing an electric field integration. Since the electric field was mainly static as Tesla pointed out he had to find a way to modulate the electric field to cause a vehicle to generate from in the receiver. This was accomplished by the longitudinal modulation he employed and that naturally came from the use of impulses. Tesla quickly discovered that the speed of the electric field going from zero to maximum was faster then light. This is why he has said that light speed is not the fastest in the Universe. Since light is modifiable via magnetic fields it is not a huge jump to conclude that light is slow when compared to the electric field or transport medium of that light. In my opinion light is the result or wake of longitudinal rays-traveling radiative away from from a highly charged body in space.


 Someone posted a great PDF of a NASA proposal to research this area of Tesla and others. It's in this forums download area and a link is provided in this thread: http://www.overunity.com/13149/nasa-report-on-teslas-zero-point-energy-page-41/msg357919/#new

 learning as much as you can about Tesla/Dollard/Meyel and others will bring you up to speed about how to utilize the bifilar coil to it's full extent.

 My original experiment is now being fully experimented on by me. Any information I can get out of the experiment I will share with everyone fully. Since the field coils in my motor generator will be Bifilar in design to handle the impulses to the field coils. There must be very little resistance of the wire in the bifilar coil because this will only slow down the impulses and the subsequent radiative field of such a coil. paralleling the coils will greatly enhance the impulse acceleration and hence the gain in voltage of the electric field. Also from the link I provided earlier in this thread you can see that any matter that is considered as conductive when exposed to this impulse field will generate huge currents in the conductor if the impulses are resonant with the mass of the conductor.

 Well I'll let you get back to the road of rediscovery that you are on. Enjoy.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 06:00:53 PM
Farmhand:

Perhaps try running the function generator with the top off and see what happens.  If it runs stable then there is a good you have a thermal problem with a component.  On the bench people use heat guns in combination with freeze spray to locate faulty components.

Itsu has some really nice clips where he checks for resonant frequencies with his scope.

Quote
Regarding the increased capacity of the coil for storing energy, would the bifilar coil release all of that
extra energy it takes in and stores if it was used as a series inductor ? As in a charging inductor for a
resonant charging circuit for a Tesla coil pre-primary ect.. It could be useful for that purpose maybe.
The one I made above just happens to be the same frequency as some of my Tesla coils.

It's hard to discuss things like this without a circuit to work with.  From what you say I imagine a resonating SB coil in a standard Tesla coil setup with the long cylindrical secondary coil.  I suppose that the Tesla secondary coil would amplify the voltage.  Since we are talking high frequencies all this would have to be checked.  It's possible that the Tesla secondary coil at 1 MHz won't respond because the frequency is too high.  To be more precise, it will respond but possibly at a greatly reduced amplitude because ultimately it will act like a low-pass filter.

If I can offer a suggestion, it looks to me like you have a modern DSO that can record waveforms.  We know that a self-resonating coil's oscillations will decay like any RLC resonator.  Perhaps with the help of your DSO try to measure how long the ringing lasts and over how many cycles.  It will give you a sense of how much time you can work with the resonating coil.

Synchro1:

I have read the speculations for years about bench experiments interacting with the Shumann resonance.  Those comments are wild speculations and in fact are not true.  You can safely ignore the Shumann resonance.

MileHigh


Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 06:11:01 PM
Shumann resonance is merely one aspect of the "Oscillating frequency of magnetisem" as measured along any Bloch wall and determined to be a constant.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 06:32:00 PM
Synchro1:

Well I don't understand what you said and I am wondering what kind of example you can illustrate for the Bloch wall.

The Shumann resonance is associated with the Shumann cavity that surrounds the Earth.  It's like a huge microwave cavity that certain wavelengths of EM radiation will bounce off of.  It's like the Earth is a ball inside another larger ball where the inside of the larger ball is like a giant mirror.  So waves reflect off of the inside of the larger ball and bounce around.  It's the size of the ball hat determines the resonance frequency.  The ball size and shape change over time because of changes in the space weather.  One source of energy to set up the waves inside the reflective ball is lightning strikes.  A small portion of the energy in the EM wave pulse from a lighting bolt will be in the right wavelength range to reflect off of the Shumann cavity.  So the energy bounces around and just like in an RLC resonator, it eventually dies away in perhaps a few seconds (I would have to check to be sure.)

So you are working on your bench, and then thousands of miles up in space is the giant curved reflective surface of the lossy Schumann cavity.  Somewhere in the mix are the Van Allen radiation belts.

Don't worry be happy!  lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 07:02:20 PM
The SBC resonant frequency Farmhand measured in his SBC electromagnet  is the same as his other Tesla coils, determined by the constant L C frequency in all the SBC coils. This is the same harmonic as the frequency between the Earth's magnetic poles and also the poles of a permanent magnet, in proportion to strength. The SBC's all share the same capacity to inductace ratio. The pure sine wave resonance is in tune with a broader spectrum of harmonics, including the one inside the neo sphere, depending on strength, and the Van Allen belts. 
 
Matching a proper size and strength sphere magnet spinner to an SBC for resonance is important
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 07:07:49 PM
Farmhand:

I assume that your first tests will be with the coils acting like electromagnets.  If you want to go beyond that, some basic ideas for your consideration for analyzing your coils.  I am not going to get into too many details.  On thing is if you know the core material you can look up its magnetic properties.  But the fun is then to try to measure the permeability of the core yourself.  Another question is what is the saturation current for the core.  With your signal generator on square wave and a simple circuit you can measure the inductance of the two coils with your scope.  That can be compared with what your inductance meter says.  I am trying to think of another way to measure the differences in the self-capacitance between the two coils.  If you make them self-resonate and then set up the initial conditions and then measure the voltage across the coil that's one way.  Another way would be to look at the slew rate of the coil voltage increase when you switch of the driving transistor under very controlled conditions.  You could also double-check your measured resonant frequency by pinging the coils and letting them ring naturally and recording it.

You know how in a car you have your "idiot lights."  It's arguable that capacitance meters and inductance meters are somewhat akin to idiot lights.  So you can make these types of measurements with a scope.  On the other hand, it's not easy to do some of the stuff mentioned above if the experimenter is a beginner.  However, with enough hunting around on the web you could probably find the experiments in question.  I am really talking basic lab work, like "how to measure the inductance of an inductor."  I don't know if you want to go there but I thought I would mention it.

MileHigh 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2013, 07:20:11 PM
Shumann resonance is merely one aspect of the "Oscillating frequency of magnetisem" as measured along any Bloch wall and determined to be a constant.

You should win some kind of prize for that statement.
 :P
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 07:22:21 PM
Synchro1:

Quote
The SBC resonant frequency Farmhand measured in his SBC electromagnet  is the same as his other Tesla coils, determined by the constant L C frequency in all the SBC coils. This is the same harmonic as the frequency between the Earth's magnetic poles and also the poles of a permanent magnet, in proportion to strength. The SBC's all share the same capacity to inductace ratio. The pure sine wave resonance is in tune with a broader spectrum of harmonics, including the one inside the neo sphere, depending on strength.   
 
Matching a proper size and strength sphere magnet spinner to an SBC for resonance is important

You seem to be saying that all SBC coils will have the same resonant frequency.  Don't forget that L and C can change from coil to coil.  So coils can self-resonae at essentially any frequency.

Your comment about the sine wave resonance is strange to say the least.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2013, 07:27:56 PM
@MH: Isn't the Schumann cavity formed by the Earth and the Ionosphere? Hence, not thousands of miles out in space but rather only about 80-100, (or 50-300 for the extreme range) and varying with sunlight pressure (and HAARP activity of course.)

Lightning discharges are the equivalent of dielectric "punctures" in a capacitor. Fortunately the atmosphere heals, like a good poly film cap. Tesla's idea was to use this big capacitor to transfer inputted energy wirelessly to any point within the cavity, and also, using similar apparatus, to extract or entrain some of the vast amount of energy that is already stored there, a tiny bit of which we see when the dielectric punctures in a thunderstorm. It's my unreasoned faith that this might somehow be possible. It is my fair certainty that it will involve physically very large apparatus and high initial energy inputs.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 07:28:57 PM
@TK,
 
Thank you! I'm up for the "Dumbell" science award again.
 
My "Zither of Unity" monopole SBC spiral self runner is powering the 1/2" magnet sphere in excess of the transister switch speed in the self loop video. This has to be a result of oscillatory SBC resonance. The tiny thread spool SBC up and begins to run itself too, with no output coil loop at subsonic r.p.m.
 
I believe that the SBC basically begins to power the magnet spinner with  RADIO WAVES at high frequency.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2013, 07:34:30 PM
@Farmhand:
When I'm determining resonance of a coil or tank, I generally use a "sniffer" coil made from a turn or two of wire, looped around the coil I'm stimulating, and I probe this loop with a scope probe. Using a square wave excitation from the signal generator is proper, as the probe coil will respond sinusoidally when you find the resonant frequency. Once you've found the frequency switch to sine excitation for very fine tuning to peak output from the probe coil. If you are working with a TC primary-secondary pair or just the secondary, you can stimulate the primary directly with the FG and a 50R in series, and probe across the secondary with a 10 meg resistor in series with your scope probe. Again, square wave stimulation will result in the highest amplitude sine wave on the secondary or probe coil output, as the induced EMF is proportional to the rate of change of the inducing current.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2013, 07:40:41 PM
@TK,
 
Thank you! I'm up for the "Dumbell" science award again.
 
My "Zither of Unity" monopole SBC spiral self runner is powering the 1/2" magnet sphere in excess of the transister switch speed in the self loop video. This has to be a result of oscillatory SBC resonance. The tiny thread spool SBC up and begins to run itself too, with no output coil loop at subsonic r.p.m.
 
I believe that the SBC basicly begins to power the magnet with radio waves at high frequency.

When you are pushing a child on a swing, do you have to supply a push on every cycle to keep her swinging? Of course not, and you don't even have to push her on a regular basis, just with enough power to replace her losses between pushes. Your pushes don't even have to be "resonant", that is, in synch with her swinging period, as long as the net timing results in replacing the lost energy, rather than removing more.

I'm not completely familiar with your experiment, and we've clashed before about your interpretation of Tesla's patent. However, I encourage you to carry on experimenting, but I ask you to be careful and circumspect in your interpretations of your results and the claims you make. If you see something interesting and unusual, form an hypothesis about it, then try your best to _disprove_ your own hypotheses. When you fail.... you succeed.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 08:19:21 PM
I believe the SB coil broadcasts on a magnetically resonant bandwidth, broadcasting a pure sine wave signal in the Mhz range as the coil powers up. This is transformed into kinetic energy by the neo magnet. This is because the magnetic L C frequency of the coil grows to match the frequency of magnetic oscillation in the magnet spinner field, determined by strength. Then the magnet spinner catches a tail wind!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on April 21, 2013, 09:40:43 PM



Hey guys,


 Can I ask a question? No... Lol...


 What makes matter what it is? I mean is it the matter or is it from the frequency that the matter is wrapped around? Has anyone just resonated a chunk of matter and found out the frequency of each kind of matter? It has to be electrical right?


 I'm not trying to start an argument but merely asking that maybe if a certain conductor that is resonant at it's own frequency, which makes it that specific kind of matter, that design of a coil should include this resonant base frequency of the matter itself.


 Just a thought...
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 10:47:19 PM
TK:

Thanks for correcting me about the height of the reflecting layer of the ionosphere.  In the back of my mind I wanted to double-check but you can get tired with "look up fatigue."

I strongly disagree with you though about using a square wave to find he coil self-resonant frequency.  We are modelling the coil as a parallel LC circuit and looking for the frequency corresponding to the the highest impedance, correct?  So why would you want to pump multiple simultaneous frequencies into the parallel LC filter if you are looking for a single resonant frequency?  When you characterize any filter it is easier to do it with a sine wave representing one frequency only, and then sweep that frequency.

I am not saying that it's absolutely wrong to use a square wave, but you could get fooled and see what you think is a peak response which is happening due to a harmonic and not due to the fundamental.  It's just "cleaner" to sweep the filter with a sine wave.

Synchro1:

I don't know if you have a scope but if you do you should do a very careful analysis before drawing any conclusions about your motor.  The full explanation for what is happening should be interesting but it's doubtful it's going to involve the very very high frequencies that you are indicating.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 22, 2013, 12:13:13 AM
Here's something very interesting on spinning magnets with radio waves. Coil and capacitor
 
 
http://amasci.com/tesla/tescv2.html (http://amasci.com/tesla/tescv2.html)
 
 
Exerpt:
 
 
"Notice that the magnet can be MUCH smaller than the wavelength of the radio waves. It's the field of the magnet that intercepts the energy, not the physical magnet poles. Also note that the physical magnet itself is not directly interacting with the incoming waves. Instead, the magnet's NEARFIELD B-FIELD interacts with the radio waves, and this altered b-field then applies a force to the magnet. The static field of the magnet absorbs energy from the radio waves, then it delivers that energy to the magnet as a mechanical force exerted over a distance. The nearfield b-field acts like an antenna! Since energy is absorbed from the radio waves, the spinning magnet must be casting a large "EM shadow," and punching a big hole in the incoming wavetrain. The magnet might be tiny, but its magnetic field can extend to a great distance. It's as if the rotating magnet surrounds itself with a large black "absorber cloud" which blocks the incoming EM waves. Obviously the magnet can only "reach out" within about 1/4 wavelength around itself. My synchronous motor has now become an "energy-sucking" antenna".
 
My question is:
 
How well does the SBC act as a radio transmitter? Answer, great!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on April 22, 2013, 12:51:49 AM

I answer here to Magluvin, once Farmhand created this thread on the Coil for electromagnetc topic, quote from the Confirming the delayed Lenz effect thread:

We talked about the capacitance neutralizing the self inductance the other day.
If we have a coil with a cap across it, and then we just apply a dc source across it, the cap will charge virtually instantly, but the inductor wont. This might imitate a neutralizing of self inductance of the coil, where the current flows easily through the cap. We are talking about applying DC here.

If the capacitance is 'in' the coil, well that current that charges that capacitance goes 'through the coil' neutralizing the self inductance. And if it neutralizes self inductance, then maybe we could think, does that mean that the magnetic field is neutralized also, or just the effect of impedance is neutralized and outer magnetic field is unaffected. If so then initially there could be a very intense field pulse, as compared to a slowly building standard inductive field build, depending in the inductance.

That internal capacitance is charged through a coil that can make an external field like any other coil and the impedance is neutralized. So until this capacitance is charged, this coil might be acting like a super electromagnet. Sounds like a heck of an idea to patent. ;)

If we consider the cap connected to a coil, there probably isnt any purpose for it in the DC world. But here the capacitance is in the coil, and in my opinion, there should be a difference.

Also I stated earlier about the ability of holding power over time. Well if the field is huge in the beginning through the object being held, this may give us that stronger hold over time, instantly instead.

So you can see why I am emphatic about not testing them in series. It is not conclusive in any way. It does not show if one coil could pull more current than the other with the same voltage input. Its not correct in any way. The only thing that does is possibly show that the 2 coils can pick up the same amount of clips. But the singlefi coil in series wont allow the capacitance of the bifi to charge as it would connected to the supply alone, thus no initial magnetic pulse from the bifi.

Will see soon.  ;)   Im going more is better. :o ;D

Mags


Hi Mags,

I understand what you say. Basically I agree with it, the higher the self capacitance of a coil is, the more chance the input current 'sees' a less inductive reactance to fight with in the transient time till reaching the steady-state condition.  In my tests the about 420 uH bifilar coil with its 220 pF 'embedded' capacitance surely represents a negligible problem in this respect because these LC values are too small to cause any effect for the speed of a hand-operated switch I acted with.
There must be transient phenomenas in case of any RLC circuit / network but the switch on or off speed is important because the closer you hit the resonant frequency of an RLC circuit by the switching speed, the quicker the inductive (or capacitive) behaviour of the RLC circuit vanishes and the phase of the input current in that case will be closer and closer to the phase of the current flowing via the R part of the circuit.

This is exactly what Tesla achieved in his Coil for electromagnets patent by introducing wire B and winding very close to wire A, making up for the 1000 turn example of wire A with the additional 1000 turn of wire B. This way there have been an 'artificial' capacitor created and embedded into the coil when wires A and B were connected in series as he explained. He came up with this solution to increase the coils self capacitance without the use of high voltage discrete capacitors for lowering the normally rather high self-resonances of coils.

You ask: "does that mean that the magnetic field is neutralized also?"  By no means, because even for DC currents the capacitors represent a short circuit till they get charged up and for AC or pulsed DC currents the capacitors charge up then discharge as the rate of change dictates. AND the same input current must flow via the coil wires, especially in a series connection like Tesla showed. So the input current can go through the coil(s) hence flux is created.

I may have answered your questions.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 22, 2013, 01:06:38 AM
Here's lidmotor broadcasting a radio signal with an upright pancake coil.
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoKDU1yGkPo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoKDU1yGkPo)
 
 
Would a 1 Mhz radio broadcast signal power a neo magnet sphere, broadcast from a SB pancake coil transmitter like Lidmotors? 1 Mhz was designated the best power range frequency by Nicola Tesla. The magnet speed would have to be raised to synchronization speed independently to meld with the broadcast sine wave.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on April 22, 2013, 01:17:44 AM
I quote again from the Confirming the delayed Lenz effect thread:

 Quote from: synchro1 on April 21, 2013, 03:27:58 PM (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357960/#msg357960)<blockquote>Thank you Gyula. The original experiment involved  shorting both coils accross a "D" cell battery. The obvious difference between the experiments is that power is free to rise to load with the battery, unlike Gyula's latest try, where the power is governd. Maybe the bifilar electromagnet will draw more input then Gyula's inputing to it, if you feed it. The original experiment allows for increased current consumption compared to Gyula's generous attempt. Enlighting regardless!
</blockquote>

Answer from Magluvin:
That makes sense. If the supply limits current then its possible that the low ohms of the 2 coils could push those current limits on their own, possibly not letting the currents needed bi the bifi to occur. Dunno yet.  But will.  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif))

Mags   


Folks,

I do not fully understand you. The power supply does not limit current in my tests shown.  It is true that my supply has a controllable current limiting feature up to 750 mA max output current and it was set to that upper limit all the time.  And I took out only 430 mA from it. 
It is also okay that a D battery cell has a very low inner resistance but an analog variable power supply surely have a very low output impedance, normally the emitter follower power transistor output from its emitter point, so no problem in this respect. Power is also free to rise in case of a low output impedance supply too. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2013, 02:06:14 AM
(snip)
I strongly disagree with you though about using a square wave to find he coil self-resonant frequency.  We are modelling the coil as a parallel LC circuit and looking for the frequency corresponding to the the highest impedance, correct?  So why would you want to pump multiple simultaneous frequencies into the parallel LC filter if you are looking for a single resonant frequency?  When you characterize any filter it is easier to do it with a sine wave representing one frequency only, and then sweep that frequency.

I am not saying that it's absolutely wrong to use a square wave, but you could get fooled and see what you think is a peak response which is happening due to a harmonic and not due to the fundamental.  It's just "cleaner" to sweep the filter with a sine wave.

(snip)

You might be interested to know how my Arduino-based inductance meter works. I illustrate its operation in a video. I also show in another video how to determine the resonant frequency of a coil.

While the resonant frequency of a tank does correspond to the highest input impedance of the circuit, that is not the parameter I am observing, because that is not the parameter of interest. I want to know the resonant frequency. Hence I look for the purity and amplitude of the _output_ signal produced in a "receiving" coil placed around or near the inductor of the tank circuit I am testing. Take a look at Farmhand's scopeshots to see how the spectral purity of the output cleans up and becomes sinusoidal, and then peaks in amplitude, at the exact resonant frequency. There is no doubt when you get to the right frequency.

But the Arduino does it a little differently, but still corresponding to the same thing, and _still_ using a sharp-edged fast risetime square wave pulse to do it. The Arduino places the inductor under test into a tank circuit with a 2 microFarad cap, then rings the tank by applying a single sharp pulse, then it isolates the tank and observes the ringdown voltage peaks, times them and determines the frequency, then finds the inductance by calculation. A tank rings down at its resonant frequency, and the higher the Q the more countable peaks you will get in the ringdown before you have to "hit the gong" with a sharp pulse again.
(But of course a properly resonant TC hits the gong on every cycle in exactly the right timing.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0)
Any Tesla coiler knows that the key to getting the proper HV VRSWR effect happening in the secondary, is to make the "driving pulse" in the primary to have the most rapid rise and fall times possible: a rectangular pulse, not a sine. This is why Tesla spent so much time on spark gaps, and why the spark gap is so critical to a proper performing TC. And it's why my MOT DC SGTC works so well: I use compressed air to blow out the spark gap, to decrease the rise and fall times of the primary current.

ETA: Looking at the tank directly, as in the videos above, rather than using a second pickup coil, produces the same results but for slightly different reasons.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2013, 02:10:07 AM
I believe the SB coil broadcasts on a magnetically resonant bandwidth, broadcasting a pure sine wave signal in the Mhz range as the coil powers up. This is transformed into kinetic energy by the neo magnet. This is because the magnetic L C frequency of the coil grows to match the frequency of magnetic oscillation in the magnet spinner field, determined by strength. Then the magnet spinner catches a tail wind!
Not too much to object to there; your metaphors aren't leading you too far astray. All RF is "magnetically resonant bandwidth" for some receiver configuration, after all, and it is the neo magnet that is spinning, so no problems there, and certainly frequency matching is important and affected by the speed of the spinning magnet, and "catching a tailwind" is an appropriate way to describe the pumping of energy into the kinetic system, just as "pushing the child's swing" is. Weird kind of circular, cyclinc tailwind, though.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2013, 02:42:45 AM
Ah... I remembered another point from the original thread that I wanted to comment on.

AC electromagnets.

Yes.... you can get remarkable effects from AC electromagnets. If you place your poles right, you can levitate, that is, repel, non-ferrous metals like aluminum and copper. Some very fancy cooktops use this effect to levitate a frying pan while at the same time heating it by inductive power transfer.

But you can even levitate quite well using just plain 50 or 60 Hz line AC into a proper electromagnet, no other components necessary (except a Variac to control the power).

It is of course eddy current levitation; the pulsing field from the AC EM induces eddys in the metal, and the field from the eddys repels the field from the EM, and so the material gets pushed away from the EM.

If the pulsing field is at the right frequency and strength it will indeed induce an electric field across non-conductive bits of plastic, etc, and can cause them to be attracted to the EM (RF in this case).
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 22, 2013, 02:43:37 AM
I wonder if I broadcast into an SB pancake antenna with a coventional C.B or Marine band radio, if I could drive a magnet with that frequency signal?
 
I believe the SBC spinner starts out as a pulse motor, then transitions to a synchronous a.c. motor powered by the SBC sine wave broadcast signal. The coil pulses one pole then the a.c phases in and drives both.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 22, 2013, 03:01:11 AM
TK:

I liked your Arduino "ringing the bell" inductance meter clip.  Really cool.

On the other hand I did not like your other clip where you used your frequency generator.  You have to factor in the fact that I have no bench to work on and I doubt I ever did that test.  Nonetheless, I see big issues with your clip.  You are "brute force" driving the LC resonator with a direct connection from the function generator right across the resonator.  So you are heavily loading it down with the 50-ohm impedance of your function generator and the L-C of the cable itself.   On your scope display when you are at resonance you clearly see the straight lines in the waveform.  So that's probably the capacitance discharging and charging through the the 50-ohm alternating square wave voltage from the function generator.  It doesn't give me a good feeling.

I always assumed that you would put something like a 1K resistance between the signal generator output and he LC resonator.  That pretty much isolates the LC resonator from the signal source and the signal source just "tickles" the resonator.   Then you set your function generator to output a sine wave and you look at the voltage across the LC resonator to look for the peak response.  As you sweep the frequency all that you see is a pure sine wave across the LC resonator.  That's the way I envisioned you were supposed to do it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2013, 03:02:48 AM
@synchro:
Well.... CB is 30 MHz, approx 10 Meter wavelength band. Your oscillations will be too fast to "catch" anything physical like a magnet, I think. But try it, by all means.

@MH: I suppose you are technically correct. I usually do use a series resistance when I put the FG's output into a coil, but maybe I didn't in that video.
But I think that the primary effect of having the FG and the probes attached is to reduce the Q of the tank; the associated capacitances are so small that the resonant frequency isn't being altered that much. I think. Otherwise.... how could I have arrived at a final value for the inductance of the coil, that so closely agrees with its measured value using a commercial inductance meter?

"As you sweep the frequency all that you see is a pure sine wave across the LC resonator. " That's not true (in my experience), even if you use a pure sine wave as stimulation. You don't see the pure sinusoidal output until you are close to the resonant frequency _or a harmonic_.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 22, 2013, 03:11:44 AM

Quote from: MileHigh on April 21, 2013, 10:47:19 PM
Quote
(snip)
I strongly disagree with you though about using a square wave to find he coil self-resonant frequency.  We are modelling the coil as a parallel LC circuit and looking for the frequency corresponding to the the highest impedance, correct?  So why would you want to pump multiple simultaneous frequencies into the parallel LC filter if you are looking for a single resonant frequency?  When you characterize any filter it is easier to do it with a sine wave representing one frequency only, and then sweep that frequency.

I am not saying that it's absolutely wrong to use a square wave, but you could get fooled and see what you think is a peak response which is happening due to a harmonic and not due to the fundamental.  It's just "cleaner" to sweep the filter with a sine wave.

(snip)


You might be interested to know how my Arduino-based inductance meter works. I illustrate its operation in a video. I also show in another video how to determine the resonant frequency of a coil.

While the resonant frequency of a tank does correspond to the highest input impedance of the circuit, that is not the parameter I am observing, because that is not the parameter of interest. I want to know the resonant frequency. Hence I look for the purity and amplitude of the _output_ signal produced in a "receiving" coil placed around or near the inductor of the tank circuit I am testing. Take a look at Farmhand's scopeshots to see how the spectral purity of the output cleans up and becomes sinusoidal, and then peaks in amplitude, at the exact resonant frequency. There is no doubt when you get to the right frequency.

But the Arduino does it a little differently, but still corresponding to the same thing, and _still_ using a sharp-edged fast risetime square wave pulse to do it. The Arduino places the inductor under test into a tank circuit with a 2 microFarad cap, then rings the tank by applying a single sharp pulse, then it isolates the tank and observes the ringdown voltage peaks, times them and determines the frequency, then finds the inductance by calculation. A tank rings down at its resonant frequency, and the higher the Q the more countable peaks you will get in the ringdown before you have to "hit the gong" with a sharp pulse again.
(But of course a properly resonant TC hits the gong on every cycle in exactly the right timing.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0)
Any Tesla coiler knows that the key to getting the proper HV VRSWR effect happening in the secondary, is to make the "driving pulse" in the primary to have the most rapid rise and fall times possible: a rectangular pulse, not a sine. This is why Tesla spent so much time on spark gaps, and why the spark gap is so critical to a proper performing TC. And it's why my MOT DC SGTC works so well: I use compressed air to blow out the spark gap, to decrease the rise and fall times of the primary current.

ETA: Looking at the tank directly, as in the videos above, rather than using a second pickup coil, produces the same results but for slightly different reasons.

Wow one sleep and so many comments.

The way I see it the square wave does not actually contain all harmonics, it "possibly" contains all harmonics, a square wave cannot actually be all frequencies at the same time.
If we take some french curves I'm sure we could draw all the harmonics within the square wave but that is just for the theory. To explain things.

I usually always use a square wave to find resonance for my Tesla coils or whatever other coils/transformers. Showing the harmonic was merely to show that the harmonics can be there and can be used. Although proper resonance is more useful. I think when we tune a Tesla coil we don't actually want it tuned spot on, we want it tuned so that when it loads up it becomes in tune, which is not necessarily max impedance or whatever. It's maximum voltage or output we want mostly. I tune for max output power with an output arrangement and max secondary voltage with Tesla coils ( when loaded). The primary of my spark gap Tesla coil is only resonant when the gap is conducting because it has no resonance tuning caps across the primary all the time, only when the cap is discharging. All the Q is in the secondary and extra coils. But if the primary capacitance on discharge is not correct to give the primary "LC resonance" at the correct frequency it won't work so well I use tuning coils to find the right tune for a given experiment. I use a high speed rotary gap of sorting bar design.

I will repeat the tests with a sniffer coil, but I foresee that any difference will be small and the same for both coils, as well as they will ring longer. I like to see the harmonics come together and the sine wave form and peak then the waveform after resonant point is usually pointy, anyway we get a feel for it.

My concern was that if a bifilar coil was used as a DC resonant charging inductor the self capacitance might hold energy in the coil, now that I think about it not such an issue. I can try it and compare since I have comparative coils I can test them in a few different situations.

I didn't aim for any particular frequency, I just found a piece of wire almost 10 meters long that I stripped off a transformer to even up windings and strung it out folded it in half and went from there. Any similarity with the frequency of my Tesla coils is just coincidence.

Yes I might test some magnet lift tests and such, but I don't expect to be using smooth DC much.

The thing I see with resonance is that in some situations or uses we may reduce Q and damp outputs with load or other ways but a coil tuned with a capacitance for a specific frequency is more responsive than one without.

I call that tuning the coils to resonance, even though when in use the Q might be gone and the waves damped.

In my accelerating under load video we can see the setup is loaded up by the coils harmonics which loads the driving motor, then when the load is applied the harmonics and the main wave are flattened, I used a rectifier as well, if I loaded the output coil without the rectifier the effect would have been more pronounced.

The use of a lower resonant frequency of a coil wound to have it is many.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 22, 2013, 03:14:00 AM
Synchro1:

Your motor works on "near-field" magnetic fields generated by your drive coil, I am assuming that you are using an SB coil.  You are not operating in the "far-field" realm of radio wave transmission.  Plus the radio frequencies are too high relative to your spinning rotor.  That article you linked to on "Mechanical Antennas" is wrong.  A basic oscilloscope has more than enough bandwidth to allow you to analyze your motor.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 22, 2013, 03:31:05 AM
TK:

Quote
"As you sweep the frequency all that you see is a pure sine wave across the LC resonator. " That's not true (in my experience), even if you use a pure sine wave as stimulation. You don't see the pure sinusoidal output until you are close to the resonant frequency _or a harmonic_.

It's amazing how you can remember stuff from 30 years ago but you can't remember stuff from last year or last week.

I can't explain your observations because of the following:  If you start with a sine wave as stimulation, then you have no where else to go.  Your device under test has to respond with a sine wave at the same frequency (but not necessarily the same amplitude and phase.)  This presumes that the device under test consists of linear components.

The only way generate new frequencies, i.e.; "You don't see the pure sinusoidal output" is if your device under test has non-linear components in it, like a nasty diode.  I am assuming that the LC tank circuit is in general pretty damn linear.  So it's a mystery to me.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2013, 03:31:25 AM
But I think synchro is right about his motor: first it's working as a pulse motor, then it is working as a synchronous AC motor. Call it near-field EM or RF, whatever. The thing does not have to be "responding" to every cycle of the driving wave. The rotor magnet might be rotating at the tenth "subharmonic" of the applied EM or RF and still be getting a push from it.

At the higher speeds it's rotating for the same reason that the compass is rotating in this video. The line between "pulse motor" and "synchronous AC motor" is a fine, blurry line and you can define motors on either side of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd5w8KhYrQk
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 22, 2013, 03:48:39 AM
TK:

Farmhand has a clip where I think you also observe a similar phenomenon.  I used the term "metastability."  The rotor will stabilize at a base frequency and possibly at one or more higher or lower frequencies for reasons akin to what you outlined.

I used the term "electro-mechanical impedance" for how a pulse motor might respond.  In that sense it's yet another "filter."  Just like a fancy analog filter might have multiple poles (resonance points) and zeros in the filter response, an electro-mechanical filter can also have it's poles and zeros.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 22, 2013, 03:57:39 AM
But I think synchro is right about his motor: first it's working as a pulse motor, then it is working as a synchronous AC motor. Call it near-field EM or RF, whatever. The thing does not have to be "responding" to every cycle of the driving wave. The rotor magnet might be rotating at the tenth "subharmonic" of the applied EM or RF and still be getting a push from it.

At the higher speeds it's rotating for the same reason that the compass is rotating in this video. The line between "pulse motor" and "synchronous AC motor" is a fine, blurry line and you can define motors on either side of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd5w8KhYrQk

Glad you brought that up, I just thought of a pulse motor rotor design to make use of harmonics in an attraction kind of way.
I'll whip a sketch and post it with an explanation a bit later.

Just an idea as an experiment. I have got an optical sensor circuit for a pulse motor (to replace reeds) but I haven't used it with an appropriate
motor setup yet, I tested it with the dodgy coils I made for the acceleration generator video's, but I have bought different magnets and have better shafts now
so I may construct a new pulse motor as a fast spinner. I don't know when but I will probably be out of action for some time soon, if I don't post for a while
it's because of a medical issue, just thought I should mention that. Nothing to worry about, much.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2013, 04:01:08 AM
TK:

It's amazing how you can remember stuff from 30 years ago but you can't remember stuff from last year or last week.

I can't explain your observations because of the following:  If you start with a sine wave as stimulation, then you have no where else to go.  Your device under test has to respond with a sine wave at the same frequency (but not necessarily the same amplitude and phase.)  This presumes that the device under test consists of linear components.

The only way generate new frequencies, i.e.; "You don't see the pure sinusoidal output" is if your device under test has non-linear components in it, like a nasty diode.  I am assuming that the LC tank circuit is in general pretty damn linear.  So it's a mystery to me.

MileHigh

You can get "beat note" rippling superimposed on the main sinusoidal output that happens at too long a time frame to show up on the average display of only a few cycles, and also higher frequencies that show up as a thickening of the trace line. But you are by and large correct, it's just a quibbly point.
However it's certain that using the square pulse produces the same eventual resonant frequency, and it's also true that the square pulse will often produce a measurable output when a sine wave at the same amplitude won't.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 22, 2013, 04:02:25 AM
Farmhand:

FYI square waves, triangle waves, saw tooth waves, can all be broken down into their fundamental frequency and associcated harmonics.  Some waves have only odd harmonics, some even harmonics, some both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave)

MileHigh

P.S.:  The attached gif image is animated but I can't see it here, but I can see it on the Wiki entry.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 22, 2013, 04:49:36 AM
Milehigh, Thanks for the tips with the Function generator, I was thinking of having a look inside, but it's handy in the I don't care too much if I damage it kinda way. I might have a look in there, I've got some temperature probes and non contact thermometers ect.

I do get what you're saying on the square waves and harmonics ect. and I agree you're right, if say you take the square and sine signals you see in the top diagram,
and fed a transformer or such like a Tesla coil with each one at the same amplitude the only difference will be the square wave input will give a higher amplitude resonant sine wave output than with the sine wave input and similarly a triangle wave will give less than a sine, just from memory. With some transformers the resulting sine wave from a square wave input can be a bit "off" shape but uniform when showing the amplitude peak, usually this happens when a core is used other than air. We can get very low frequency "beats" with two transformers almost identical but just a bit different in frequency.

So we can excite the coil with very sharp pulses and if the Q is good enough with no loading we might see only slight damping between the input events of a lower harmonic input frequency, the third harmonic is strong with a pulsed DC input, say for example my transformer is resonant at 750 kHz then if I excite it at somewhere around 250 kHz I can get a
strong and only slightly damped response at 750 kHz, that's basic stuff. I'm not a ham radio man or a full on "coiler", I'm a boilermaker experimenting as a hobby, I can't get too complicated, I don't have time.

I do very much appreciate everybody's input and I will try to respond to posts that are to me. I'll have to work back when I have time later.

Thanks all
Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 22, 2013, 05:26:18 AM
The optical sensor circuit I have can be used for snipping the center out of a wave ect. as well, "like coil shorting".
ie. I could run a regular pulse motor and use the sensor on an arc adjustment to load the generator coil at just the right moment.
A second circuit can work in burst mode also so it can short and open a coil several times for one trigger event.

Sensor module circuit is linked in the video description.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfkEv8oUUls

Here I test the generator as a motor, (the rotor is actually driving a universal motor shaft which it was mounted on) that is a fair bit of load,
plus as can be seen by the wave form the magnets seem to be inducing a lot in the motor coils or something. Anyway a much better and free spinning
pulse motor can be made with the optical sensor. The output of the optical sensor circuit goes to the switching circuit for the motor coils or to the loading switch.
EDIT: (this video is glitching for me at 9 seconds in, just skip to 12 seconds or something if it does that.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mRVjbXNLBs

Or it can be used to load the resonant rise out of a gen coil maybe, which is what I would like to try some time.  ;)
Like make the gen coils resonant then load them just enough to clip the resonant rise off the top. For an experiment.

Forgot to mention the two circuits together can output a variable pulse width for the switches even though the input PW from the sensor is constant.

I'll try to find the drawing for the switching control section.

P.S. An RPR 220 optical sensor is worth about 75 cents and a CD4001 or 4011 chip is worth about 45 cents.
The most expensive parts are usually the mosfet driver chips which are not really necessary anyway I also used a CD 4047 chip to make the bursts.
That's the drawing I'm looking for.  :-[

...
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 22, 2013, 06:41:26 AM
Just to add the idea I had before, see attachment pic.
The idea is that when harmonics are present in the motor or generator core the steel inserts might be attracted to them. Maybe a red herring.

Also the pic shows what I mean by using the serial connected bifilar coil as a charging inductor, when the current is interrupted in the charging inductor it
discharges it's energy into the second capacitor which builds a higher charge to discharge through the primary on the next cycle. The built up charge in the second capacitor
depends on the energy released from the charging inductor.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2013, 07:48:50 AM
Looks like a very nice pulse motor you are evolving there. I can't do the theoretical analysis as easily as MH, I have to build and probe, change and build, change and test, before I think I know what is going on in most circuits.

FWIW, I made another video showing the use of the FG, the scope and the frequency counter to resonate a tank circuit and then calculate the inductance of the coil from the measurements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwCNBHUh0
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 22, 2013, 01:21:17 PM
Looks like a very nice pulse motor you are evolving there. I can't do the theoretical analysis as easily as MH, I have to build and probe, change and build, change and test, before I think I know what is going on in most circuits.

FWIW, I made another video showing the use of the FG, the scope and the frequency counter to resonate a tank circuit and then calculate the inductance of the coil from the measurements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwCNBHUh0

Thanks very much for that, I'll watch that for sure, everything helps to build a intuitive "picture", some of us might not "get" things immediately but with time and more learning
the picture forms. I actually find this stuff very interesting and it's easy to get carried away with the circuits and stuff or the theory, study ect.

Not sure what exact arrangement I'll go with first for the pulse motor, but I want to be able to load the shaft a little bit at times so I need a rotating shaft not just a spinner.
And I want to use two opposing drive coils. I want to be able to change rotors or magnet arrangements easily as well. A vertical rotor rather than a horizontal one too.  :)

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on April 22, 2013, 08:40:56 PM
Retrod1's spinning a magnet sphere with a vertical Pancake and a sinusoidal 70 hz audio signal at low r.p.m. Coupling my spiral bedini to accelerate the magnet sphere, and switching to a full range signal generator, a higher frequency synchronus motor may be possible run by radio waves. I don't believe this has ever been accomplished before.
 
From Retrod1:
 

@"Synchro, you have a good memory. If the drive coil is observed with a scope one can see the interaction of the spinning rotor (magnet) field with the drive coil field. I believe this is what is causing the current decrease in Lidmotor's latest video. Using a pure sine wave on the drive coil makes this easier to observe ". 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTvEi_XuaL0&list=UUlgIDBiaYdtIk1O1AvqjK5Q&index=3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTvEi_XuaL0&list=UUlgIDBiaYdtIk1O1AvqjK5Q&index=3)
 
Transmitting a broadcast spin signal from a distance could delivery "Spin Energy" as a power company, coupled with Lenz free SBSC Spiral output coils. Everyone could have magnet spheres spinning around in the attic! All they would need is starter coils and circuits. The SBSC creates one N pole only in the center, no south. Therefore it pushes the south pole as an output coil.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on April 22, 2013, 11:53:51 PM
TK:

Very nice clip.  I see you added the resistor and primarily used a sine wave for the excitation.  Way cool!  Just a minor comment and don't let it spoil the party:  I think you put the frequency counter on the LC side of the circuit.  It would have been better if you put it on the function generator side of the circuit.  It wasn't significant because you were testing a big coil.  If you were testing a tiny coil then you would want to have the frequency counter on the signal generator side.

You can also measure inductance using the L/R time constant.  Again for any keeners, this test gives you another way to measure inductance, and you can use it to double-check your readings.

A simple circuit with a signal generator set on a square wave connected to a resistor connected to a coil connected to ground is all that you need to see the time constant in action on your scope.  You have say a square wave that goes from 0 V to 10 V, and you put your scope across the coil to observe the time constant in "action."

I am linking to two clips that are a bit technical, but very well presented.

One comment about the mysterious "e."  "e" is a number, the value is 2.7182818...

This number is the "base of the natural logarithm."  Here is what it means:  Think of watching a car tire deflate, or water coming
out of a hole in the bottom of a bucket.  What you notice is that the rate the air flows is proportional to the air pressure and the rate
water flows is proportional to the water pressure.  When you think about that it "acts upon itself."  The tire is leaking air at a
certain rate which lowers the pressure which slows down the leaking rate which slows down the lowering of the pressure which
slows down the leaking rate and so on "forever."

The number "e" takes care of that, it's the "natural way things work" so they call it the "base of the natural logarithm."

"e" is used for capacitor and inductor formulas because the same concepts apply.  All scientific calculators will have "'e' to the x" on one of the keys.

So if you study these two clips you should be able to measure inductance with your scope, a square wave, and a resistor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81wiYdnZHBs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81wiYdnZHBs)

EDIT:  Oops, the link below is way to too complicated, most can ignore it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr1kZJas6U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr1kZJas6U)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on April 24, 2013, 09:25:31 AM
Here's the circuit for processing the signal from the photo reflector or interrupter into longer or shorter pulse widths, with or without re-triggering.

I couldn't find it because it wasn't finished yet  :P my actual circuit has more parts for re-trigger control
and external shut down. I intend to use the circuit with a microprocessor to control a boost converter
for input voltage control to the motor coils and load switching ect., I've made a board with a picaxe 14M2 chip to control four output mosfets and
has four inputs as well with analogue to digital converters for sensing and pot control ect. 

The actual pulse motor circuit is independent of the picaxe, (hardware controlled). An interrupter of any kind will work with it as long as the input
specs of the 4047 chip are respected. The circuit could do with a change or two in design, which I'll get to when necessary.

CD4047 datasheet
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/26874/TI/CD4047.html

Signal processing board. Just to clarify the 5 volts is so I can use the same supply for the picaxe board, the sensor module and the signal processing board chips.

Been a while since I used it but from memory I think the PW is determined by the R/C components, I also used diodes to do the less than 50% duty trick like with 555's, which
I didn't include in the drawing. Switching the re-triggering on and off while in use might be handy for start up ect., when full speed is achieved if the re-trigger is turned off there would be only one pulse per trigger event, (width adjusted by pot).
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on April 24, 2013, 03:53:28 PM
@Gyula:
Excellent testing and demonstrations. You are doing a lot to clear up the misconceptions held by certain people about what a "Tesla bifilar" coil is and how it works.
There is one other type of "bifilar" coil that is often used and confused with Tesla's design. This is the "hairpin" coil. The hairpin configuration uses the same amount of wire but is non-inductive. If you have the time, you might consider winding a third bolt as a hairpin, and repeat the inductance and electromagnet tests with it.
The hairpin winding is just what you did for the Tesla bifilar, but without cutting and splicing the ends.
....

Hi TinselKoala,

I repeated the "paperclip" tests with nuts and with the two coils separated, you may have seen it here:
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952)

What you suggested above as testing the so called 'hairpin' coil I have done it too by now, albeit I wondered what sense it may have if we all know that such coil you referred to above obviously has no inductance or only a very very little.
Nevertheless, I cut the same 6 meter long piece of enameled+silk insulated wire, OD= 0.3mm (awg #29), I folded the wire into half and wound onto a third identical bolt like the ones used for the other two coils.  I started the winding with the folded end of the wire, did not cut it, and guided the two parallel wires close to each other as I progressed with it.  Finally I cleaned the two open ends of the wire and connected them to my power supply. DC current I used now was abouit 420mA as earlier and there was not even a single small nut lifted by this electromagnet. 
Measuring this coil with an L meter, it showed a fluctuating value between zero and 1uH. When I short circuit the L meter input with a thick piece of short wire it measures zero, unfortunately the most sensitive range it has is 2mH, so this coil must have a less then 1uH inductance.

In the meantime, I freshed up my info on Tesla 'hairpin' experiments because for me it has meant a different setup.  Everybody can read it here, only two pages long, including  Figures 19a,  b and c.  See Pages 36 and 37 in this PDF file:
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/1893onlight.pdf (http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/1893onlight.pdf) 
And the hairpin shape is created in Fig.19c when the upper ends of the parallel lines B and B1 are shorted with copper bar B2 and the upper 50V lamp remains dark while the lower 100V lamp (not far from the 50V lamp) is bright.

Nowadays such tests are called standing wave tests I think where current and voltage nodes are created on (transmission or here Lecher) lines and the voltage and current levels are changing as per the length of the line and the AC frequency determine it, together with the termination of the line, be it an open or a shorted end or a matched load end (for this latter matched load case there would be no standing waves).  Info on Lecher line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecher_lines

rgds, Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 08, 2013, 08:16:52 AM
I did the nail coil tests and with just a D batt each picked up the same amount of material.
I thought about it a bit more, as we should, and the nail would probably create eddy losses if the field wanted to build quickly. Just thoughts. Also the battery voltage is pretty low, considering Tesla said that more turns, more voltage, more effect.

So I wound a new coil, actually 2. One is made from 14 strands of fine relay coil wire. Once it was wound, I separated the strands(all marked previous to winding) to have 4 leads of 7 strands each. It is wound on a small bobbin for an E core that mostly encases the bobbin. It should have decent capacitance upgrade and inductance inside the core compared to the nails. ;D

Then I made a larger air core coil wound with 26awg x 2 for about 900 turns total. The nails were within spec at 23awg.

The larger coil will be tested as an inductor and a motor drive and/or gen coil.

Got an Arduino board with a touch screen display that will be programmed to run things. Naudin has some vids out with the Arduino controlling a pulse motor and Its very cool. Im going to expand on that model with a menu based testing module. Will post it as I go. Got the display pretty much figured out in programming. Also got an SD card shield for logging and expansion.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 08, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
Hi Mags,

Thanks for doing and reporting the tests, this confirms my findings with the bolt tests ( http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357838/#msg357838 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357838/#msg357838) and here is a repeated test: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 
Regarding the transient switch-on moment you mention as eddy current loss possibility in the nails, this is possible of course but remember it must happen in both the normally and the bifilarly wound nails so the eddy loss effect in this case is irrevelant when comparing their performance.
You mention the low battery voltage and that Tesla said the more turns, more voltage, more effect:  I think the main message Tesla patent Coil for Electromagnets includes is that choosing parallel guided wires and connecting them in series (aiding phase) there is a (resonant LC) frequency where the coil will have no inductive opposition to a certain AC input current flow due to the resonant effect the increased (and distributed) coil capacitance makes with the coil inductance.
This resonant state cannot be input voltage dependent, it is just a coincidence, Tesla did many tests with high voltages indeed and I think his example in the patent involved 1000V for explanation purposes. He even mentioned in the patent that high voltage capacitors were difficult to make (at the time) so increasing the (distributed) capacitance between the wires by suitable insulation material was a means to solve the HV capacitor issue.  I also believe that Tesla did not mean his pancake coils for electromagnet usages only, he has several patents on either single wire or wireless energy transfer where he also showed the pancake coil configurations and the coil resonance had to be involved there for sure, using his series bifilar pancake coils.
Of course it is difficult and mainly restricted by coil construction to build such bifilarly wound coils to fit your various switching frequency necessities for the many tasks  i.e. especially for the lower some hundred Hz or less frequencies. You have to know how to increase the capacitance between the wires (for instance using wires with rectangular cross section instead of the normal circular, or use Alu or copper foil windings with thin insulating layer between them, that would increase the facing 'capacitor' areas) and still there can be limits.

Looking forward to your findings with those beautiful coils you have shown above.

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 09, 2013, 04:08:11 AM
Hi Mags,

Thanks for doing and reporting the tests, this confirms my findings with the bolt tests (

No problem.  ;D I had to do it. I had to put it to the test with thoughts of what if. If I dont, I may walk away and miss out.  I generally wont delve into a large venture replication unless its my idea or if other replicators have flown, but not many of them around.

I just need to put this bifi coil thing to sleep or wake it up.  ;)   Ive seen some interesting devices that claimed to use bifi coils and in the end, it was never really resolved as to if they really worked or not.

I have some self conflicts with what might the coil be used for and what style of coil would be best for its use if there are any. I dont see them out there anywhere being used much. Why is that? Waste of time? Well I cannot walk away from a 250,000 times increase what ever it is, as long as its not resistance.  ;) Maybe that number can be more, or even less depending. I really have not seen 250,000 anything with someone using low voltage, and have not seen much high voltage used except in fewer turns so maybe that needs to be the focus. Start with low voltage and go upward, using a many turn coil of course.

What exactly does 250,000 in this sense mean? Lets say that we have a coil of many turns and the resistance of the coil is 1000ohm with 10v applied to it. It will eventually reach .01 amp once the field has peaked. The max consumption would be 0.1w. Now figure in the number 250,000 with those numbers, any which way we can. It still adds up to a whole lot, whether it is a spike or what ever, that is not something to ignore. Is it?

Maybe Tesla 'is' only talking about an AC current. Does that make the number 250k any smaller in meaning?

I think we need to put that big number on the table until we understand what it means really.

I dont know if Tesla intended to use it in pancake/planar coils or not. If he did, more than likely it would have related to what freq he wanted to work with. Like a primary for a Tesla coil, Ive seen bifi, thick insulated wire, pancake made of few turns. Like less than 10. So there wouldnt be much capacitance and not much coil. So very high freq is the intention.

But if there is advantage to more and more turns, then a thousand turns of pancake is a lot. If there is a purpose, I dont know. So im going for the rolled coils to get more turns, as T said it can be applied to any style of coil. I think the diagrams of pancake coils in the Pat makes for simple understanding of what is intended on how to make it.. ;)

I cant say that the expression of 1000 turns in the pat is just meant for ease of understanding. That doesnt go along with more turns more effect, and clearly the nails dont seem to express any difference. But that may be a bad example to start off with. lol my larger coil shown above mysteriously only about 9 times as many turns, but there is a LOT more capacitance increase because the outer turns of the coil have more length per turn. So cant calculate capacitance as only a 9 times increase. ;) Will check all these. Im interested to see the capacitance of the multi strand coil compared to the large coil. Will do this tonight.


As far as the nail coils, would there be a difference between the 2 if they were run at a freq the bifi nail rings at? maybe nothing. Havnt seen it tried, much less you and I actually doing the initial test.  ;)

I wonder why someone would put that up and know that it doesnt work? And show it in its minimalist way. ??? ;) If Tesla did have anything, and some of his writings show it in an inconspicuous way, would there be interest in deflecting the train of thought of those ambitious enough to really study his works? If we are going to continue our endeavors, then this is one device that needs to be understood. Put to sleep or woken up.  ;) ;D

Mags

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 09, 2013, 05:47:28 AM
Testing the large coil above, capacitance is 16.8nf - .016uf. Not to shabby. DVMs with cap measure capability must be affected drastically when measuring across an inductor or coil from end to end, conductive ends of the same winding. The coil I pulled half of the bifi from is a single strand of maybe 4000 to 5000 turns. Its still about 4 to 5 times heavier since the bifi wind.

When measuring the capacitance of the big big coil, from end to end I got .1mf - 100uf  ??? This is the single strand doner coil.

When I measured the bifi, 1 continuous strand from end to end I got 3.6mf - 3600uf :o Its a much smaller coil than big big. And im just measuring 1 strand from end to end. Wonder what the capacitance reading would be if the 1 strand were wound by itself. I know this is not the 'tool' for measuring an inductor.

It must be how the reading or determining of the capacitance in the meter that way misinterprets this reading, because Im not measuring a cap but an inductor.

Yep, just checked some things. Shorting the meter leads shows in mf 000 like its beyond its reading. Tried some other coils and the ones with the most turns of fine wire show lower than thick wire of fewer turns as the fewer thicker are closer to acting like meter leads shorted.  Anyways. ::) lol

When I read the bifi strand for capacitance across the wire, not between the 2 wires I get 3.6mf (thats milli farad, just in case some think Im confusing uf in this post ;D ), 1 strand of 2 from end to end. Then I just put the 2 in bifi series and measured again from end to far end end. Got 3.6mf again. :o ???   Considering I get different results using the cap meter to measure different coils, as long as they are not too stout to overload, why do I get the same readings from 1 strand in this coil whether its just measuring 1 strand or both in series? Something is odd there. Who woulda thunk. Mags thunk it. lol

I just did this test as I posted this. I double checked and still the same weirdness. Dont have an Inductance meter. Gota git one. Im programing the arduino to do things like that but it would be good to have a meter handy.

Ok, broke away to try something. My meter has a tone function that relates to the readings. It functions in cap mode. I hear a chirp every half a second or so. So this must be what is happening with the inductors. The cap meter is sending charge and measuring the time to charge. So the cap meter just may be able to read a range of coils and probably fairly accurate if a chart is made out to relate the capacitance reading to the inductance of the coil. Interesting. For this meter anyways. Wavetek 2030 Oldie but a goodie.

Mags




Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 09, 2013, 08:40:47 AM
It's easy to use the Arduino as an accurate inductance meter or capacitance meter. I show here the use as inductance meter. To use as cap meter you basically use the same circuit but put a reference inductor in place of the reference capacitor in the circuit's test tank, and change the math around a little bit. Display of data can be done in the serial monitor, you don't need the fancy LCD screen obviously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx3B89379eQ
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: forest on May 09, 2013, 10:59:49 PM
Found that site : http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/

but I'm not sure if that similar version is working good... although it has a nice feature of calibration.
TinselKoala, can you merge both circuits to prepare one able to measure frequency,inductance, capacitance and maybe also parallel tank circuit frequency (external RCL circuit with the method of kick into ring down oscillation and count peaks as you described in some video) ?
That would be really useful device !
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 10, 2013, 12:51:04 AM
It's easy to use the Arduino as an accurate inductance meter or capacitance meter. I show here the use as inductance meter. To use as cap meter you basically use the same circuit but put a reference inductor in place of the reference capacitor in the circuit's test tank, and change the math around a little bit. Display of data can be done in the serial monitor, you don't need the fancy LCD screen obviously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6N8ys8FiA4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx3B89379eQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx3B89379eQ)

Very nice. thanks for that. ;)

I chose the 2.8 touchscreen for the ability to do and show many things at once on the screen as a stand alone unit without the pc connected. My WattsUp meter uses a a 2 row display and flashes back an forth between other parameters like every 2 seconds or so. I just wanted more with the possibility of even a tiny scope in the corner along with other updating info. Im happy with what I can do with it. ;D

Will be interesting to see how the inductance meter reads across 1 strand of these bifi coils compared to both strands in series. The cap meter test of the winding vs both windings in series shows the same reading. Checked and double checked. We will see. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 10, 2013, 12:56:46 AM
Found that site : http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/ (http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/)

but I'm not sure if that similar version is working good... although it has a nice feature of calibration.
TinselKoala, can you merge both circuits to prepare one able to measure frequency,inductance, capacitance and maybe also parallel tank circuit frequency (external RCL circuit with the method of kick into ring down oscillation and count peaks as you described in some video) ?
That would be really useful device !

Thanks Forest  ;D   More is better. ;) Like the turns of a bifi. :o ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: wings on May 10, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
Thanks Forest  ;D   More is better. ;) Like the turns of a bifi. :o ;D

Mags

italian site http://www.sillanumsoft.org/Italiano/zrlc.htm (http://www.sillanumsoft.org/Italiano/zrlc.htm)



http://www.sillanumsoft.org/Italiano/screenshot.htm

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 10, 2013, 02:05:06 PM
Found that site : http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/ (http://www.kerrywong.com/2010/10/16/avr-lc-meter-with-frequency-measurement/)

but I'm not sure if that similar version is working good... although it has a nice feature of calibration.
TinselKoala, can you merge both circuits to prepare one able to measure frequency,inductance, capacitance and maybe also parallel tank circuit frequency (external RCL circuit with the method of kick into ring down oscillation and count peaks as you described in some video) ?
That would be really useful device !
The arduino inductance meter I showed in the video places a known capacitor in parallel with the unknown inductance under test, then "pings" this tank, senses its resonant (ringdown) frequency, and then applies some math to calculate the inductance based on the pre-programmed value of the known capacitance. The measured resonant frequency is already displayed for each "ping" on the LCD display.

With a little cleverness and a rotary switch, one could adapt the same circuitry easily to use a known inductor to test an unknown capacitance. And the math performed during the calculation can be "calibrated" by allowing a variable to be controlled externally, by a potentiometer for example, so that the system could be adjusted to read accurately on a known standard.

Here's the circuit schematic for the "front end" that makes the tank circuit, pings it, and reports back to the Arduino. The two capacitors are the tank caps and the position of the unknown inductor is shown. So I'm sure that the clever builders here can make a switch arrangement that used a known capacitor, a known inductor, and allowed switching back and forth, so the tank could be set up to measure either an unknown cap or unknown inductor. The process of ringing the tank and measuring the frequency is exactly the same, so the only mod to hardware is the rotary switch and the known components. Tweaking the Arduino code is also trivial, and adding the pot for calibration only a slight bit more complicated.

To measure frequency of an external system a stand-alone implementation would be better I think, using different functions (more accurate) in the Arduino to measure the frequency.

My Arduino code for the TKInductometer as shown in the video is here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bps78nwtkp5nwnp (http://www.mediafire.com/?bps78nwtkp5nwnp)

Please feel free to play around, improve, criticize, etc. I think I showed the original source where I got the basic sketch in the code comments.


ETA: Now that I see the schematic again, I recall that the comparator I used is a dual unit, two comparators on a single 8pin DIP. So you could use both, one for the inductometer and the other for the capacitometer. Then you'd need a bit more coding, but you could eliminate the need for the rotary switch, just have a board with the two functions running out of the same chip, and select which one to use in the software, with a button or something.

ETA2: I used all scavenged parts, from old TV chassis, so the cost of this meter is essentially zero. You have to factor in the cost of the Arduino and the battery and the optional LCD display, but they are used for so many different things that the marginal cost of them in this meter is only pennies. If you are building a stand-alone meter you'd use a different Arduino designed for permanent installation (cheaper and smaller but runs the exact same program) and the total cost of the meter would probably be about 60 or 65 dollars, half of which is the LCD display.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: forest on May 10, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Your circuit has the nice feature - it can measure resonant frequency of already assembled RC circuit while the circuit from the link I posted can measure precisely inductance,capacitance and frequency. Having all those functions in one device would be an advantage, but I can't imagine the switch needed for switching all those functions...
I think from your circuit can be taken the method of kicking resonant circuit while from the link I posted the measurement of frequency. What do you think ?


Ooops, sorry for off topic. IF there is interest in such meter I will start new thread
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 10, 2013, 08:09:45 PM
Your circuit has the nice feature - it can measure resonant frequency of already assembled RC circuit while the circuit from the link I posted can measure precisely inductance,capacitance and frequency. Having all those functions in one device would be an advantage, but I can't imagine the switch needed for switching all those functions...
I think from your circuit can be taken the method of kicking resonant circuit while from the link I posted the measurement of frequency. What do you think ?


Ooops, sorry for off topic. IF there is interest in such meter I will start new thread

Actually, the schematic you posted is pretty much the whole thing. It uses a slightly different method to ring the tank to read L and C (switched by the switch on the left) and feeds this to another comparator, which can also be switched to read frequency directly, again using the same method of detecting zero-crossings of the applied signal. It's all there !
But the complex LCD driver and a lot of the program code is unnecessary if you use the simple and easy to use pre-wired Parallax LCD. It only needs three wires (two power, one data) and very simple code in the arduino to send data to it.

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 11, 2013, 12:41:25 AM
Hi Mags,

I remember a measurement on a single and a bifilarly wound air core solenoid coils, done by Nichelson, using a HP network analyser. See this PDF file: http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf from his site: https://sites.google.com/site/teslanichelson/

Interestingly, he compares the quality factor, Q=XL/R of the single and the bifilar coils and he calles the Q as voltage gain. His single wire coil (207.9 uH) gave a resonant frequency at 19 MHz with its own self-capacitance while the bifilarly wound coil (205 uH) gave him a resonant frequency at 11 MHz with its own self cap. This latter frequency shows that the series bifilar coil has a higher self capacitance than the single wire coil has because for the same number of turns and shape factor the bifilar coil has a much lower self resonant frequency than the single wire coil.

So he found that the calculated and measured voltage gains differ as many as 929%.  Practically the measured unloaded Q of the single and bifilar coils are involved and for applications that can preserve the high unloaded Q the bifilar wound coil seems to have advantage.
Nichelson also mentioned the bifilar coil in this paper too: http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/Thermodynamics2.pdf  Page 6 and 7.  Quote from Page 6: "A bifilar coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter force normal to coils, inductive reactance. It does not allow what Tesla described (Tesla, 1894) as the formation of 'false currents'. Because the electrical activity in the coil does not work against itself in the form of a counter-emf, the potential across the coil quickly builds to a high value."

I still have to understand and figure out how the high voltage gain can be utilized energy-wise in a bifilar coil? This is the same problem if you build a high Q LC tank circuit and try to preserve as high loaded Q as possible, to be able to access the circulating high current, no?  At resonance an LC circuit where the coil is say single wound, the counter force shown against  the AC input current is also absent, no?


For your recent coils, you could measure and calculate their self capacitances if you have a signal generator and a scope. (for signal generator a function gen or even a pulse gen made from the 555 timer could be used.)
Here are two links how the coils self resonant frequency measurement is done: http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Calculators/Interwire-Coil-Capacitance-Calc.htm  and http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html  The first link uses the coils self capacitance to get a parallel LC resonance while the second link uses two known capacitors to resonate the coils i.e. two caps for each coil. 

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 11, 2013, 12:57:40 AM
.... can you merge both circuits to prepare one able to measure frequency,inductance, capacitance and maybe also parallel tank circuit frequency (external RCL circuit with the method of kick into ring down oscillation and count peaks as you described in some video) ?
That would be really useful device !

Hi forest,

Albeit it costs USD 69 plus shipping, here is an ebay offer for such meter (frequency, inductance, capacitance and power 1 nW-1 W):
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Frequency-Counter-Micro-Power-Capacitance-Inductance-Meter-L-C-F-Cymometer-/181016599062?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a256e1a16 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Frequency-Counter-Micro-Power-Capacitance-Inductance-Meter-L-C-F-Cymometer-/181016599062?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a256e1a16)

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: forest on May 11, 2013, 09:46:13 AM
Yes, Gyula, as I said many times this is the trick. Once you knew how to eliminate reactive power from the context (well, almost) then there is only the power of LC circuit. Then you have to find other trick and your Q become COP.
That's the essence of real ou without explaining the theory....  ::) (sorry,don't ask)
Took me 12 years to realize that but building a prototype is a hard task not finished yet. First I started from Meyer HHO and his clever videos, tried to build Lawton circuits, Daniel Dingel and many others which obviously don't work without the "backend". Then furtunately I started reading Tesla lectures (sometimes 10 times the same lecture)and old patents. To my surprise I found many ou devices originating from probable the same common concept.Or course I've spotted Bedini and Bearden and still cannot comprehend what they are doing ? If they knew the concept then why they are not telling it clearly ? It's obvious there are some factors which I start to see , to keep it in silence. Again, I don't have the concept proof yet, mainly because my health and ability is bad and I have no support. Quite common, do you agree ? all this free energy devices seems to arise from a garage experiments,to mention just a few guys : Richard Willis, Tariel Kapanadze, Melnichenko and so on.
I hope the future generations would not judge us too severely. The main problem is that "the concept" seems to be in exact opposite to the current economical world with all those corporations and oil/energy cartels.
Let me be a prophet for a moment and foresee that God wants us to change the whole concept of living which is now without any reason for the humanity itself (did anybody asked what is the living purpose of the whole humanity ?). All I know is that energy from ambient should be taken only in small quantities uniformly spread around the whole Earth. Answer yourself if that is in agreement with current world....
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 11, 2013, 10:45:55 PM
Hi forest,

Well you play the same game Tito does even if you say you have not built a prototype.

I wonder why you are certain your theory on extracting reactive power from a resonant LC tank is correct? And as you have not tested it, the chance is only 50%... no? 

Are you familiar with Hector's rotoverter setup where he uses a capacitive divider (C1, C2 and C3) and a switching circuit to extract some part of the stored energy in the capacitors of the LC tank. Is your theory similar?

What do you lose on telling your theory? 

Bearden etc have theories only there are no working setups they have shown nothing in practice so far with COP > 1.

What is purpose of humanity you ask? Someone just aswered it here (nothing personal against you):
http://www.overunity.com/13485/new-domain-in-deep-space-discovered-here-at-overunity-com/msg359877/#msg359877 (http://www.overunity.com/13485/new-domain-in-deep-space-discovered-here-at-overunity-com/msg359877/#msg359877)

Greetings,  Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 11, 2013, 10:46:47 PM
double post
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 12, 2013, 05:13:27 AM
In the patent where we says the coil has a greatly increased "capacity", he is referring to the energy it can store not the coils "self capacitance". So he isn't saying that the coils "capacitance" itself will be increased, he is saying that the capacity for the coil to hold energy  between the windings is increased because of how it's wound.

The 250 000 times as much energy is in reference to the increase in energy the capacitance holds because of the potential difference. It is an increase in the ability of a "coils" capacitance to hold energy. Not an increase in actual capacity.

I was tripped up by the different meanings of capacity. All the energy stored in the coil still is supplied by the supply that charges it.

However a bifilar wound coil does have a lower resonant frequency than the same amount of wire wound as a normal coil, so a bifilar coil does "also" have more inherent self capacitance. At least all the ones I have wound do as compared to the same wire length and core ect.  And the resonant frequency is lower, many people might say that a few pF capacitance is nothing but the effect it has on the resonant frequency is a lot.

I issue a challenge, can anybody wind a regular coil and a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS, solenoid, spiral or other coil using the same wire length,size and core ect. and have them both end up at the same resonant frequency ?

I think not, I think the bifilar coil will have more self capacitance in almost every case, and the storing of the extra energy it can hold in the potential between the windings will take time.

Try it. See if it is possible to wind the same wire length as a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS and get anything but a lower resonant frequency for the COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS.

It's an additional effect, be it wanted, intended or just coincidence. My test showed me a much lower resonant frequency, so the self capacitance was more. Regardless even if the self capacitance was the same it must take time for the extra energy stored in the bifilar coils self capacitance to be delivered. Mustn't it ? Capacitors don't charge to higher voltage instantly, it takes time.

Cheers

P.S. What I say is this. "Even if a Coil For Electromagnets had the same self capacitance as the control coil in my test in the second post, the COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS would still have a lower resonant frequency because the extra energy stored in the higher potential between the windings will take time to deliver". However I make that prediction based on Logic alone so I may be wrong. I won't believe anything but the test though so when someone has two "same wire" coils, one regular and wound as a coil for electro-magnets with the same self capacitance then it can be tested.

..

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 12, 2013, 11:29:11 AM
Hi Farmhand,

I agree with the 'capacity' and 'capacitance' clarification, albeit Tesla often used word 'capacity' where we now would use 'capacitance' but it was okay for his era. 
 
There is one issue which is not yet a 100% clear for me (English is a second language for me). 

It is the following quote from the patent:

If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it, and the end of A be connected with the starting point of B, the aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns is the same, viz., one thousand, then...     

So in case Tesla meant to use the same length of wire for conductor B, does not it mean he actually doubled the total (aggregate) length of the original winding made first from conductor A?   i.e. he meant to make another 1000 turns in parallel with conductor A which already had 1000 turns?  Alltogether he had 2000 turns in series, no?

Or the two conductors together had to have a total of 1000 turns, then this means that from conductor A 500 turns should be removed, right?  but he did not write it specificaly, it simply comes from the second part of the above quote?  (Because Tesla started with 1000 turns for conductor A in Figure 1 as a single wire coil.)

This is what I am unsure in. Is it a 100% sure for you that conductor A should be reduced to 500 turns and conductor B should have also 500 turns to get the total 1000 turns in the series (bifilar) connection?


...
However a bifilar wound coil does have a lower resonant frequency than the same amount of wire wound as a normal coil, so a bifilar coil does "also" have more inherent self capacitance. At least all the ones I have wound do as compared to the same wire length and core ect.  And the resonant frequency is lower, many people might say that a few pF capacitance is nothing but the effect it has on the resonant frequency is a lot.


In my Reply #63 above I included a link to a PDF file which tested the same situation you wrote in the above quote. The lower self resonant frequency is obvious for a bifilarly wound coil using the same amount of wire like the single wire coil:
 http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eonichelson/VOLTGN.pdf)   

Thanks,  Gyula   
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 12, 2013, 07:07:18 PM
 http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F13460%2Fteslas-coil-for-electro-magnets%2Fmsg360053%2F%23msg360053&v=1&libId=4763d4ae-ee4f-4f0d-889f-0251f9e27d3d&out=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F~onichelson%2FVOLTGN.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F13460%2Fteslas-coil-for-electro-magnets%2F60%2Fpost%2Fmsg%2F360053%2F&title=Tesla's%20%22COIL%20FOR%20ELECTRO-MAGNETS%22.%23msg360053%23msg360053&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F~onichelson%2FVOLTGN.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13683785259866) 
 
The tester also reports a voltage gain that exceeds theory by 929.3%!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: forest on May 12, 2013, 10:18:08 PM
Oh boy...the extra energy it the key. Why this is so hard to grasp ? Are we fishes without water or with very small brains ? Surely not.  Sometimes I hate scientist for the amount of support in money and appreciation they get while working on topics so little important that a herd of monkeys could solve in short time....while the most important question is still not answered (really?) ?

WHY IS THE EARTH ROTATING ?

P.S. Do you know it was one of problem which caused totall collapse of Tesla mind and he felt into deep and long sleep and breakdown.....
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on May 12, 2013, 11:20:43 PM
In the patent where we says the coil has a greatly increased "capacity", he is referring to the energy it can store not the coils "self capacitance". So he isn't saying that the coils "capacitance" itself will be increased, he is saying that the capacity for the coil to hold energy  between the windings is increased because of how it's wound.

The 250 000 times as much energy is in reference to the increase in energy the capacitance holds because of the potential difference. It is an increase in the ability of a "coils" capacitance to hold energy. Not an increase in actual capacity.

I was tripped up by the different meanings of capacity. All the energy stored in the coil still is supplied by the supply that charges it.

However a bifilar wound coil does have a lower resonant frequency than the same amount of wire wound as a normal coil, so a bifilar coil does "also" have more inherent self capacitance. At least all the ones I have wound do as compared to the same wire length and core ect.  And the resonant frequency is lower, many people might say that a few pF capacitance is nothing but the effect it has on the resonant frequency is a lot.

I issue a challenge, can anybody wind a regular coil and a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS, solenoid, spiral or other coil using the same wire length,size and core ect. and have them both end up at the same resonant frequency ?

I think not, I think the bifilar coil will have more self capacitance in almost every case, and the storing of the extra energy it can hold in the potential between the windings will take time.

Try it. See if it is possible to wind the same wire length as a COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS and get anything but a lower resonant frequency for the COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS.

It's an additional effect, be it wanted, intended or just coincidence. My test showed me a much lower resonant frequency, so the self capacitance was more. Regardless even if the self capacitance was the same it must take time for the extra energy stored in the bifilar coils self capacitance to be delivered. Mustn't it ? Capacitors don't charge to higher voltage instantly, it takes time.

Cheers

P.S. What I say is this. "Even if a Coil For Electromagnets had the same self capacitance as the control coil in my test in the second post, the COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS would still have a lower resonant frequency because the extra energy stored in the higher potential between the windings will take time to deliver". However I make that prediction based on Logic alone so I may be wrong. I won't believe anything but the test though so when someone has two "same wire" coils, one regular and wound as a coil for electro-magnets with the same self capacitance then it can be tested.

..


 How can you say one thing then say the exact opposite. Either it has more capacitance or it doesn't. Self capacitance means more capacitance. This is not negotiable. The increased capacitance is balancing the usual reactance of the traditional coil. This allows the bifilar coil to charge up instantly when compared to the traditional coil. A capacitance meter will not show the actual capacitance because of the self inductance of the coil and the resistance of the wire. You can not measure the capacitance of either coil because it is not a traditional capacitor which the meter is designed to measure. They can not measure the coils capacitance because of the additional features of the coils. This is why they come out the same because you are using a meter that is not designed to work with coils.


 Now the charge and discharge of the bifilar coil is being enhanced by all of the factors in the bifilar coil design, especially when you compare it to a traditional coil. This was Tesla's understanding and he did this to reduce the cost and build into a coil enough capacitance to counter the slow charge and discharge of the regular coil to enable them to be used in his disruptive discharge circuits witch increased the conversion of the disruptive discharge into a magnetic component.


 The reference to this is the Gegene generator from JLN labs. But the pancake has another feature most are overlooking and that is the ability to use both the upswing and down swing to convert into a one way flow via induction. This effectively doubles the power of the device when coupled with the traditional solenoid coil. Basically this forms an inductive diode and when coupled with a regular coil facilitates an increased output via this inductive diode.


 I am also of the opinion that it increases the speed of a discharge hence the increased voltage component when the disruptive discharge is directly injected into the bifilar coil.


 The capacity of the coil is vastly increased and hence the ability to discharge faster via this bifilar coil method. Since an inductive component is included it allows the capacitance part of the coil to be charged with little loss of the energy supplied to the capacitance.


 One way to avoid the loss traditional capacitors see is to include an inductive coil before the capacitor. Well this is included in this design.


 Just some ideas to kick around and a direction to better understand the bifilar method due to increased self capacity being discussed. Tesla was right in saying it the way he did. We just have to change our misconceptions to see it the correct way that Tesla was trying to teach us.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 13, 2013, 12:38:00 AM

 How can you say one thing then say the exact opposite. Either it has more capacitance or it doesn't. Self capacitance means more capacitance. This is not negotiable.
.... snip....

Dear jbignes5,

Self capacitance cannot mean more capacitance, simply it can only mean capacitance and it is different for every coil so values can be higher OR lower wrt each other.   
Yes Farmhand first ponders on the amount of the bifilar coil capacitance but finally he deduced it must have higher self capacitance compared to the single wire coil because he mentioned its lower resonant frequency.  This latter is shown tested in the Nichelson paper I refered to above.

If you feel like commenting my question in Reply #69 above, please do so when you have some time.

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Tito L. Oracion on May 13, 2013, 01:20:15 AM
Oh boy...the extra energy it the key. Why this is so hard to grasp ? Are we fishes without water or with very small brains ? Surely not.  Sometimes I hate scientist for the amount of support in money and appreciation they get while working on topics so little important that a herd of monkeys could solve in short time....while the most important question is still not answered (really?) ?

WHY IS THE EARTH ROTATING ?

P.S. Do you know it was one of problem which caused totall collapse of Tesla mind and he felt into deep and long sleep and breakdown.....


Very simple to answer.


Earth rotate because God made it to, so that you, me and everyone can live temporarily.   8) 


Tesla didn't read the Bible and i read it and that his big mistake  ;D


Your big tits ;D
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 13, 2013, 01:32:35 AM
A strange thought...

Wind a single layer bifi in series connection having 1 wire on each end.
Now begin a new second layer bifi starting from the same point as the first layer did only wind it in the opposite direction than the first. If the first was clockwise looking at the starting end then the second layer bifi starts counter clockwise.

Now, the second layer is also series connected and has 2 leads, one at each end. This leaves us with 4 leads 2 at each end. If we apply a dc current to the ends of the first coil we will have N at one end and S at the other end of the coil. If we apply the same dc to the second coil, same polarity same ends of the coil, the N and S field will be switched because the second coil was wound counterclockwise.

Now, take the leads of the second coil and connect them to the first coil leads at opposite ends. The coils are wired in parallel now but reverse electrical polarity in reference to the far end connections, but now we have both coil fields with N on one side and S on the other.

Ill draw it if need be. But whats my point?????

In the first and second layer bifi coils there is 50% of input voltage between adjacent windings. BUT, now look at the voltage differences between the adjacent first and second layer windings.  If the input is 100v, the difference between the first turn of the first layer and the first turn of the second layer is right near 100v.  Not 50v. And its at both ends of the coil this happens. Im not totally sure what happens between successive adjacent layer turns, but I think they diminish toward the middle to the 50-50. Do they? lol. I have to try this later, and see what happens.

I find it to be interesting considering with just the bifi we get the 50% deal between windings, but here we are introducing at least near 100% difference between windings. Even if it just leveled out to 50-50 in the middle of the coil, the added increase outward to the ends of the coil should have some advanced effect beyond the bifi alone.

Hmm, and more layers could be made. Or, hmm, offsetting the starting point of the second layer, could we get maybe 75v between all adjacent layer windings?  Dunno. Just thinkin.  ;) I feel a little of my 'spark' coming back with this project. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 13, 2013, 01:44:33 AM
The lower resonant frequency of a series bifilar coil shows that the self-capacitance is higher, but not by much, perhaps 40% to 70%.  With a regular coil you might have one volt of potential between turns and in a series bifilar coil you might have 50 volts of potential between turns.  That's were the moderately larger self capacitance has a higher "capacity" to store energy because of the increased potential difference between the "plates" (adjacent turns) of the self capacitance.

An equivalent to a series bifilar coil would a regular coil in parallel with a high-voltage capacitor.  The capacitor can be any size so it's much more flexible.

You can experiment with series bifilar coils or regular coils hooked up as LC tank circuits and observe their behaviour, and you won't find any "extra energy."

MileHigh

P.S.:  The Earth is slowing down!  That's why we have leap-seconds.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: forest on May 13, 2013, 07:19:39 AM
A strange thought...

Wind a single layer bifi in series connection having 1 wire on each end.
Now begin a new second layer bifi starting from the same point as the first layer did only wind it in the opposite direction than the first. If the first was clockwise looking at the starting end then the second layer bifi starts counter clockwise.

Now, the second layer is also series connected and has 2 leads, one at each end. This leaves us with 4 leads 2 at each end. If we apply a dc current to the ends of the first coil we will have N at one end and S at the other end of the coil. If we apply the same dc to the second coil, same polarity same ends of the coil, the N and S field will be switched because the second coil was wound counterclockwise.

Now, take the leads of the second coil and connect them to the first coil leads at opposite ends. The coils are wired in parallel now but reverse electrical polarity in reference to the far end connections, but now we have both coil fields with N on one side and S on the other.

Ill draw it if need be. But whats my point? ??? ?

In the first and second layer bifi coils there is 50% of input voltage between adjacent windings. BUT, now look at the voltage differences between the adjacent first and second layer windings.  If the input is 100v, the difference between the first turn of the first layer and the first turn of the second layer is right near 100v.  Not 50v. And its at both ends of the coil this happens. Im not totally sure what happens between successive adjacent layer turns, but I think they diminish toward the middle to the 50-50. Do they? lol. I have to try this later, and see what happens.

I find it to be interesting considering with just the bifi we get the 50% deal between windings, but here we are introducing at least near 100% difference between windings. Even if it just leveled out to 50-50 in the middle of the coil, the added increase outward to the ends of the coil should have some advanced effect beyond the bifi alone.

Hmm, and more layers could be made. Or, hmm, offsetting the starting point of the second layer, could we get maybe 75v between all adjacent layer windings?  Dunno. Just thinkin.  ;) I feel a little of my 'spark' coming back with this project. ;D

Mags


Ooooooooouch ! I think you touched my coil which I wanted to patent later he he . Don't worry, I do not expect to finish it in my current financial situation...
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: forest on May 13, 2013, 07:20:35 AM
The lower resonant frequency of a series bifilar coil shows that the self-capacitance is higher, but not by much, perhaps 40% to 70%.  With a regular coil you might have one volt of potential between turns and in a series bifilar coil you might have 50 volts of potential between turns.  That's were the moderately larger self capacitance has a higher "capacity" to store energy because of the increased potential difference between the "plates" (adjacent turns) of the self capacitance.

An equivalent to a series bifilar coil would a regular coil in parallel with a high-voltage capacitor.  The capacitor can be any size so it's much more flexible.

You can experiment with series bifilar coils or regular coils hooked up as LC tank circuits and observe their behaviour, and you won't find any "extra energy."

MileHigh

P.S.:  The Earth is slowing down!  That's why we have leap-seconds.


It also mean higher charge stored, I think nicely distributed among coil wires...
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 13, 2013, 08:08:27 AM

Ooooooooouch ! I think you touched my coil which I wanted to patent later he he . Don't worry, I do not expect to finish it in my current financial situation...

Sorry.  :o ;D

Thought again and just a first and second layer, opposing windings, not bifi will have 100% difference between each adjacent layer winding.  Will have to try both ways.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 13, 2013, 08:12:40 AM
I guess a caduceus coil interleaved and connected like I said above would be the same. The coils where the turns are close together but cross over each other once every turn.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 13, 2013, 05:33:33 PM
The Tesla bifilar builds it's own internal capacitive charge spontaineously, without any artificial input. This is what the term "Self Capacitance " refers to.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 13, 2013, 05:53:35 PM
I guess a caduceus coil interleaved and connected like I said above would be the same. The coils where the turns are close together but cross over each other once every turn.

Mags

Mag's, I think going by what I can deduce from various experiments that with a multi strand coil with twisted wire (like Litz wire) when we series connect the strands "Tesla style" we only get more self capacitance but not the increased potential between turns like the Tesla Patent coil does.

Gyula, I'm not sure ! I'll need to re read the patent, it helps for myself to take the time and read the whole thing from start to finish each time I gain a new perspective, and that's with any patent in general I think. I would think for the advantage to be not resistance the wire would be say 1 x strand 1000 feet long for a regular coil and 2 x strands 500 feet long for the Tesla Electro-magnet coil. I haven't re-read it yet though. I'll try to make time.

To all/anyone, I wonder if when using a dedicated charging coil as in my pulse motor or Tesla's IGNITER FOR GAS ENGINES PATENT would the capacitor the coil discharged into ( C2  in my motor drawings) be charged to a higher voltage because of the higher "capacity" of the Tesla type winding, I realize if it did the input would be more because the coil would take in more energy, logically. But the point is the voltage gained for the size of the coil and the "extra" inherent delay involved in that "lower resonant frequency as well".

But would the same turns in a Tesla type winding produce more voltage into a capacitor than a regular single wind if switched for a given time say 3 mS, (as in a resonant charging circuit case) ? Hmmmm. it must, Logic says so and the input energy would be more for the 3 mS time connected to the supply if done at the right frequency so as to cancel the self inductance of the charging coil. Big input, lots of energy small coil. Sounds good.  ;)

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 14, 2013, 12:10:46 AM
The Tesla bifilar builds it's own internal capacitive charge spontaineously, without any artificial input. This is what the term "Self Capacitance " refers to.

The term self capacitance in connection with coils has always meant: "The capacitive component of a coil, which reduces its impedance at high frequencies and can lead to resonance and self-oscillation, is also called self-capacitance as well as stray or parasitic capacitance."There can be other meanings of self capacitance, some are here where I took the above quote too:
http://www.answers.com/topic/capacitance#Self-capacitance (http://www.answers.com/topic/capacitance#Self-capacitance)   


Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 14, 2013, 01:30:32 AM
Mag's, I think going by what I can deduce from various experiments that with a multi strand coil with twisted wire (like Litz wire) when we series connect the strands "Tesla style" we only get more self capacitance but not the increased potential between turns like the Tesla Patent coil does.



I realize that. For one, the interlaced windings replaces having immediate next turns close to each other by having the other coils windings in between them. This is probably what really helps to reduce the self inductance along with the additional capacitive attraction due to higher voltage differences. It works with the voltage divisions amongst the windings and rearranges them to provide the highest voltage difference between adjacent turns thus increasing capacitive nature in the coil because of these voltage differences.

So my suggestion of a 2 layer, each layer, series bifi in themselves, and winding the second layer from the same starting point as the first layer but wound in the opposite direction as the first, we have the capacitance within each layer, also 'more' capacitive action between the layers. And that capacitive nature has 100% voltage difference between layers, not 50% as within each layer already.

Maybe its nothing, but I have not seen it except for possibly a tightly wound caduceus coil with the wire flip for each turn or half turns, as one would see fit.

But this 2 layer where each bifi interacts through layers while each layer is bifi already may be something different.

If it is 2 layers, I will approach it as a large diameter to increase inductance so the coil wont have to be so long.

Ive set up my pulse motor to try some things with speedup while I finish the Arduino programming.  Till the controller is set up, I set up the motor to run using reeds and testing the bifi as a gen with loads and some other things.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 14, 2013, 04:28:53 AM
The term self capacitance in connection with coils has always meant: "The capacitive component of a coil, which reduces its impedance at high frequencies and can lead to resonance and self-oscillation, is also called self-capacitance as well as stray or parasitic capacitance."There can be other meanings of self capacitance, some are here where I took the above quote too:
http://www.answers.com/topic/capacitance#Self-capacitance (http://www.answers.com/topic/capacitance#Self-capacitance)

Tesla bifilar's generate and store a self charge that's nearly twice the capacitance of an equal single wire solinoid. This charge eliminates any resistance to change in current direction in the coil, decreasing switch time and permiting smoother running at higher speeds.
 
Compass deflection between the two types of non charged coils would reveal the real difference between the two types of coils.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 14, 2013, 05:04:34 AM
Synchro1:

Quote
This charge eliminates any resistance to change in current direction in the coil, decreasing switch time and permiting smoother running at higher speeds.

The basic operating principle of a coil is that applying a voltage to the coil will slowly induce current to flow in the coil.  The larger the coil the longer it takes the same applied voltage to induce current flow.  It's identical to spinning up a large and heavy flywheel mounted on very good bearings with your arms.  It's very hard to change the speed of the flywheel.

So the charge associated with the self-capacitance will not in fact eliminate any resistance to the current direction in the coil.  As we discussed in another thread, the self-capacitance of a coil is insignificant in comparison to the inductance of the coil and in the vast majority of cases you can simply ignore it.

My gut feeling is the Tesla series bifilar coil patent is being grossly misinterpreted on the free energy forums.  He states in the patent that he did the wiring like that because there were no high-voltage capacitors readily available.

My suggestion for those interested is to master the basics of inductors and capacitors and truly understand how they work in both the time domain and the frequency domain.   An inductor acts like an open circuit at high frequencies, a capacitor acts like a short circuit at high frequencies.  An inductor acts like a short circuit at low frequencies and a capacitor acts like an open circuit at low frequencies.  Those are the kinds of concepts that I suggest you focus on.

It's all up to you guys but I think that you are focusing too much energy on that Tesla bifilar pancake coil patent.  In the context of doing experiments on your bench right now, it's not significant.

Just my two cents.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 14, 2013, 07:10:17 AM


As we discussed in another thread, the self-capacitance of a coil is insignificant in comparison to the inductance of the coil and in the vast majority of cases you can simply ignore it.

My gut feeling is the Tesla series bifilar coil patent is being grossly misinterpreted on the free energy forums.  He states in the patent that he did the wiring like that because there were no high-voltage capacitors readily available.

It's all up to you guys but I think that you are focusing too much energy on that Tesla bifilar pancake coil patent.  In the context of doing experiments on your bench right now, it's not significant.

Just my two cents.


"As we discussed in another thread, the self-capacitance of a coil is insignificant in comparison to the inductance of the coil and in the vast majority of cases you can simply ignore it."

You are ignoring other details. If we have 1 coil regular and one bifi, both of equal total number of turns, as we increase the number of turns on each, the capacitance of the normal coil becomes more insignificant because the more turns, the more voltage division of the total Vin, thus less voltage difference between each turn and adjacent turn. But the bifi, no matter how many turns you have, 1000 or even 1 million turns, every winding will be next to another winding that is 50% of Vin in reference to each other. This is not insignificant.  And this coil definitely fits into the 'vast minority' cases when it comes to coils. Look around. There arent any. ;)

"My gut feeling is the Tesla series bifilar coil patent is being grossly misinterpreted on the free energy forums.

Maybe that is your gut feeling. My gut feeling is the opposite of yours. That doesnt make you or I wrong, yet. Lets continue and see what comes of it and decide in the end.  ;)

"He states in the patent that he did the wiring like that because there were no high-voltage capacitors readily available."

Actually, he said they were too bulky and expensive, not that they were not available. ;D

"It's all up to you guys but I think that you are focusing too much energy on that Tesla bifilar pancake coil patent.  In the context of doing experiments on your bench right now, it's not significant."

You seem to want to offer help with your knowledge in discovering fundamentals of these things. Why is this so insignificant? Once we actually see what we can see and gain real experience with it, then we will know for sure if it has any use or not. There is a lot of this and that about this coil configuration out there. So lets try and get it straight once and for all.

We cannot just throw a few numbers out there like 40 to 70% as if that covers it. The more turns each coil has, regular and bifi, the difference becomes more clear. Testing a tiny 100 microhenry coils, bifi and regular, there is not enough turns to signify a difference between the two coils.

We will see what comes of it here as we go along. We did take this subject out of the delayed lenz effect thread and someone started this one. So why suggest that we dont make use of it?

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: fritz on May 14, 2013, 12:23:55 PM
Some Example:

Let´s build an electromagnet with 100V operating voltage, DC, 5Watt DC losses if turned on.

current = power / voltage = 5W / 100V = 50mA

to achieve that we would need wire with DC resistance =  voltage/current = 100V / 50mA = 2000 Ohms.

The thing shouldn´t be too heavy - so we run for an AWG38 Wire.

Using some tool: http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html

we end up with 3033ft of AWG38 wire.

...thats about 15.000 turns on somewhat 1 1/2 inch bobin.

Lets make the coil with 2 wires side-by side and 7500 turns - and connect them in series.

We´ll probably end up with a few nanofarad distributed capacity - and would spare the external
rc in that situation.

This coil "trick" makes only sense in a certain impedance window.
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 14, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
Yes fritz, I agree, and for an electromagnet with a great many turns and a lot of self inductance if we want it to turn on fast (current to flow as quick as possible)
then we need to look at cancelling it's self inductance in order for it to turn on quicker. Wouldn't we ?
Also if the capacitance that cancels the self inductance is distributed it might cancel the self induction at a different rate, as it goes around kind of thing.  :-\

I think i can see with my pulse motor that when the coils are near resonance the current can really flow.  :)   At least it appears that way to me.
 

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: fritz on May 14, 2013, 04:18:53 PM
(...) if we want it to turn on fast (current to flow as quick as possible) then we need to look at cancelling it's self inductance in order for it to turn on quicker. Wouldn't we ?

As already pointed out - I think the technical relevance of that tesla patent is about "these" types of coils - and it´s no practical approach for quick switching due to the ohmic losses in such coil.
Its all about about no cap and less isolation distance needed, I suppose.

The usual way for a "quick turn on" is to use high voltage and current control.
If you want a stepper motor with high speed and torque you typically use for example a "3V"  motor and operate it with 48Volts.
The voltage for such motors is rated for DC losses at 3Volts. If you have a pulsed driver with 48Volts in chopper mode - and limit the current+adjust the chopper timings to keep the ohmic losses within the same range as operated with "pulsed 3V DC".
A "3V" motor has lower DC resistance and  lower inductivity than a motor rated for higher voltages (DC).

So I would design towards low inductance, low DC resistance, high voltage and smart switching/chopping.
For half-bridge designs, I would use a "snubber" to limit "turning off" time.
With an H bridge - you could feed the energy back into the caps of the powersupply.


rgds.

 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 14, 2013, 06:32:22 PM
(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif)Re: Magnetic Overunity Motor Design (http://www.overunity.com/12553/magnetic-overunity-motor-design/msg331278/#msg331278)« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2012, 03:48:10 AM »Quote (http://www.overunity.com/12553/magnetic-overunity-motor-design/post/quote/331278/last_msg/333182/)
Update #1:

Wound the coils in bifilar manner; windings are parallel.  Each coil is 1000 turns, 9.1 Ohms.  My goal was to create the same number of Ampere turns with less resistance and lowered voltage.  What I discovered is that I was way wrong about how it would actually work.  So this is for all those aspiring folks out there: Powering the 2 coils in parallel DOES NOT double the turns just because you have two coils wound together, it only allows more current flow at the same voltage because of the lowered resistance.  Winding bifilar coils and connecting them in parallel is the same as using a larger gauge wire.

With this letdown under my belt there is a silver lining, sorta.  Powering them in series does make a stronger electromagnet.  Not sure why yet but it does.  This assertion is based on force measurements I made between the bifilar coil and a single strand wound coil.  And according to Tesla's patent, it allows extra storage of "magnetic" field energy (2X when compared to a single strand coil of the equivalent turns),!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 15, 2013, 12:41:11 AM
As already pointed out - I think the technical relevance of that tesla patent is about "these" types of coils - and it´s no practical approach for quick switching due to the ohmic losses in such coil.
Its all about about no cap and less isolation distance needed, I suppose.
.....


Hi Fritz,

I agree with most what you mentioned in your above post, except for what I quoted in bold. The reason is that Tesla wrote in his patent:

"I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity (i.e. capacitance) that permits, a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction."

So he drove the series bifilar coil with an AC current whose frequency was the same as the self resonant frequency of his series bifilar coil and this way the usual inductive reactance every coil manifests (away from resonance)  did not oppose the initial input current: the input current was determined only by the coil's ohmic resistance in his circuit.  So the advantage of his coil construction was two fold: he did not have to use a dedicated HV capacitor for tuning the coil and the other advantage was the input current did reach its maximum value possible without delay, dictated by the ohmic coil wire resistance only. This latter is not the case for coils operated (i.e. pulsed) below their own resonance frequency: current can only increasy exponantially during the 5*L/R time duration.

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 15, 2013, 12:53:07 AM
(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif (http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif))Re: Magnetic Overunity Motor Design (http://www.overunity.com/12553/magnetic-overunity-motor-design/msg331278/#msg331278)« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2012, 03:48:10 AM »Quote (http://www.overunity.com/12553/magnetic-overunity-motor-design/post/quote/331278/last_msg/333182/)
Update #1:

Wound the coils in bifilar manner; windings are parallel.  Each coil is 1000 turns, 9.1 Ohms.  My goal was to create the same number of Ampere turns with less resistance and lowered voltage.  What I discovered is that I was way wrong about how it would actually work.  So this is for all those aspiring folks out there: Powering the 2 coils in parallel DOES NOT double the turns just because you have two coils wound together, it only allows more current flow at the same voltage because of the lowered resistance.  Winding bifilar coils and connecting them in parallel is the same as using a larger gauge wire.

With this letdown under my belt there is a silver lining, sorta.  Powering them in series does make a stronger electromagnet.  Not sure why yet but it does.  This assertion is based on force measurements I made between the bifilar coil and a single strand wound coil.  And according to Tesla's patent, it allows extra storage of "magnetic" field energy (2X when compared to a single strand coil of the equivalent turns),!

Hi synchro1,

Unfortunately I have to deduce from his posts that when travin69 changed the coils to bifilar wound types his single wound coils earlier had also 1000 turns??  Because if the single coils had 1000 turns and he wound the bifilar coils with also 1000 turns to create the same number of Amper turns, then it is obvious he got stronger electromagnet when powering the bifilar coil in series!  2 x 1000 turns makes stronger electromagnet than 1 x 1000 turns. 
(When powering the 2 x 1000 turns in parallel, he noticed it was the same as using a thicker wire to make the coil. First he wished to make the bifilar coil with comparable Amper turns to the single coil, hence the 1000 turns in parallel bifilar.)

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 15, 2013, 04:14:22 AM
                   "Based on the force equation for electromagnets and coils, force increases based on the face area of the poles"

                               This force equation might help explain one advantage of Tesla's pancake design for electromagnets..
 
He goes on to describe his experiment to TK:
 
 
Tinsel:

I wound two seperate wires simultaneously parallel to each other.  What I was led to believe (stupid me) was that if I powered them in parallel, I could add each coils windings together and halve the current.  BKGD: Each coil is 200 ft of 26AWG wire and makes about 1100 turns or so on the coil.  This in fact is false and to double the ampere turns, i have to double the amperage.  Since I am trying to keep my I2R losses to a min, I am just going to wind them IAW Tesla's patent.  Currently, they are about 0.925" long.  I want to get them down under 0.75" if possible.  I have heard that as the windings get further away from the core, the outer windings aren't as coupled to the core.  I have not seen this actually printed in any of the books I have read. 

After some recent research, I have discovered that some coils are wound with different gauge wire and wound more like a transformer with windings on top of windings.  I would like to put 22 AWG wire on first, say 300 turns, then finish it off with 26 AWG wire wound on top, like 700 turns.  If I am not mistaken, the outer coil's magnetic field should concentrate the inner field and result in a more uniform magnetic field.  This method is done at many of the research labs to get magnetic fields in excess of 30 Teslas
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 15, 2013, 06:28:37 AM
I am assuming a lot of you know the Hyperphysics web site.  It's a great resource.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html#c2)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1)

Here is something to ponder:  When you look at a coil, you can separate it into individual loops of wire.  Each loop will generate a magnetic field that looks like the familiar toroid that extends out to infinity.  So you simply add the magnetic fields together from each loop to get the true magnetic field generated by the coil.  The only tricky thing to remember is that the magnetic field is represented by a vector that has both magnitude and direction.  Therefore all of the additions are vector additions.

And when you strip it down to it's bare-bones reality, that's all there is.

If there is a core inside the coil, then each loop will tend to have more of the magnetic flux it generates travel through the core.  If the windings are many layers thick, the outer windings see a core that is further away with some "air" in between.  Since the "air" is much less conducive to the passing of magnetic flux than the core, almost all of the magnetic flux generated by the outer loops will also travel through the core.   So there is very little difference between a loop that's wrapped directly around the core material and an outer loop that's effectively 1/2 inch away from the core.  Both loops will contribute a nearly equal amount of magnetic flux through the core.  Naturally the outer loop will contribute a bit less because a very small amount of flux will flow through the "air gap."

You can use the terminology "lossy" for the outer loops in the sense that a very small amount of the flux they generate does not flow through the core.  So that's arguably "lost" flux.

What that means is many "exotic" coil winding schemes are exercises in futility.  I know I am using somewhat strong terms but it's true.  All the circuit cares about with respect to a coil is its inductance.  You can wind a coil in many fancy ways.  ZeroFossilFuel made "hemisphere" coils.  No doubt the magnetic field pattern generated by the hemisphere coils will be a bit different.  You can visualize it in your head, each loop creates the toroidal magnetic field pattern.  Some are larger than others and they are also offset from each other.  Big deal, you add up all of the magnetic field vectors and you are still left with an inductor, or an electromagnet.  If you plug the coil into an electrical circuit, the shape and the winding pattern of the coil means essentially nothing.  All that the circuit sees is that the coil has an inductance.  We are going to assume that the capacitance of the coil is minuscule and irrelevant and does not affect the operation of the circuit.

Now, think of some exotic coil winding configuration being used as a drive coil in a pulse motor.  Same deal, all the pulse motor cares about is that the coil has a certain inductance and generates a magnetic field.  Think of all the pulse motor clips with exotic drive coil winding schemes and break them down in your mind into individual turns, and add the magnetic field generated by each turn to get the final field generated by the coil.

What's the point?   The point is that if you are working with coils, just a regular coil winding on a spool of some diameter and some length and some number of turns will be fine.  All exotic coil winding configurations ultimately are not that much different from you basic standard cylindrical coil that you can see anywhere.

Think of a pancake coil and do the same thought experiment were you look at it turn by turn.  If you have never done that thought experiment and do it now you will realize that there is a significant amount of flux self-cancellation going on in a pancake coil, much more than a standard coil.  The larger outer windings will work against windings in the middle of the coil in the "air gap" betwween the two windings.

My favourite "bad boy" coil is a Rodin coil.  Ultimately, there is not a single thing that a Rodin coil can do that a regular coil cannot do better.  A regular coil will always be able to do what a Rodin coil can do with less wire, so a regular coil is more efficient from a materials point of view.  Think about how much self-cancellation there is going on in a Rodin "starship" coil.  The points of the star are useless and do nothing for the coil.  When you think of it, the adjacent star points are engaging in flux cancellation with their neighbouring star points.  So at least that aspect will reduce the inductance of the "Rodin starship" coil.

Perhaps the funky coil windings in a Rodin coil give it more self capacitance and for some unusual reason you want that.  BFD, just put a super tiny capacitor in parallel with a regular coil.

Anyway, that's for you guys and girls to contemplate.  Coils are basic circuit building blocks or electromagnets.  There is no real reason to investigate all sorts of exotic winding techniques.  Likewise some people believe that a coil's windings have to be perfectly neat.  A messily wound coil and a neatly wound coil will be virtually identical.

Wow, that was a big posting!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 15, 2013, 11:32:30 AM
Nice post MileHigh, and to add, neatly wound coils look nice and take up less space but they get hotter easier and take longer to cool because of a lack of airflow through the windings. Wrapping the outside of the coils with tape also allows heat to build up, I don't think a bit of warm is bad for coils unless they get actually too hot or radiate unwanted heat to other things, sealing up a coil (like with tape) can show better if it is dissipating energy through heat, by making it more noticeable. Bottom line with neat coils is they take up a lot less space when trying to fit stuff in a box.

What about aluminium wire, why can't we use insulated aluminium wire to make coils ? It's a lot less weight. What is the lightest core material with the best qualities ?

What do we need to make the lightest high energy electromagnet/motor coils we can make, like for applications in bicycles and such things ?

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 16, 2013, 01:52:05 AM
I am assuming a lot of you know the Hyperphysics web site.  It's a great resource.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html#c2)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1)

Here is something to ponder:  When you look at a coil, you can separate it into individual loops of wire.  Each loop will generate a magnetic field that looks like the familiar toroid that extends out to infinity.  So you simply add the magnetic fields together from each loop to get the true magnetic field generated by the coil.  The only tricky thing to remember is that the magnetic field is represented by a vector that has both magnitude and direction.  Therefore all of the additions are vector additions.

And when you strip it down to it's bare-bones reality, that's all there is.

If there is a core inside the coil, then each loop will tend to have more of the magnetic flux it generates travel through the core.  If the windings are many layers thick, the outer windings see a core that is further away with some "air" in between.  Since the "air" is much less conducive to the passing of magnetic flux than the core, almost all of the magnetic flux generated by the outer loops will also travel through the core.   So there is very little difference between a loop that's wrapped directly around the core material and an outer loop that's effectively 1/2 inch away from the core.  Both loops will contribute a nearly equal amount of magnetic flux through the core.  Naturally the outer loop will contribute a bit less because a very small amount of flux will flow through the "air gap."

You can use the terminology "lossy" for the outer loops in the sense that a very small amount of the flux they generate does not flow through the core.  So that's arguably "lost" flux.

What that means is many "exotic" coil winding schemes are exercises in futility.  I know I am using somewhat strong terms but it's true.  All the circuit cares about with respect to a coil is its inductance.  You can wind a coil in many fancy ways.  ZeroFossilFuel made "hemisphere" coils.  No doubt the magnetic field pattern generated by the hemisphere coils will be a bit different.  You can visualize it in your head, each loop creates the toroidal magnetic field pattern.  Some are larger than others and they are also offset from each other.  Big deal, you add up all of the magnetic field vectors and you are still left with an inductor, or an electromagnet.  If you plug the coil into an electrical circuit, the shape and the winding pattern of the coil means essentially nothing.  All that the circuit sees is that the coil has an inductance.  We are going to assume that the capacitance of the coil is minuscule and irrelevant and does not affect the operation of the circuit.

Now, think of some exotic coil winding configuration being used as a drive coil in a pulse motor.  Same deal, all the pulse motor cares about is that the coil has a certain inductance and generates a magnetic field.  Think of all the pulse motor clips with exotic drive coil winding schemes and break them down in your mind into individual turns, and add the magnetic field generated by each turn to get the final field generated by the coil.

What's the point?   The point is that if you are working with coils, just a regular coil winding on a spool of some diameter and some length and some number of turns will be fine.  All exotic coil winding configurations ultimately are not that much different from you basic standard cylindrical coil that you can see anywhere.

Think of a pancake coil and do the same thought experiment were you look at it turn by turn.  If you have never done that thought experiment and do it now you will realize that there is a significant amount of flux self-cancellation going on in a pancake coil, much more than a standard coil.  The larger outer windings will work against windings in the middle of the coil in the "air gap" betwween the two windings.

My favourite "bad boy" coil is a Rodin coil.  Ultimately, there is not a single thing that a Rodin coil can do that a regular coil cannot do better.  A regular coil will always be able to do what a Rodin coil can do with less wire, so a regular coil is more efficient from a materials point of view.  Think about how much self-cancellation there is going on in a Rodin "starship" coil.  The points of the star are useless and do nothing for the coil.  When you think of it, the adjacent star points are engaging in flux cancellation with their neighbouring star points.  So at least that aspect will reduce the inductance of the "Rodin starship" coil.

Perhaps the funky coil windings in a Rodin coil give it more self capacitance and for some unusual reason you want that.  BFD, just put a super tiny capacitor in parallel with a regular coil.

Anyway, that's for you guys and girls to contemplate.  Coils are basic circuit building blocks or electromagnets.  There is no real reason to investigate all sorts of exotic winding techniques.  Likewise some people believe that a coil's windings have to be perfectly neat.  A messily wound coil and a neatly wound coil will be virtually identical.

Wow, that was a big posting!

MileHigh

"What that means is many "exotic" coil winding schemes are exercises in futility."

Wow. You really dont want us to mess with these coils do you.? ;D Im not going to fight here, but I will respond as I see fit.

The first thing Im seeing with the bifilar is it takes on a charge much faster than a normal coil. With a coil that has more turns, the resistance is higher, sure, and the inductance is higher also. But it doesnt seem to act like a large inductor does with with an uphill climb in current due to high impedance. So it seems that the difference is that the bifi takes in current quicker and produces the magnetic field to its max much quicker, possibly instantaneously as compared to a normal coil of the same dimensions. This is far from just adding a cap across a coil. Will do some vids as I get things set up to see things more clearly.


"All the circuit cares about with respect to a coil is its inductance"

Thats not true. If there is capacitance in the coil, it should be ignored, right? If we were to put a cap across a normal coil as you say, if we pulsed it like in a pulse motor, the very first thing the circuit sees is the capacitance and the circuit charges it before much happens in the coil. But in the bifi, the charging of the capacitance happens through the windings of the coil, and since the capacitance neutralizes the self inductance till the capacitance of the coil is fully charged. Talking a DC pulse of course.


"If you plug the coil into an electrical circuit, the shape and the winding pattern of the coil means essentially nothing."

If we wound a random ball of wire, and a nice neat coil of the same wire and length, there are many differences between them. ;)


"We are going to assume that the capacitance of the coil is minuscule and irrelevant and does not affect the operation of the circuit."

Why exactly should 'we' 'assume' this? What if we didnt? ;)


"Think of a pancake coil and do the same thought experiment were you look at it turn by turn.  If you have never done that thought experiment and do it now you will realize that there is a significant amount of flux self-cancellation going on in a pancake coil, much more than a standard coil.  The larger outer windings will work against windings in the middle of the coil in the "air gap" betwween the two windings."

Personally I dont think the pancake is a good choice for a pulse motor driver or pickup coil. If the magnetic field of the magnet cuts only a mall portion of the coil at a time, like passing only a section of windings as it passes, the inductance of the rest of the coill works against current flow. Its better to have the windings bundled up so that the field 'cuts' all and as much of the windings on one side of the coil as possible. Even better to have an opposite magnet field cutting the other half of the coil at the same time to avoid the inductance hindering currents to flow quickly. Look at the windings of an alternator and look at the gaps in the core where the magnetic field is 'dragged' through in order to 'cut' the windings to induce current flow. They are not wound on spools wound in a circle. They are wound lengthwise and the portions of the windings that are not in a position for the magnetic fields of the rotor(with field core inside) to 'cut' them, are very short and bend around to the next core gap. So most of the coil in the alternator, both sides at the same time are being induced by the rotor with little left virtually untouched by the rotors passing field where the windings bend and turn into the next core gap.

These cores are what many motor builders should concentrate on in order to make the best use of controlling how the fields cut the windings as a gen coil and controlling and condensing the drive fields also. I Have a reply for Farmhand to one of his posts today in the confirming delayed lenz thread, where ill show the inside of my bike motor and another little treasure that I found from spare parts at work from a VW Touareg that I will be working with soon. ;D

When we make pulse motors with 1 drive coil, if we dont capture and direct as much of the field of the coil to the rotor, then we are wasting energy. If we have 1 coil and not using the back end of the coil we are wasting a lot. That 1 coil can be configured to apply both ends of the coil to the rotor using core materials and the rotor will essentially act like 2 coils were used instead of 1. ;) Doing this will give more rotor torque and speed using the same single coil.


"There is no real reason to investigate all sorts of exotic winding techniques."

Welp, Im gunna do it anyhoo.  ;D



"Likewise some people believe that a coil's windings have to be perfectly neat.  A messily wound coil and a neatly wound coil will be virtually identical."

Can you provide a good link that describes what you are saying in the above quote? ;)
Thane uses messy wound coils from what I hear. ;)


Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 16, 2013, 03:17:39 AM
Magluvin:

Good luck in your investigations and I will make a few comments.

Quote
The first thing Im seeing with the bifilar is it takes on a charge much faster than a normal coil. With a coil that has more turns, the resistance is higher, sure, and the inductance is higher also. But it doesnt seem to act like a large inductor does with with an uphill climb in current due to high impedance. So it seems that the difference is that the bifi takes in current quicker and produces the magnetic field to its max much quicker, possibly instantaneously as compared to a normal coil of the same dimensions. This is far from just adding a cap across a coil. Will do some vids as I get things set up to see things more clearly.

When you say "charge" I am assuming that you mean current flowing through the coil to energize it.  If we assume that a series bifilar coil gets the inter-coil capacitance charged right away (which would have to be verified), and we are really simplifying things here, it's still impossible to escape the fact that it takes electrical work to energize the coil and build up the magnetic field.  There seems to be a train of thought that somehow a series bifilar coil allows the coil to energize very quickly, seemingly implying that this can be done at very little energy cost.  It's simply impossible, to build up a magnetic field takes electrical work.  That work ends up being stored in the magnetic field.  The stored energy is 1/2 L i-squared.  Note for a flywheel it's 1/2 MoI omega-squared - the same formula.

There is just no "jailbreak" for energizing a coil, be it a regular coil or a series bifilar coil, which as we know is just a different winding pattern for a regular coil.  Beyond that, I am not aware of any serious analysis of this on YouTube or elsewhere.  I don't want to be a party pooper, but to the best of my knowledge this issue simply never comes up in the real world.

The true actual dynamics of how a series biflar coil actually will actually react is not trivial at all and is probably beyond the capabilities of most forum experimenters.  It's possible that your testing will show something, and it's just as easily possible that the effects will be so small that it will be hard to discern what is causing them.

For example, look at this Spice model and analysis of a transformer:
http://fmtt.com/Transformer%20SPICE%20Model%202-14-08.pdf (http://fmtt.com/Transformer%20SPICE%20Model%202-14-08.pdf)

This image is called, "Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of single-phase power transformer windings."
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S037877961000060X-gr1.jpg (http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S037877961000060X-gr1.jpg)

So if you are going to get "hardcore" the actual modelling of how series bifilar coil works and reacts to an outside stimulus could get incredibly complicated.

I suppose the question is is it worth the trouble?  Perhaps just an A-B comparison between two coils with the same number of turns, one regular, one series bifilar would be a good test.   Supposing you notice a tiny current inrush on the series bifilar when you energize it and you don't see that with regular coil.  Like I already said, there is no magic bypass for the energy it will take to energize either coil.

So this possible tiny current inrush, does it mean anything?  Can you do anything practical with it?   That's the real question.

The theme behind my posting is to try to recognize what's relevant and what's not relevant when you experiment.  That is an important basic fundamental skill worth learning.  Do you spend hours and hours doing some kind of special winding for a coil or do you spend 20 minutes and just wind an ordinary coil, or do you buy a spool of wire at the electronics store and have an "instant coil?"

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 16, 2013, 03:32:19 AM


What about aluminium wire, why can't we use insulated aluminium wire to make coils ? It's a lot less weight. What is the lightest core material with the best qualities ?

What do we need to make the lightest high energy electromagnet/motor coils we can make, like for applications in bicycles and such things ?

Cheers

Ugh!!! just tried to post the pics of my bike motor. And I lost a long post. The files were too much to post and when I went back to pull some pics and post them in another post it was all gone. Ugh!!!

heres the pics, will post the text in a bit. Spent an hour sizing and writing. Ugh ugh. ;D

Ok figured it out. Some pics were not resized.

Ill condense my post here.

The bike motor is asymmetrical where the coils fire off at different times for smooth torque and reduce cogging. I want to replace the bikes control board with an Arduino to reduce the restrictions programmed in. Different number of mags vs coils.
The last 2 pics are of the main parts of an alternator from a 2004 5L twin turbo Touareg. it has permanent magnets!!  Never seen that before. And I can configure it like the bike motor to be a motor. Its asymmetrical also but just a different number of elements. Ill use this to test and try the Arduino as a controller before I build for the bike.

Removing the core of the bike motor is a serious effort. Putting it back in I will have to make a jig. Were talking a lot of force here. Squash finger like grape. Mr Miagi said.  ;D

Also the alternator is a sweet setup to mess around with otherwise. Using motors that are already made and modding them will give the advantages of premade framework to control the flux efficiently within the motor. Making motors with 1 round coil that doesnt even take advantage of the back side of the coils fields and is extremely inefficient. Lots of waste of input. This goes for motors and gens. Its ok for comparison testing and gathering field collapse, but not much torque or gen activity from the motoring part. RC motors are great bases to work with. Larger motors are probably easier to rewind and less costly is many ways. The RC motors can get pretty expensive for such a small package. Some are reasonable.

Had a lot more in the lost post but I gota git. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 16, 2013, 03:46:28 AM
Quote
Thats not true. If there is capacitance in the coil, it should be ignored, right? If we were to put a cap across a normal coil as you say, if we pulsed it like in a pulse motor, the very first thing the circuit sees is the capacitance and the circuit charges it before much happens in the coil. But in the bifi, the charging of the capacitance happens through the windings of the coil, and since the capacitance neutralizes the self inductance till the capacitance of the coil is fully charged. Talking a DC pulse of course.

Ignoring the capacitance of the coil or not ignoring the capacitance of the coil depends on what you are doing.  If you are using the coil as a drive coil for a pulse motor or as a pick-up coil for a spinning rotor then yes, you can ignore the capacitance.  Remember I crunched Farmhand's measurements on one of his coils and noted that the capacitive energy in the coil was 1/17,000th of the inductive energy in the coil under typical conditions?

If you are talking about a small coil that's on a PCB that's part of a very high frequency analog circuit design, then you probably have to consider the capacitance of the coil.  Nobody on the forums is doing very high frequency analog circuit design.

Quote
the capacitance happens through the windings of the coil, and since the capacitance neutralizes the self inductance till the capacitance of the coil is fully charged.

What do you and Farmhand and possibly others really mean when you say "neutralizes" in this context?

Quote
Why exactly should 'we' 'assume' this? What if we didnt?

It goes back to the theme of my posting.  You want to try to direct your energies and your time to where it counts.  You mechanic says to you that you should check/change your oil every 3000 miles.  Most people might only change it every 6000 miles and not check it at all and just change their oil three or four times a year.  So do you stop your car every 100 miles and get out, check the old level and smell it and contemplate changing it?  Is that good use of your time?

In a way you can say that there are kind of "electronic fetishes" that run rampant in the free energy forums and they waste a lot of people's time.  Worrying about the minuscule transient capacitance in a pulse motor drive coil would be one of them.  Some people have battery fetishes where they believe their circuit has to be connected to a battery to work properly and a regular bench power supply will "kill the effect."  Several years ago people played with car ignition coils and they noticed that their CFL lights light up brighter when they made a connection to earth ground.  So there was a crazy belief that "power comes up from the ground."  That one is still running rampant.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 16, 2013, 04:17:45 AM
Magluvin:

Good luck in your investigations and I will make a few comments.

When you say "charge" I am assuming that you mean current flowing through the coil to energize it.  If we assume that a series bifilar coil gets the inter-coil capacitance charged right away (which would have to be verified), and we are really simplifying things here, it's still impossible to escape the fact that it takes electrical work to energize the coil and build up the magnetic field.  There seems to be a train of thought that somehow a series bifilar coil allows the coil to energize very quickly, seemingly implying that this can be done at very little energy cost.  It's simply impossible, to build up a magnetic field takes electrical work.  That work ends up being stored in the magnetic field.  The stored energy is 1/2 L i-squared.  Note for a flywheel it's 1/2 MoI omega-squared - the same formula.

There is just no "jailbreak" for energizing a coil, be it a regular coil or a series bifilar coil, which as we know is just a different winding pattern for a regular coil.  Beyond that, I am not aware of any serious analysis of this on YouTube or elsewhere.  I don't want to be a party pooper, but to the best of my knowledge this issue simply never comes up in the real world.

The true actual dynamics of how a series biflar coil actually will actually react is not trivial at all and is probably beyond the capabilities of most forum experimenters.  It's possible that your testing will show something, and it's just as easily possible that the effects will be so small that it will be hard to discern what is causing them.

For example, look at this Spice model and analysis of a transformer:
http://fmtt.com/Transformer%20SPICE%20Model%202-14-08.pdf (http://fmtt.com/Transformer%20SPICE%20Model%202-14-08.pdf)

This image is called, "Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of single-phase power transformer windings."
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S037877961000060X-gr1.jpg (http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S037877961000060X-gr1.jpg)

So if you are going to get "hardcore" the actual modelling of how series bifilar coil works and reacts to an outside stimulus could get incredibly complicated.

I suppose the question is is it worth the trouble?  Perhaps just an A-B comparison between two coils with the same number of turns, one regular, one series bifilar would be a good test.   Supposing you notice a tiny current inrush on the series bifilar when you energize it and you don't see that with regular coil.  Like I already said, there is no magic bypass for the energy it will take to energize either coil.

So this possible tiny current inrush, does it mean anything?  Can you do anything practical with it?   That's the real question.

The theme behind my posting is to try to recognize what's relevant and what's not relevant when you experiment.  That is an important basic fundamental skill worth learning.  Do you spend hours and hours doing some kind of special winding for a coil or do you spend 20 minutes and just wind an ordinary coil, or do you buy a spool of wire at the electronics store and have an "instant coil?"

MileHigh

"it's still impossible to escape the fact that it takes electrical work to energize the coil and build up the magnetic field."

I realize that. Never said that less energy would be used with a bifi. Just saying it seems to get to peak much faster than a normal coil. Looking into it  still.


"There seems to be a train of thought that somehow a series bifilar coil allows the coil to energize very quickly, seemingly implying that this can be done at very little energy cost."

I dont see how energizing the coil more quickly 'implies' that there is less energy cost. But that quick to energize is not the norm for a big coil.


"There is just no "jailbreak" for energizing a coil, be it a regular coil or a series bifilar coil, which as we know is just a different winding pattern for a regular coil.  Beyond that, I am not aware of any serious analysis of this on YouTube or elsewhere.  I don't want to be a party pooper, but to the best of my knowledge this issue simply never comes up in the real world."

Well we dont know this for sure yet. And yes there isnt much serious definitions of functionality of bifi out there that match what Tesla says about it. 
"but to the best of my knowledge this issue simply never comes up in the real world"
Well there may be more than one reason for that, not just that it is useless or a waste of time. Using them in a simple pulse motor may not show all its colors. This is why Im choosing to use the Arduino to accurately time the pulses to see if the coil really produces a stronger field quicker than a normal coil.


"So if you are going to get "hardcore" the actual modelling of how series bifilar coil works and reacts to an outside stimulus could get incredibly complicated."

No more than a normal coil, right?  ;)


"I suppose the question is is it worth the trouble?  Perhaps just an A-B comparison between two coils with the same number of turns, one regular, one series bifilar would be a good test."

Yes, and yes. Ive made another plexi bobbin for a normal coil also. Like I said earlier, to get the most difference we have to have more turns. The normal coil looses its capacity with more turns, but the bifi increases it. 

A single turn coil will only have any close proximity capacitance where the ends of the coil meet. A tiny area. A 2 turn regular coil will have the 50% difference between the 2 turns measured next to each other like a bifi, but this difference decreases with every additional turn. The bifi does not.



"Do you spend hours and hours doing some kind of special winding for a coil or do you spend 20 minutes and just wind an ordinary coil, or do you buy a spool of wire at the electronics store and have an "instant coil?" "

I mostly wind my own coils. Some are old passive crossover coils. Bifi using just a role of speaker wire, the insulation would reduce the capacitance(the actual capacitance) between windings. Been looking at different litz that use larger rectangular insulated conductors woven very neatly with very little air space between each other. Then at the ends separate them into 2 bundles to create 2 separate woven windings in 1.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 16, 2013, 04:32:10 AM
I Have a reply for Farmhand to one of his posts today in the confirming delayed lenz thread, where ill show the inside of my bike motor and another little treasure that I found from spare parts at work from a VW Touareg that I will be working with soon. ;D



Forgot to mention that I realized it was this thread that Farmhand posted. Got lost with my original second post. ;D Pics above.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 16, 2013, 12:16:14 PM
Kenneth Corum and James Corum.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and even disinformation about Tesla, Tesla coils, and the Tesla bifilar winding patent, and series bf vs. parallel bf vs. ordinary winding, etc. The Corums get it right, but their work is highly technical and hard to find in "condensed" form.

Tesla wanted low resonant frequencies with as little wire as possible and without the expense and difficulty of large and expensive and dangerous HV capacitors. A precisely constructed and tuned, flat pancake "series bifilar" coil's greatly increased self-capacitance allowed him to achieve that goal. His purpose was to attain very fast (for those days) rise and fall times in the primary coils of his power systems. The faster the transitions in the primary, the greater the voltage induced in the secondary. This is why, for example, modern square-wave SSTC drivers are able to pump up such high secondary voltages without HV in the primary or spark gaps: the fast rise and fall times of the pulses is accomplished by the modern semiconductors and the driver circuitry.
The "ideal" Tesla coil/power transmission system might consist of a low-frequency secondary, driven by a Tesla bifilar primary, using no tank capacitor but only the coil's self-capacitance, to attain a low resonant frequency of its own, matched to the secondary. Such a coil would have to be physically large and very precisely constructed, and it's doubtful that even modern semis, like large IGBTs, would be able to handle the stress of driving it at high power levels.

There are winding schemes that have "special" effects on coils. I think these do things like change the ratio of DC resistance to the inductance attained in the coil. Take a look at some old radio RF coils or chokes. You will see all kinds of mysterious winding patterns. Even my simple loopsticks have a dual coil, separated by a specific gap, and each coil is wound in a herringbone crossover pattern, very neatly, with cotton-covered, enamelled Litz wire. You can be sure that the makers would not have bothered to do this if a simple single, random-wound coil of the same amount of wire would 'do the trick'.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 16, 2013, 03:32:47 PM
Nice motor and alternator Mags, I'll have to have a close look at the pictures, thanks ! Not using one side of the magnetic field of a very low loss inductor will not waste much energy Mags, at most it will waste some space I think. If the inductor has zero Ohms DC resistance it would have almost no losses, the loss is in the heat from the resistance or how you use the coil.  ;)

MileHigh, Some of us do experiment with high frequency stuff, and when we tune a circuit to resonance every pF of capacitance matters quite a bit in some places. ie, a few pF is nothing to the 240v input or even the 2000v out from each MOT at 50 Hz but a few pF in the elevated toroid or sphere terminal is what we tune with or to. It cannot be ignored period. If we did ignore it we would never get our big coils tuned properly and throwing large sparks continuously or any light from fluro's in the hand with small coils ect. If a resonant coil is working at around 1 mHz or so and it only has 30 or 40 pF in it's entire resonating circuit then 2 pf makes a big difference, if there was no need for resonance it wouldn't make any difference. Maybe a lot of Tesla's stuff doesn't make much sense unless the resonance aspect is considered as part of the intended working principal of the circuit. Without worrying about resonance a few hundred pF means nothing yes, no doubt about it. But if we want resonance and the capacitance is small (and the frequency high) every pF matters.

Cheers

P.S. MileHigh, By "neutralizing the self inductance" we mean "neutralizing" the effect of the delay in the flow of current because of the self inductance, which is what Tesla wrote in the patent. At resonance we can have a lot more current flow more easily through a coil, my pulse motor is a prime example when the circuit is not at or near resonance frequency the inductance restricts the flow of current as in the usual way, but when at or near resonance current flows without much regard to the inductance because the current limiting effects are neutralized. We still get the magnetic power of the high inductance coil but the current can flow more than with no resonance, that's the point. Why wait so long for the current to flow through a coil if we don't need to or try to force it.

..

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 17, 2013, 02:20:06 AM
Kenneth Corum and James Corum.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and even disinformation about Tesla, Tesla coils, and the Tesla bifilar winding patent, and series bf vs. parallel bf vs. ordinary winding, etc. The Corums get it right, but their work is highly technical and hard to find in "condensed" form.

Tesla wanted low resonant frequencies with as little wire as possible and without the expense and difficulty of large and expensive and dangerous HV capacitors. A precisely constructed and tuned, flat pancake "series bifilar" coil's greatly increased self-capacitance allowed him to achieve that goal. His purpose was to attain very fast (for those days) rise and fall times in the primary coils of his power systems. The faster the transitions in the primary, the greater the voltage induced in the secondary. This is why, for example, modern square-wave SSTC drivers are able to pump up such high secondary voltages without HV in the primary or spark gaps: the fast rise and fall times of the pulses is accomplished by the modern semiconductors and the driver circuitry.
The "ideal" Tesla coil/power transmission system might consist of a low-frequency secondary, driven by a Tesla bifilar primary, using no tank capacitor but only the coil's self-capacitance, to attain a low resonant frequency of its own, matched to the secondary. Such a coil would have to be physically large and very precisely constructed, and it's doubtful that even modern semis, like large IGBTs, would be able to handle the stress of driving it at high power levels.

There are winding schemes that have "special" effects on coils. I think these do things like change the ratio of DC resistance to the inductance attained in the coil. Take a look at some old radio RF coils or chokes. You will see all kinds of mysterious winding patterns. Even my simple loopsticks have a dual coil, separated by a specific gap, and each coil is wound in a herringbone crossover pattern, very neatly, with cotton-covered, enamelled Litz wire. You can be sure that the makers would not have bothered to do this if a simple single, random-wound coil of the same amount of wire would 'do the trick'.

"There is a lot of misunderstanding and even disinformation about Tesla, Tesla coils, and the Tesla bifilar winding patent, and series bf vs. parallel bf vs. ordinary winding, etc."

 ;)

"His purpose was to attain very fast (for those days) rise and fall times in the primary coils of his power systems."

 ;)

"The faster the transitions in the primary, the greater the voltage induced in the secondary."

 ;D

"Even my simple loopsticks have a dual coil, separated by a specific gap, and each coil is wound in a herringbone crossover pattern, very neatly, with cotton-covered, enamelled Litz wire."

I remember these. Some with a tube core with an adjustable core in the vertical tube and some with 2 coils like you say but spaced apart. Found a pic shown below. Its not exactly as I remember. I had an old AM SW MW radio when I was a kid that I found in a building of an old abandoned park from the early 1900s. The wood case was lierally disintegrated. But I got that thing to work.  ;D It had the tuning eye tube. Remember those? ;D   I loved that radio. Learned a lot from it. Memories. ;D

Here is a site that talks about different coils and why. ;) English on the left. Deutsch on the right.

http://www.oldradioworld.de/gollum/hcoils.htm     


"driven by a Tesla bifilar primary, using no tank capacitor but only the coil's self-capacitance"

Hmm, just put the spark gap across the input leads?  Nice. ;)

Thanks  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 17, 2013, 02:42:32 AM
Not using one side of the magnetic field of a very low loss inductor will not waste much energy Mags, at most it will waste some space I think.

No no. what I mean is that other side of the coil , for imaginary purposes, can drive another rotor without speed drop of the first rotor. Geddit?   ;)   So if you had a core that directs the N and S of the coil to just one rotor where the N of the coil is pulling on the rotor magnet and the S of the coil is pushing at the same time, you will get more motive force on the rotor.  That was all I was suggesting. ;)


Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 17, 2013, 05:57:35 AM
Ignoring the capacitance of the coil or not ignoring the capacitance of the coil depends on what you are doing.  If you are using the coil as a drive coil for a pulse motor or as a pick-up coil for a spinning rotor then yes, you can ignore the capacitance.  Remember I crunched Farmhand's measurements on one of his coils and noted that the capacitive energy in the coil was 1/17,000th of the inductive energy in the coil under typical conditions?

If you are talking about a small coil that's on a PCB that's part of a very high frequency analog circuit design, then you probably have to consider the capacitance of the coil.  Nobody on the forums is doing very high frequency analog circuit design.

What do you and Farmhand and possibly others really mean when you say "neutralizes" in this context?

It goes back to the theme of my posting.  You want to try to direct your energies and your time to where it counts.  You mechanic says to you that you should check/change your oil every 3000 miles.  Most people might only change it every 6000 miles and not check it at all and just change their oil three or four times a year.  So do you stop your car every 100 miles and get out, check the old level and smell it and contemplate changing it?  Is that good use of your time?

In a way you can say that there are kind of "electronic fetishes" that run rampant in the free energy forums and they waste a lot of people's time.  Worrying about the minuscule transient capacitance in a pulse motor drive coil would be one of them.  Some people have battery fetishes where they believe their circuit has to be connected to a battery to work properly and a regular bench power supply will "kill the effect."  Several years ago people played with car ignition coils and they noticed that their CFL lights light up brighter when they made a connection to earth ground.  So there was a crazy belief that "power comes up from the ground."  That one is still running rampant.

MileHigh

"What do you and Farmhand and possibly others really mean when you say "neutralizes" in this context?"

And possibly others? lol  Tesla had the patent and he said it.  What do you think it means in your context? ;)


"In a way you can say that there are kind of "electronic fetishes" that run rampant in the free energy forums and they waste a lot of people's time.  Worrying about the minuscule transient capacitance in a pulse motor drive coil would be one of them."

Fetishes? :-* Why dont you top it off with a used condom across the page. That would be a huge deterrent. ;D You really dont like the idea that people work with this coil do you? ;)

This is what I like about the idea of the coil reacting quicker for a pulse motor. There will be more of an impulse than a gradual climb in current flow when the coil is being pulsed. We are talking 'pulse' motors. A quick pulse has more impact, impulse. It pops, no waiting period, no mooshy mooshy. Like using a small sledge hammer vs a rubber mallet of the same size.
Another thing is, lets say we have a simple pulse motor. 12v batt, normal coil, rotor with magnets and a reed switch. When we close the reed, it will take some time for the field to build due to impedance. And when it finally peaks or even sustains peak for the duration of the switch closure and the reed releases and waits for the next mag pass. But once we get to higher revolutions, the pulse times will be shorter with less time for the field to build. But the fast acting bifi will be able to react more quickly with more controlled on and off times and better high rpm performance.

Now we try something different. We use a large inductor and a diode added to the circuit. What we are going to do is use the reed to charge up the new large inductor and when the reed releases, let the collapse current of the large inductor dump into the motor driver coil to run the motor. But oh, the motor driver coil will not accept the collapse current due to impedance so the reed burns instead.

But if the motor driver coil is a bifi, even a big one, it will accept that collapse current, not the 'norm', which will charge that tiny capacitance of the bifi to possibly many hundreds of volts.  :o :o :o :o and  :o   

This is an idea I have from understanding the workings of the 'Igniter for Gas Engines' and the 'Coil for Electro-magnets', as to what is described, where we use the large inductor efficiency from the igniter to charge the bifi for a pulse at a higher potential than the batt input. We are charging the bifi capacitance with an inductor not from the battery directly, or we would lose half the energy used from the battery to charge the cap directly. ;)   This is a much different way of doing things than we are used to.

And its way more fun than building a universal motor. Been there done that been done. Lets move on to new things. ;) Standing still will get you nowhere.


Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 06:52:10 AM
I am just catching up!  No time to read other thread.

Farmhand:

I can never remember which is which so I had to check.   Looking up LC circuit yet again....

Wiki quotes....

The charge flows back and forth between the plates of the capacitor, through the inductor. The energy oscillates back and forth between the capacitor and the inductor until (if not replenished by power from an external circuit) internal resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance) makes the oscillations die out. Its action, known mathematically as a harmonic oscillator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator), is similar to a pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum) swinging back and forth, or water sloshing back and forth in a tank. For this reason the circuit is also called a tank circuit. The oscillation frequency is determined by the capacitance and inductance values. In typical tuned circuits in electronic equipment the oscillations are very fast, thousands to millions of times per second.

In a series configuration, XC and XL cancel each other out. In real, rather than idealised components the current is opposed, mostly by the resistance of the coil windings. Thus, the current supplied to a series resonant circuit is a maximum at resonance.

The parallel LC circuit connected in series with a load will act as band-stop filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-stop_filter) having infinite impedance at the resonant frequency of the LC circuit. The parallel LC circuit connected in parallel with a load will act as band-pass filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-pass_filter).

.......

I view a self-resonating coil as a parallel LC circuit.  Which would mean it blocks a signal passing through it at the resonant frequency.  I am just not sure how you are applying whatever resonance concepts to your circuit or motor.  If either form of resonance is associated with "neutralizing the self inductance" keep in mind we are talking about a pure sinusoidal excitation waveform.  You don't normally see a pure sinusoid and deviations from the pure sinusoid mean that there is other harmonic content in the waveform that is not in resonance and does its own thing.

TK:

I think the fancy coil patterns in old radios are related to their roll-off frequencies and stuff like that.  So indeed, that's a case of where it's by design for a particular purpose.  It also might not be true, and it's just a manufacturing technique.  I really don't know.

Pulling out the big guns, this guy is great and he really knows his radio circuits.  Radios are all about resonant circuits.  He also teaches a lot about electronics.  Plus, it's simply fun to see how things were designed and manufactured so long ago:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio/videos?view=0&flow=grid

He does respond to questions in case someone wants to ask him about the herringbone coils.

Let me again share some thoughts about a self-resonating coil vs. an LC resonator, i.e.; two separate components.  The self-resonating coil is a kind of kludge.  You don't have a regular, ordered exchange between stored capacitive energy and stored magnetic energy.  They are intermixed with each other and if real push came to shove you would need a supercomputer crunching away to model it.  On the other hand, a LC resonator is smooth like butter.  The capacitor discharges into the coil, then the coil discharges into the capacitor.  The current flows back and forth, the voltage goes up and down.  That transfer of energy can be visualized as a rotating vector.  It's the way it's supposed to work.  In comparison to that a self-resonating coil is a different animal.  That's what I envision in my head.

Now realistically, if you scoped a self-resonating coil you would probably see a voltage waveform that was a sine wave across the ends of the coil.  At the same time it can only store a tiny fraction of the of energy of a comparable LC circuit - an inductor mated with a capacitor of comparable size.  I realize it's all relative to what you want to do.  I am just not sure what that is.  Nonetheless, a self-resonating coil is like a short faint wisp of stored energy at a crazy high frequency that disappears quickly compared to making a real loud and ringing LC resonator bell made with the same coil.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 07:57:13 AM
Magluvin:

Quote
This is what I like about the idea of the coil reacting quicker for a pulse motor. There will be more of an impulse than a gradual climb in current flow when the coil is being pulsed. We are talking 'pulse' motors. A quick pulse has more impact, impulse. It pops, no waiting period, no mooshy mooshy. Like using a small sledge hammer vs a rubber mallet of the same size.
Another thing is, lets say we have a simple pulse motor. 12v batt, normal coil, rotor with magnets and a reed switch. When we close the reed, it will take some time for the field to build due to impedance. And when it finally peaks or even sustains peak for the duration of the switch closure and the reed releases and waits for the next mag pass. But once we get to higher revolutions, the pulse times will be shorter with less time for the field to build. But the fast acting bifi will be able to react more quickly with more controlled on and off times and better high rpm performance.

The only way to get a faster reaction out of the coil is to increase the drive voltage.  The coil integrates voltage with respect to time to yield current.  How do you get a flywheel to spin up faster?  More torque.

Without increasing the voltage your impulse might charge some capacitance.  That will not give the coil any push against the rotor.  The only way to get the coil to push is to have it generate a magnetic field which leads back to the question of the drive voltage over time.

Your point about the higher RPM meaning less switch-on time and hence lower maximum current through the coil is dead on.  It's all part of the pulse motor finding a quiescent speed.  You can try to optimize stuff like Farmhand is doing and that's finding a higher quiescent speed.

The parameters are the amount of inductance, the switch timing, and the drive voltage.  Faster RPM by default limits the switch-on time, so you can experiment with the amount of inductance and the drive voltage to pump more power into the coil which pumps more power into the rotor to balance out the air and bearing friction.  Hence my fantasy of slowly cranking up the voltage to see what fails first.  Push the sucker past its design limits.

So the inductance is still a wall that you have to push against, series bifilar or not.

Quote
What we are going to do is use the reed to charge up the new large inductor and when the reed releases, let the collapse current of the large inductor dump into the motor driver coil to run the motor. But oh, the motor driver coil will not accept the collapse current due to impedance so the reed burns instead.

I will rephrase that as a question:  What happens when Coil A with current A discharges into Coil B with current B?

Quote
But if the motor driver coil is a bifi, even a big one, it will accept that collapse current, not the 'norm', which will charge that tiny capacitance of the bifi to possibly many hundreds of volts.

Exactly, but that won't push on the rotor!  But what happens after that and how does that relate to the question above?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 17, 2013, 12:17:38 PM

Farmhand:

Wiki quotes....

The charge flows back and forth between the plates of the capacitor, through the inductor. The energy oscillates back and forth between the capacitor and the inductor until (if not replenished by power from an external circuit) internal resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance) makes the oscillations die out. Its action, known mathematically as a harmonic oscillator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator), is similar to a pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum) swinging back and forth, or water sloshing back and forth in a tank. For this reason the circuit is also called a tank circuit. The oscillation frequency is determined by the capacitance and inductance values. In typical tuned circuits in electronic equipment the oscillations are very fast, thousands to millions of times per second.

In a series configuration, XC and XL cancel each other out. In real, rather than idealised components the current is opposed, mostly by the resistance of the coil windings. Thus, the current supplied to a series resonant circuit is a maximum at resonance.

The parallel LC circuit connected in series with a load will act as band-stop filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-stop_filter) having infinite impedance at the resonant frequency of the LC circuit. The parallel LC circuit connected in parallel with a load will act as band-pass filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-pass_filter).

.......

I view a self-resonating coil as a parallel LC circuit.  Which would mean it blocks a signal passing through it at the resonant frequency.  I am just not sure how you are applying whatever resonance concepts to your circuit or motor.  If either form of resonance is associated with "neutralizing the self inductance" keep in mind we are talking about a pure sinusoidal excitation waveform.  You don't normally see a pure sinusoid and deviations from the pure sinusoid mean that there is other harmonic content in the waveform that is not in resonance and does its own thing.


I do understand what you are saying in a layman's way, and I have read that series resonance means no resistance and parallel resonance means infinite resistance, but I don't buy it. Simply because if a condition of parallel resonance actually meant infinite resistance we would never see it because it would be impossible, unattainable.

And likewise no resistance would mean superconductor current from very low voltages and we don't see that.

If a parallel resonance condition created an infinite resistance then how can current flow to cause it. When we tune a crystal radio receiver output coil to parallel resonance at the frequency we want to hear it works. Maybe at some point there is infinite resistance but at what point. Can you show us what infinite resistance looks like in a circuit tuned to parallel resonance ?

Bottom line is it sounds impossible to me.

When we tune a Tesla coil primary to parallel resonance we see to begin with when there is no resonance the input is very small, not much power can be input without resonance, but when we get the primary and secondary tuned to each other the primary can have parallel resonance or very close to it and much more power can be input.

Maybe not actually at full resonance but close to it. Thing is without the parallel resonance on the Tesla coil primary less power can be input. How can more resistance mean easier current flow ?

EDIT: The control circuit in these two video's is a fixed frequency CMOS logic gate oscillator with a fixed pulse width and it is not changed so the exciting pulses are unchanged, the only change in the video is tuning the primary to parallel resonance. JUst ignore the ringing on the gate I fixed that I think from memory.

In the video below when I adjust the primary capacitor to parallel resonance the input increases a lot and the secondary resonates much stronger. How is that possible with infinite resistance ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJZoENDhero

If I tune away from resonance the output and input is virtually nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEX9MKBhVZk 


So you can see why I don't buy it.

Cheers



Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 17, 2013, 12:30:36 PM
No no. what I mean is that other side of the coil , for imaginary purposes, can drive another rotor without speed drop of the first rotor. Geddit?   ;)   So if you had a core that directs the N and S of the coil to just one rotor where the N of the coil is pulling on the rotor magnet and the S of the coil is pushing at the same time, you will get more motive force on the rotor.  That was all I was suggesting. ;)


Mags

Mags I don't think that is the case, my experiments tell me that if the coil pushes a rotor from both ends less energy will be recovered from the collapsing magnetic field because more energy is imparted to the second rotor. So basically I think if the input is fixed voltage and current then driving a second rotor will slow down the first one or return less energy from the magnetic filed collapse, if the input power is not fixed then I think the input power would increase.

Bottom line is I don't think it is free work to drive a rotor with a coil. How can it be ? How could the rotor get energy if not from the coil ? And if it gets energy from the coil then the coils energy must decrease or the input must increase. Seems like good logic to me.

I can actually see the voltage in my charging cap increase when I move the charging coil away from the rotor and the cap voltage decreases when I move it in to speed up the rotor. It's pretty conclusive to me when the coil drives a rotor energy is imparted to the rotor from the coil and the coils magnetic field energy decreases. As it must, or the rotor would get no energy and not turn.

Just what I'm seeing, I've got video of that.

Cheers





Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 17, 2013, 02:43:28 PM
Mags I don't think that is the case, my experiments tell me that if the coil pushes a rotor from both ends less energy will be recovered from the collapsing magnetic field because more energy is imparted to the second rotor. So basically I think if the input is fixed voltage and current then driving a second rotor will slow down the first one or return less energy from the magnetic filed collapse, if the input power is not fixed then I think the input power would increase.

Bottom line is I don't think it is free work to drive a rotor with a coil. How can it be ? How could the rotor get energy if not from the coil ? And if it gets energy from the coil then the coils energy must decrease or the input must increase. Seems like good logic to me.

I can actually see the voltage in my charging cap increase when I move the charging coil away from the rotor and the cap voltage decreases when I move it in to speed up the rotor. It's pretty conclusive to me when the coil drives a rotor energy is imparted to the rotor from the coil and the coils magnetic field energy decreases. As it must, or the rotor would get no energy and not turn.

Just what I'm seeing, I've got video of that.

Cheers

Oh, then why build it as a motor at all if the 'object' to collect collapse currents? You could just pulse the coil alone and do that. Or are you just trying to split the difference and  get some motive force and some collapse gathering in what your saying?

From what I have found is that if im driving a rotor with an air core while collecting collapse currents, when I introduce a core to the coil my rotor is faster and I get increased collapse output. The core helps control, concentrate and direct the coils field increasing the coils ability to do both better at the same time.

Maybe what you are doing and your goals are different somehow.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 17, 2013, 03:06:11 PM
Magluvin:

The only way to get a faster reaction out of the coil is to increase the drive voltage.  The coil integrates voltage with respect to time to yield current.  How do you get a flywheel to spin up faster?  More torque.

Without increasing the voltage your impulse might charge some capacitance.  That will not give the coil any push against the rotor.  The only way to get the coil to push is to have it generate a magnetic field which leads back to the question of the drive voltage over time.

Your point about the higher RPM meaning less switch-on time and hence lower maximum current through the coil is dead on.  It's all part of the pulse motor finding a quiescent speed.  You can try to optimize stuff like Farmhand is doing and that's finding a higher quiescent speed.

The parameters are the amount of inductance, the switch timing, and the drive voltage.  Faster RPM by default limits the switch-on time, so you can experiment with the amount of inductance and the drive voltage to pump more power into the coil which pumps more power into the rotor to balance out the air and bearing friction.  Hence my fantasy of slowly cranking up the voltage to see what fails first.  Push the sucker past its design limits.

So the inductance is still a wall that you have to push against, series bifilar or not.

I will rephrase that as a question:  What happens when Coil A with current A discharges into Coil B with current B?

Exactly, but that won't push on the rotor!  But what happens after that and how does that relate to the question above?

MileHigh

"The only way to get a faster reaction out of the coil is to increase the drive voltage."

You are talking about a normal coil. You ignore what Tesla, TK(above) and I have been saying about the bifi coil. You just revert back to there is only inductance in the coil. You deny that anything is different in the bifi coil, yet never built one nor tested one as I read it.


"Without increasing the voltage your impulse might charge some capacitance.  That will not give the coil any push against the rotor."   ??? ::)

So what level of voltage does it take to give 'any' push to the rotor?  You are not making any sense. People run motors off of less than 1.5v and up.

"So the inductance is still a wall that you have to push against, series bifilar or not."

Again you are ignoring and refuse to accept what we are discussing in this thread and never built or experienced a bifi coil.   If the bifi were made to oscillate at say 1khz, the pulsing that coil with a 1ms pulse would be accepted into the coil very well as it is in the freq range.


"I will rephrase that as a question:  What happens when Coil A with current A discharges into Coil B with current B?"

Again, and I went over this in my post, you are ignoring facts about the bifi operation because you just cant get past the idea that the bifi is any different than a normal coil.  There really isnt much sense in me trying to describe it to you any further as its clear you are in denial and full rejection of what is being stated in the patent, or you are just not understanding it. I, or anyone can only go so far to break down your wall of disbelief. 

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 17, 2013, 07:16:04 PM
Oh, then why build it as a motor at all if the 'object' to collect collapse currents? You could just pulse the coil alone and do that. Or are you just trying to split the difference and  get some motive force and some collapse gathering in what your saying?

From what I have found is that if im driving a rotor with an air core while collecting collapse currents, when I introduce a core to the coil my rotor is faster and I get increased collapse output. The core helps control, concentrate and direct the coils field increasing the coils ability to do both better at the same time.

Maybe what you are doing and your goals are different somehow.

Mags

Mags, It doesn't have anything to do with collecting the magnetic field energy, it just proves to me that driving a rotor uses some of the magnetic field energy.

When I see that when the charging coil of a resonant charging circuit is helping to drive the rotor is producing less voltage into the charging capacitor than when it doesn't help drive the rotor that is conclusive proof to me that using both ends will reduce the magnetic field energy more than using one end and so the first rotor will get a weaker field for the same input power. It makes no difference if the collapse is collected or not afterwards, driving a rotor takes energy from the field so driving two will take some away from the first.

It's an easy experiment to do and see the actual result.

In case you haven't noticed or don't remember I'm returning the unused magnetic field energy to be reused mainly. So what the rotor uses and losses is the input.

I'm designing and testing a motor to try to make best use of one switching phase and the collapse of magnetic fields to produce torque in a pulse motor.

What is your objective ? I was responding to you saying not using both ends is wasteful, it isn't necessarily wasteful. A boost converter can be well over 90 % efficient and it uses no ends of the coil core. It's solid state. Waste is losses and there are not losses involved in not using one end of a coil if the remaining magnetic field energy is utilized.

Why have a pulse motor and not collect or reuse the remaining energy of the magnetic field to cause more current.

Remember I first doubted the current from the collapse went through the coil, and did the comparison between a snubbed motor coil and one that allows an orderly field collapse
and when snubbed the coil current stops immediately. This means the coil stops pushing the rotor suddenly rather than tapering off the push and pulling the next opposite polarity magnet. 

I'm trying to build a more efficient, more powerful and useful form of pulse motor. So far it looks good.

Cheers

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 11:11:45 PM
Farmhand:

Quote
I do understand what you are saying in a layman's way, and I have read that series resonance means no resistance and parallel resonance means infinite resistance, but I don't buy it. Simply because if a condition of parallel resonance actually meant infinite resistance we would never see it because it would be impossible, unattainable.

You will recall that TK recently did the coil resonance tests.  If you look at Itsusable's videos he also did some coil resonance tests several months ago.  You have the signal generator output going to the resistor going to the coil.  When you hit the coil's self-resonance point you see maximum amplitude across the coil.  So what does that suggest?  There is a part of that test that I haven't seen done to my recollection.  That's to check the voltage across the resistor.  When you think about it, checking the voltage across the resistor is telling you how much current is flowing through the coil at resonance.  Sounds like a good test but you have to use a real sine wave.

What it suggests is that if you have maximum voltage across the coil at resonance, then the coil is sustaining the most or all of the voltage drop from the signal source.  Therefore you would expect that very little or none of the voltage drop will be sustained across the resistor.  Therefore just from the fact that you know the signal generator is producing a sine wave and the self-resonating coil is producing a similar sine wave, you can conclude that the LC resonator is at maximum impedance.  i.e.; it's acting like a parallel LC resonator at very high impedance and blocking the current flow.  You are welcome to check for yourself.

What that means is that in parallel LC resonance the LC resonator is meeting the driving signal source volt for volt.  The signal source wants to put out 3 volts, and the LC resonator is also putting out 3 volts.  So the LC resonator is "pushing back" against the signal generator and no current flows.

Now, is this happening on your bench in your setup?  I don't know and I am not sure which schematic or configuration you are using today, etc, etc.  But if you do the basic test and confirm what I say, that would be interesting.  To be more practical, I can suggest that you try it with a real parallel LC resonator also.  At resonance you should see zero or near-zero current flow.

Then hopefully you can apply this knowledge to what you are doing.   The first thing that comes to mind is that if you put a resistive load in parallel with a parallel LC resonator, and feed it power from a signal generator through a resistor, will that actually give you some advantages in driving a resistive load across the LC resonator.  You know the LC resonator will get "charged up" from your signal source until it meets the voltage of the signal source, so if you add a "power drain" resistor across it, is that conducive to good energy transfer?  Sort of like can you take lemons and turn them into lemonade.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 17, 2013, 11:20:28 PM
Yes well that may be true for a resonator with no load and the impedance is not infinite except the load voltage and phase matches the supply. What then happens when the secondary is loaded and energy is removed from the system ?

The very technical words and the skirting the issues does not concern me.

If the circuit was tuned to resonance before the supply was connected then in the first instant the primary is energized the supply faces no such impedance. True?

And generally speaking a Tesla transformer has the primary coil tuned to a slightly lower frequency than the secondary because the secondary resonance frequency drops when loaded.  Then the secondary resonance frequency better matches the primary and energy is cast out of the system quite quickly. But it keeps on drawing power from the supply or it would not work.

This coil below won't work like that unless the primary is tuned to resonance frequency just a tad lower than the secondary resonance frequency (unloaded). Input is about 250 to 480 Watts  :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkJtrKCdFg


Cheers

P.S. Technically you are probably correct but, to the layman or the intuitive experimenter it doesn't matter that much as long as we understand what is going on. We do that by doing and observing. If the impedance is maximum then that is a lot different to infinite.

My Tesla coil primary is only shunted by the primary capacitors when the spark gap fires, when the gap is not conducting the primary has no capacitors.  ;)

..
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 17, 2013, 11:48:32 PM
Magluvin:

Quote
You are talking about a normal coil. You ignore what Tesla, TK(above) and I have been saying about the bifi coil. You just revert back to there is only inductance in the coil. You deny that anything is different in the bifi coil, yet never built one nor tested one as I read it.

Well if you can restate what's different and show some test results from past or current experiments that would be great.  I discussed these coils as stand alone entities without dealing with a pulse motor setup where we know that either type of coil will export energy to the rotor.  As stand-alone entities there is no "magic fast energizing" for a series bifilar coil that has the same inductance as a regular coil.  I can't see them being different as a drive coil.

It's possible that you and Farmhand are leading yourselves down the wrong garden path.  It can happen to anybody.  So it's a good exercise to give these concepts a critical analysis.  Throwing a slogan at a technical point with no sound technical basis behind it is unwise.  Right now there is no sound technical basis to state that a series bifilar coil will energize faster and give you better performance for reasons already explained.

Quote
You are not making any sense.

No, I am making perfect sense.  The only ways to get current to flow through a coil faster is to increase the excitation voltage and/or decrease the inductance of the coil.  It has nothing to do with 1.5 volt pulse motors.

Quote
If the bifi were made to oscillate at say 1khz, the pulsing that coil with a 1ms pulse would be accepted into the coil very well as it is in the freq range.

Hard to say because there is not enough information.  If you are talking self-resonance here, that's one big mother of a coil.

Quote
Again, and I went over this in my post, you are ignoring facts about the bifi operation because you just cant get past the idea that the bifi is any different than a normal coil.  There really isnt much sense in me trying to describe it to you any further as its clear you are in denial and full rejection of what is being stated in the patent, or you are just not understanding it. I, or anyone can only go so far to break down your wall of disbelief.

The patent and your bench pulse motors have nothing to do with each other and it's a mistake to suggest that they do.  If you have "facts" about bifilar operation and can clearly demonstrate them then please do so.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 18, 2013, 12:06:18 AM
Mags, this picaxe controlled boost converter looks fairly efficient. It can pass 50 to 60 Watts of power from 12 into 24 volts potential.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLnNgfaha10

I can provide the schematic and the code if anyone wants it, but the code has to be optimised for the coils.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 18, 2013, 12:28:35 AM
Farmhand:

Quote
P.S. Technically you are probably correct but, to the layman or the intuitive experimenter it doesn't matter that much as long as we understand what is going on. We do that by doing and observing. If the impedance is maximum then that is a lot different to infinite.

I have already stated that in electronics things are not always what they seem at first glance.  And I have stated that it's not easy to visualize the operation of a circuit or a pulse motor.  The bench is your reference, keeping in mind the "first glance" caveat.  And you can't forget that the more bench skills and experience and background knowledge you have, the better off you are on the bench.  But there are things that you can visualize too.

If there are Sacred Cows where it's interesting to kick the tires and have a second look, so much the better.  Using the "power comes up from the ground" as an example, avoiding months of experimenting with false conceptions in your mind would be a really good thing!  You yourself have already seen things like this before, as I suppose all of us have.  Just a few weeks ago we had, "the series bifilar coil makes a more powerful electromagnet" topic come up - it wasn't true.

How about this basic idea for the most efficient pulse drive coil setup and timing:  Lets assume a standard pulse motor configuration.  Let's say top-dead-center is zero degrees.  As the rotor magnet moves past TDC the angle increases.  Let's say the magnet feels the most torque from the drive coil at 8 degrees past TDC.

So if 8 degrees is the "sweet spot angle," why not energize the coil at say 4 degrees, and then cut the power at say 9 degrees.  Assume the coil has a snubber diode across it, so that it both discharges through the diode and gives a push on the rotor say between 9 and 12 degrees.

If you do your timing right at a given quiescent RPM and make sure the drive coil is pushing on the rotor both before and after the sweet spot angle for maximum torque, and you are recouping a good chunk of the remaining energy in the coil as part of the main rotor push, doesn't that seem sensible?

For completeness, there is overall geometry of the motor to think about also.  And very importantly, how much inductance do you use, how many turns?  Do you use a core or not, etc?  And even the excitation voltage comes into play, you can't ignore it.  There is a relationship between the excitation voltage and the inductance and the spinning rotor.  Certainly, you could say that your excitation voltage is fixed.  Then the amount of inductance in combination with the export of energy to the spinning rotor can be balanced relative to your excitation voltage.

I am always operating on the assumption that your goal is the maximum RPM for a fixed excitation voltage and a minimum power draw from the power supply or battery.

Cheers.

MileHigh

P.S.:  For extra completeness, I am going to split hairs even further because it's important.  Assume a fixed excitation voltage, and you have complete control over all of the other parameters.  Well, if you go purely for maximum RPM, it's safe to assume that you may have a high current draw and a high power draw.  So that isn't necessarily the most efficient motor configuration.   You could create the unit "RPM per input watt of power" and that would be very interesting because somewhere in the range of RPM, there is a "sweet RPM" that gives you the highest ratio of RPM per input watt of power.   What the actual power consumption is at that "sweet RPM" and what the "sweet RPM" is could be determined by measurements.   Just a thought.

Finally, I think that you are more interested in driving a generator and putting a useful real-world load on your pulse motor setups.  Needless to say, similar efficiency issues could be considered.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 18, 2013, 12:38:28 AM
Tesla's Claims in the patent are correct that is the main thing.

Quote
What I claim as my invention is
 
1.  A coil for electric apparatus the adjacent
convolutions of which form parts of the
circuit between which there exists a potential    45
difference sufficient to secure in the coil a capacity
capable of neutralizing its self induction
as hereinbefore described.

2.  A coil composed of contiguous or adjacent
insulated conductors electrically connected        50     
in series and having a potential difference of
such value as to give to the coil as a whole a
capacity sufficient to neutralize its self induction

as set forth.  NIKOLA TESLA

Here is what I think the claims are saying. If the voltage is too low, then the distance between the capacitor "plates" is too great for the capacity to be effectively used.
ie. If the conductors have insulation 5 mm thick then using 1 volt won't utilize the capacity very well and the capacity will not then contribute to the lowering of the resonance frequency. Kinda like trying to use 1 volt with a HV parallel plate air capacitor with 10 mm spacing between the plates, it won't work very well.

It makes sense to me.

Weather or not the coil is special is not a concern to me. The patent claims are correct and I think that is what he means when he says the words in bold above.

Rather than trying to argue angles or such things why not just take the claims and find if they are correct or not. Tesla's patents do not need to be dismissed or defended if they are making claims that are true. Simple. Any claims not made by Tesla are other peoples making.

..
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 18, 2013, 01:00:56 AM
MileHigh, I do understand, it is important to stay grounded. But I don't know why you would assume all I want to do is spin a rotor faster when I am doing load tests. I want to power loads if I can, if not it won't go past a prototype. What would be the point ?

Same with the pulse motor build off. What do they judge on ? Is it the prettiness or the micro power draw for no work ?
Or is it the most work for the least cost like what motors are for ?

My circuit has provision for voltage increase so I don't need to wait for 5 minutes for the rotor to speed up, it takes 5 seconds instead maybe 8 max.  :) And that's fair dinkum, no kidding.  ;D

Have you seen a pulse motor before with my design ? Why can't it be comparable to a conventional motor ? And flexible.

I'm not claiming any free energy, I'm just making things.

Tesla never claimed any OU, he had devices that collected energy from the environment like a solar panel or wind turbine does.

All the crazy OU claims are made by others.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 18, 2013, 01:06:36 AM
Farmhand:

I am not sure exactly what he means by "neutralizing its self-induction."  This is 19th century technical English that is sometimes also reworded for 19th century lay people.

I interpret it as the coil is self-resonating such that the inductance is "occupied" and part of an LC resonator.  It doesn't mean that it's "neutralized" and can be more easily energized.

Alternatively, from an AC excitation perspective we know that a self-resonating coil will not exhibit the property of AC inductance anymore with a 90 phase shift and a power factor of zero.  The inductance will be "neutralized" and appear as an AC open circuit, or as an AC short circuit.  Do you think that's what it means?

I asked Magluvin and he bowed out and threw the question back at me.  What do you think?

One thing is for sure, there is nothing at all in the patent about pulse motors or using the coil configuration in a pulse motor.  Nada.

Timing and the related conduction angle is probably the most important aspect to the operation of the pulse motor.  All pulse circuits are based on timing analysis.

MileHigh

P.S.:  Not sure what the criteria are that they use for the judging in the pulse motor build-offs.  Certainly "coolness factor" carries a lot of weight.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 18, 2013, 01:18:45 AM
MileHigh, I hope you were not referring to me when you said about claiming "the power comes up from the ground". I never claimed that. Not ever.

Yes I do realize the timing of the pulses and the resulting current times are important that is why I am experimenting with it.

And I can't recall claiming that a Tesla type bifilar coil would make a better pulse motor coil, my coils are wound normally why would I do that ?

I think I mentioned that the neutralizing of the inductance allows the current to flow as if the was no self inductance, just the DC resistance.

Didn't you read the patent ? Lines 40 to 45.

Quote
I have found that in every coil there exists 40
a certain relation between its self induction
and capacity that permits a current of given
frequency and potential to pass through it with
no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance
or in other words as though it possessed no self induction. 45

Quote
What do you think?

I'm not going to answer directly your question because it doesn't really matter what I think, what matters is what is.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 18, 2013, 01:35:21 AM
Farmhand:

I wasn't attributing those statements to you.  Sorry I am tired and was not clear enough.

Thanks also for pointing out the lines in the patent again.  There Tesla is clearly describing a series LC resonator.  So a series LC resonator can become an AC short circuit at the resonance frequency.  That means AC power will flow straight through the series LC resonator except for the power dissipated in the series resistance of the wire.  I made reference to that in my previous posting.

Can that property of series LC resonance be used to advantage in a pulse motor?  Do you observe it in anybody's pulse motor?  I will leave that up to you guys to explore that.  Certainly it looks like the tests in the YouTube clips make a stand-alone coil in self-resonance appear to act like a parallel LC resonator.

Quote
I'm not going to answer directly your question because it doesn't really matter what I think, what matters is what is.

I have to disagree with you here.  If this concept is one of the central themes for this thread, surely everybody should be on the same page as to the understanding of exactly what it means.  If you don't then it just becomes a catch phrase with no substance behind it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 18, 2013, 01:53:11 AM
No Problem then, Yes the resonance is the key to a lot of his stuff but not all, some of them it is just better to have it and some don't have it.

As far as pulse motors and series resonance goes, I just do what comes naturally to me and what seems like a good idea because there is no law against it and it stops me injuring myself doing other harder work type stuff, I've got a busted neck. I think in my setup there are a lot of different things going on and I make no real claims as yet except I get two driving phases from one switching phase and there is energy returned and adds to the potential of the circuit, that's resonance in one way I think.

But I as far as I can tell the parallel capacitor in my Tesla coil DC HV primary circuit is sometimes in parallel and sometimes in series with the supply.
It's in parallel because it's across the voltage charging it and it's in series because it's the only load when it's charged, so it must be. It is only in parallel with the primary when the spark gap is conducting, the close coupling and the Large primary diameter means it just rings along with the secondary when not excited like it's not there, almost.  :D My guess is it actually causes havoc and it is definitely not a continuous wave transformer. But I will build one one day.

As for series resonance capacitors in Tesla coil primary circuits they are in parallel with the primary when the spark gap conducts as well. Are they not ?

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 02:05:31 AM


I asked Magluvin and he bowed out and threw the question back at me.  What do you think?



Yes I did throw it back at you.  ;) It seems no matter how I describe it you continue to post as if I have not and keep questioning "What does neutralizing self inductance mean?"

Im tired of it already. ::) Im not here to teach you how to read. Im not here to give links to the definitions of 'neutralize' nor 'self inductance'. Should not have to with your self proclaimed experience from '30 years ago'.  I know you know some things. Why cant you understand what that statement means "neutralize self inductance'? Between all of us here in the thread, you are the only one that seems to have a problem with it.  What gives?

And the idea that a messy coil is no different than a tight, neatly wound coil beyond saying that different winding techniques from the norm have no differences either, I think you need to hit the books before you make such claims. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 18, 2013, 03:11:09 AM
I'm interested in what you're doing Mags because you have a bike, I like bikes with motors.  ;) And I like all different kinds of motors too and engines and other machines as well.

One example of a good use for a pulse motor might be to raise water, I have rain water tanks both elevated and ground level, if I had a reasonably powerful and efficient pulse motor it could move air as a fan and pump water from the ground tank to the elevated tank when I want it to so then the water can flow back down and out of the tap under it's own weight. It doesn't matter how long it takes to pump 1000 litres of water if the motor is running all the time anyway as a big fan with a shaft and some coupling arrangement to the pump. It gets mighty hot here in summer usually so fans go day and night. No air con here.

The energy to run the motor would be free from the sun and it could run easily non stop from my solar charged batteries using an amp or two when it's hot outside.

A free energy machine might be a machine that uses lots of free energy provided by the sun. hehehehe

pulse motors would seem to be able to work on bikes as a motive aid, so that might be fun.

If something works for you Mags do it. We're here to talk and share and help each other. I seem to find myself disagreeing with everyone at some point.

I think we all should remember that we all have different wants and objectives. I like to build stuff and learn new things in my own way and I find these forums have helpful people even if I do need to argue the information out of them.  :)

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 18, 2013, 03:27:05 AM
Really Magluvin?

I am going to quote you:

Quote
We talked about the capacitance neutralizing the self inductance the other day.
If we have a coil with a cap across it, and then we just apply a dc source across it, the cap will charge virtually instantly, but the inductor wont. This might imitate a neutralizing of self inductance of the coil, where the current flows easily through the cap. We are talking about applying DC here.

If the capacitance is 'in' the coil, well that current that charges that capacitance goes 'through the coil' neutralizing the self inductance. And if it neutralizes self inductance, then maybe we could think, does that mean that the magnetic field is neutralized also, or just the effect of impedance is neutralized and outer magnetic field is unaffected. If so then initially there could be a very intense field pulse, as compared to a slowly building standard inductive field build, depending in the inductance.

That internal capacitance is charged through a coil that can make an external field like any other coil and the impedance is neutralized. So until this capacitance is charged, this coil might be acting like a super electromagnet. Sounds like a heck of an idea to patent. (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

If we consider the cap connected to a coil, there probably isnt any purpose for it in the DC world. But here the capacitance is in the coil, and in my opinion, there should be a difference.

Also I stated earlier about the ability of holding power over time. Well if the field is huge in the beginning through the object being held, this may give us that stronger hold over time, instantly instead.

Quote
Thats not true. If there is capacitance in the coil, it should be ignored, right? If we were to put a cap across a normal coil as you say, if we pulsed it like in a pulse motor, the very first thing the circuit sees is the capacitance and the circuit charges it before much happens in the coil. But in the bifi, the charging of the capacitance happens through the windings of the coil, and since the capacitance neutralizes the self inductance till the capacitance of the coil is fully charged. Talking a DC pulse of course.

Everything I highlighted above in your statements is completely wrong.  Tesla was talking AC impedance in a series LC resonator going to zero - that's the "neutralizing of self-inductance."  So you started this thread with a completely incorrect impression of what this concept was all about and you made statements about basic electronics that don't make sense.  And I will repeat again that none of what Tesla stated in the patent had anything to do with pulse motors and you are incorrectly applying it to pulse motors.

First line is mine and the second line is yours:

Quote
"What do you and Farmhand and possibly others really mean when you say "neutralizes" in this context?"

And possibly others? lol  Tesla had the patent and he said it.  What do you think it means in your context?

Honestly I think you actually were stymied and weren't able to answer the question after reading the ongoing discussion so you threw it back at me as an attempted diversion.

Quoting you again:

Quote
I know you know some things. Why cant you understand what that statement means "neutralize self inductance'? Between all of us here in the thread, you are the only one that seems to have a problem with it.  What gives?

From your comments further above, it's crystal clear that you are the one that didn't understand what the statement meant.

Nice try at being the "cool dude with the poker face," but I ain't buying it.  Better luck next time.

Quote
And the idea that a messy coil is no different than a tight, neatly wound coil beyond saying that different winding techniques from the norm have no differences either, I think you need to hit the books before you make such claims."

Really?  Let's hear you explain where I am wrong then.  Please no throw-backs or ducking the question.  Why should I have to hit the books with respect to my statement?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 04:43:20 AM
I'm interested in what you're doing Mags because you have a bike, I like bikes with motors.  ;) And I like all different kinds of motors too and engines and other machines as well.

One example of a good use for a pulse motor might be to raise water, I have rain water tanks both elevated and ground level, if I had a reasonably powerful and efficient pulse motor it could move air as a fan and pump water from the ground tank to the elevated tank when I want it to so then the water can flow back down and out of the tap under it's own weight. It doesn't matter how long it takes to pump 1000 litres of water if the motor is running all the time anyway as a big fan with a shaft and some coupling arrangement to the pump. It gets mighty hot here in summer usually so fans go day and night. No air con here.

The energy to run the motor would be free from the sun and it could run easily non stop from my solar charged batteries using an amp or two when it's hot outside.

A free energy machine might be a machine that uses lots of free energy provided by the sun. hehehehe

pulse motors would seem to be able to work on bikes as a motive aid, so that might be fun.

If something works for you Mags do it. We're here to talk and share and help each other. I seem to find myself disagreeing with everyone at some point.

I think we all should remember that we all have different wants and objectives. I like to build stuff and learn new things in my own way and I find these forums have helpful people even if I do need to argue the information out of them.  :)

Cheers

If i were to conjure up your idea right here, this would be my approach..  ;)

First we have to know how much pressure we are dealing with to pump water up. Then purchase a pump that can handle the pressure. If it is going to be a pulse motor, I might suggest a flywheel rotor to keep the wheel going between pulses, as I imagine the pressure of the water in the up tube to possibly be quite great and working against the rotor being driven. As for the coils, use as many or more than the number of magnets on the rotor/flywheel and tie the drive coils in series. Here is why in series...

Like speaker systems, if you power a speaker 4ohm at 100w, and get 100db, you can now use 2 speakers to get more db with the same input. ;)   Here is why... and how...

The single speaker, 4ohm, with 100w signal produces 100db.  If we double the input to 200w we get an increase of 3db to 103db. 
Now, when we series wire 2 speakers, and input 100w, each speaker will only see 50w but we get 103db, for the same input 100w. Follow me.

1 speaker at 50w only delivers 97db, a loss of 3db. Double the wattage, increase 3db. Halve the wattage decrease 3db.

So we have 1 speaker with 50w putting out 97 db. WHEN WE ADD ANOTHER SPEAKER WITH AN INPUT OF 50w, WE GET A 6db INCREASE!!!! :o :o ;D ;D

How can that be?  But it is. We get the same output from 2 speakers with 100w total input as we would 200w into 1 speaker!!  ;)   

Thats why coils in series. More efficiency. 

4 speakers in series. 4 ohm each, now 16 ohms and 25w/94db each 100w total.

1 speaker 25w     94db

2 speakers, 25w each, 50w total    add 6 db   100db

Add 2 more speakers for a total of four speakers and input total of 100w     106db!!!

1 speaker would need to be powered with 400w to produce the 106db!!!

lol, now tune port those boxes to 30hz and run 100w total 30hz in, add another near 8db typical. Thats some resonance effects for ya. ;) Thats like 1 speaker with 800w but only 100w in. :o ;) Geddit? 

And the tuned box at 30hz, the speaker cone isnt visibly moving, but the port air is, a lot.   Did custom car audio professionally for almost 20 years. Biggest system 17kw, 24 12s and way too many mids and highs for my taste. I like real stereo, none of that surround sound distracting mumbo jumbo. Im a purist. ;D Close your eyes and you can see the band out in front of the car in your mind. Difficult to do but not impossible.


I believe these pulse motors can be thought of this way.    ;)   In fact, its just about a direct correlation. ;)   Electrical input to magnetic field to motive force. Same thing. ;)

Now, if you were going to make an electric car. Would you use 4 motors, 1 in each wheel, or just 1 motor?   ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 05:19:36 AM
Really Magluvin?

I am going to quote you:

Everything I highlighted above in your statements is completely wrong.  Tesla was talking AC impedance in a series LC resonator going to zero - that's the "neutralizing of self-inductance."  So you started this thread with a completely incorrect impression of what this concept was all about and you made statements about basic electronics that don't make sense.  And I will repeat again that none of what Tesla stated in the patent had anything to do with pulse motors and you are incorrectly applying it to pulse motors.

First line is mine and the second line is yours:

Honestly I think you actually were stymied and weren't able to answer the question after reading the ongoing discussion so you threw it back at me as an attempted diversion.

Quoting you again:

From your comments further above, it's crystal clear that you are the one that didn't understand what the statement meant.

Nice try at being the "cool dude with the poker face," but I ain't buying it.  Better luck next time.

Really?  Let's hear you explain where I am wrong then.  Please no throw-backs or ducking the question.  Why should I have to hit the books with respect to my statement?

MileHigh

"First line is mine and the second line is yours:

Honestly I think you actually were stymied and weren't able to answer the question after reading the ongoing discussion so you threw it back at me as an attempted diversion."

Twist it any way you want. I was just tired of explaining it to you. I explained it before the first quote block in your post and the block shows that. But you didnt copy those quotes did ya. Sly old dog you. :P

I do see one mistake in my first block you quoted where I say the cap and coil get dc connected across and the cap charges instantly but the coil does not. After 'not' I should have wrote 'but the coil does not charge instantly' I can see how that might not have been well taken.

It was an example I used to get you to understand the difference between the coil of an LC and the 'coil' of the bifi. If we applied dc and watched closely, the lc 'coil' will not take on the initial current from the dc, the cap would. But the bifi, the cap is in the coil. How does that capacitance charge in the coil? Through the windings, thats how. So the bifi coil does take on initial currents, unlike the standard coil of an LC. But you still wont get what Im saying.


"Really?  Let's hear you explain where I am wrong then.  Please no throw-backs or ducking the question.  Why should I have to hit the books with respect to my statement?"

Well there Im refering to you mentioning that all coils are just standard coils no matter how you wind them. Even TK does not agree with that but you still just keep on keepin on. And the other reason is you have used the excuse that you have been out of actually working with this stuff for 30 years and its your reason for when someone finds you wrong and you cant dig yourself out of it. Like the LEDs that work at 1.2v. Remember that one and what you said when I corrected you that its near minimum 2v for an led to conduct, red ones especially, other colors all the way above 4v before conducting. But you blamed it on "Its been 30years, so I made a mistake."  Well then, even I have trouble remembering every detail of things from that long back. But I keep on keepin on with a lot of things, to keep it fresh and whats new.

So your flagrant tossing of facts that are not true about coils and their various windings and functions needs to be revised.  Books, web, its all there. ;)

I understand that Tesla used the word 'frequency' which does signify AC not DC. But then we also have to look at the title of the patent. 'Electro-magnet'   I have never seen Tesla refer to any of the coils in his HV devices or transmitters/receivers as 'Electro-magnets'.  Nope.

What is your definition of an electro-magnet?  And if you were to use an electro-magnet, by your definition, would you us DC or AC? ;)

I did a lot of experiments on a coffee table for a while, and on my dresser, for a while. It doesnt take much to actually do some experiments like these, you do know? ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: forest on May 18, 2013, 07:52:33 AM
Hmm...so Tesla had a LC tank circuit without capacitor , very clever. My question : what kind of LC circuit it is ? Series or parallel ? Or maybe it depends how you connect things together ?  :o  I surely know that the secret of effective device is to match two resonances.... ::)  I think Tesla knew very well about that except LC resonance there is also longitudinal standing wave resonance. I saw once in Colorado Notes cryptic statement about adjusting primary for resonance and how it's hard to do it obviously (because we cannot find the best match for all parameters here.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 18, 2013, 08:52:51 AM
Magluvin:

"Really?  Let's hear you explain where I am wrong then.  Please no throw-backs or ducking the question.  Why should I have to hit the books with respect to my statement?"

You didn't even try to answer the question, you ducked it.  It's a technical question and it calls for a technical answer and you apparently can't do it.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of it.  People can read the thread and decide for themselves.  The basic point is to not have the misconception that so-called "series bifilar" coils have some imagined advantages when it comes to making a pulse motor, whether it be as drive coils or as pick-up coils.  You want to not have beginners spend months or more with this false notion.  The worst case scenario is it becomes another "power comes up from the ground" misconception that takes on a life of it's own.  The minuscule capacitance in a series bifilar coil will not affect the operation of a typical pulse motor.  You look at the situation and analyze it rationally and arrive at a logical conclusion.  No need for fantasy hunches that you want to assume are correct until proven otherwise.  No relation to the Tesla patent at all, perhaps the "worst" fantasy.

You remember the RomeroUK pulse motor I am sure.  There were nine pick-up coils and eight rotor magnets.  All of a sudden people starting saying, "Woooo!  There is a 'magical' counter-swirling magnetic interaction because of the 8/9 ratio that travels around the rotor in the opposite direction of the rotation!  Maybe that's the secret to the over unity in the RomeroUK motor!!!"

That's the kind of nonsense that you want to avoid happening with series bifilar coils in a pulse motor.  In this application there is essentially no difference from ordinary coils and it's important to debate that so newbies can hopefully learn and decide for themselves.

And I have tons of more effective bench experience than you and I really don't learn anything of substance from you, just to make that clear.  You are just trying to put on a brave face.

I have made my technical points and hopefully that will help some experimenters and prevent them from wasting time chasing dead ends.  That's a good thing.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 18, 2013, 01:36:56 PM
Gah. Everybody's right, and everybody is talking past each other.
1. Farmhand is right about Tesla's patent.
2. Tesla was right about HIS design of bifilar spiral coils operating at high voltages with low self-inductance--- low enough to be effectively "cancelled" by the inter-turn capacitance of a _carefully built_ spiral coil with the series-bifilar hookup. I've already said why he wanted these characteristics. Obviously if the increased capacitive reactance of a bifilar coil is to cancel the inductive reactance (not the inductance) then that inductance must be fairly small to begin with, meaning short wire length (relatively), non-saturable core of low permeability (like air) and high voltage difference between adjacent turns.
3. MileHigh is right when he says there isn't a _fundamental_ difference in coil winding techniques _in general_. Tesla's patent and the phenomenon he describes are important in a very specific design case: High potential difference between closely-spaced windings in a specific design of coil. He also used this same concept of increased capacitance in later work with his "disruptive discharge apparatus" which uses a specially-constructed secondary coil and pulsed DC stimulation.
4. Magluvin is right about there being differences in behaviour--- but these are second-order effects. Take two equal lengths of wire and two identical iron rod cores. Wind one coil as neatly and tightly as possible and wind the other one randomly, loose and messy. Now compare their magnetic field strength at the poles when they are powered by the same DC current. You will find that the field from the neatly-wound coil is stronger. Why? Simply because more of the turns are closer to the core. That's all. Now sweep both coils with AC and look at the resulting waveform. You will notice that the randomly-wound coil is "noisier" or rather has more complex waveshapes at certain frequencies than the neatly-wound coil does. This is because the _distributed_ inductance of the random windings is "lumpy" and disturbs the internal field, and ditto the distributed capacitance within the windings. The tightly wound coil will also dissipate heat less effectively and will be less affected by magnetostriction in the windings.
5. Take a coil and a capacitor. Hook them together, one end of the cap to one end of the coil, the other end of the cap to the other end of the coil, making a complete circuit loop, a LC tank. Are the components in series, or are they in parallel? Think about it. Also compare the resonant frequency of a series tank with a parallel tank made of the same components.
6. I'll bet Farmhand is right about using resonance in a pulse motor, too. If you think about it, a pulse motor that is self-triggered like a Bedini or even one that reads a fixed sensor then triggers a coil after a proportional delay, that tries to accelerate until it reaches equilibrium with its total drag... is a mechanically resonant situation, attempting to "grow' the RPM, which is only limited by the "Q" of the system: its power dissipation from bearing and aero and eddy drags. If this could be combined with resonant coils using minimum power (because of the minimized AC impedance) it could be a significant innovation (if it is an innovation; I am not familiar with the literature so I can't say if motors using resonant coils are already out there in the wild.)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 18, 2013, 03:47:49 PM
Hmm...so Tesla had a LC tank circuit without capacitor , very clever. My question : what kind of LC circuit it is ? Series or parallel ? Or maybe it depends how you connect things together ?  :o   
....snip....

Hi forest,

Series or parallel?  Well, it is BOTH...  The distributed capacitance between the parallel wires makes the coil resonant at many frequencies, in fact you can consider the parallel wires as a transmission line.  Amateur radio operators use coils made from coaxial cable and use it as a frequency selective switch for their short wave antennas. See this link for such 'coaxial' coil:
http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/index.htm (http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/index.htm)   and scrolling down in that link you can see how the impedance of such coil (connected as described in the Tesla patent) depends on the frequency:
http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png (http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png) 

Of course these coils work from the some MHz frequency ranges and much higher, and if you wish to bring down the operational range even to the some ten kHz range you would have to increase the distributed capacitance significantly between the parallel wires.  A good approach to do this is to use insulated rectangular wires and wind them in parallel with their flat sides facing each other to increase the capacitor surface areas or use flat copper or Alu ribbon or foil with high dielectric insulating material sandwiched in-between (just follow the formula for flat plate capacitors, C=(eps*A)/d where eps is the dielectic constant for the insulating material, A is the surface area and d is the distance between the facing metal surfaces). 
Of course there are practical limitations on building such bifilar coils to be resonant ,say, in the some 10 Hertz range.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 18, 2013, 04:32:40 PM
...
It is only in parallel with the primary when the spark gap is conducting, the close coupling and the Large primary diameter means it just rings along with the secondary when not excited like it's not there, almost.  :D My guess is it actually causes havoc and it is definitely not a continuous wave transformer. But I will build one one day.

As for series resonance capacitors in Tesla coil primary circuits they are in parallel with the primary when the spark gap conducts as well. Are they not ?


Yes,  I also understand the input capacitor for the primary coil in a Tesla coil setup is basically in series with the primary coil, it charges up from the AC input source and then the spark gap fires, connecting the capacitor in parallel with the primary coil.
(A useful link is here, out of many others: http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/operation.html (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/operation.html) )

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 18, 2013, 06:03:00 PM
TK:

Quote
2. Tesla was right about HIS design of bifilar spiral coils operating at high voltages with low self-inductance--- low enough to be effectively "cancelled" by the inter-turn capacitance of a _carefully built_ spiral coil with the series-bifilar hookup. I've already said why he wanted these characteristics. Obviously if the increased capacitive reactance of a bifilar coil is to cancel the inductive reactance (not the inductance) then that inductance must be fairly small to begin with, meaning short wire length (relatively), non-saturable core of low permeability (like air) and high voltage difference between adjacent turns.

In theory there in no need to have low inductance.  In some kind of LC arrangement, there will always be a resonant frequency whee the two reactances cancel each other out.

In terms of a practical build I would assume that you are correct in the sense that they would want to make the device resonate at a reasonable frequency.  Do you know what Tesla did with these types of coils?  Were they used to generate a short high-frequency oscillation to drive other circuits or something akin to that?

Quote
4. Magluvin is right about there being differences in behaviour--- but these are second-order effects. Take two equal lengths of wire and two identical iron rod cores. Wind one coil as neatly and tightly as possible and wind the other one randomly, loose and messy. Now compare their magnetic field strength at the poles when they are powered by the same DC current. You will find that the field from the neatly-wound coil is stronger. Why? Simply because more of the turns are closer to the core. That's all. Now sweep both coils with AC and look at the resulting waveform. You will notice that the randomly-wound coil is "noisier" or rather has more complex waveshapes at certain frequencies than the neatly-wound coil does. This is because the _distributed_ inductance of the random windings is "lumpy" and disturbs the internal field, and ditto the distributed capacitance within the windings. The tightly wound coil will also dissipate heat less effectively and will be less affected by magnetostriction in the windings.

Let's not say the same length of wire but rather say the same number of turns.  The field strength at the poles will be nearly identical, probably out to a few decimal places.  There will be very little difference in field strength due to the wire loop distance from the core.  The flux going through the from an inner loop and and an outer loop will be nearly the same because the core induces all the flux to flow through it.  When you sweep the coils with AC within a reasonable frequency range the coils will behave essentially identically.  You will not encounter any "lumpiness" and I don't know what you mean by "distributed inductance."  Assuming that you are sweeping the coil with a sine wave, then you won't see any complex waveshapes.  The coil is a linear device be it neatly wound or messily wound and therefore it can't "generate" it's own frequency content, it can only filter the input sinusoid waveform and output a sinusoid at the same frequency.  It can't generate any harmonics by itself because it's a linear device.

What's the context here?  It's a pulse motor.  So the point is that if you are going to make a drive coil or a pick-up coil for your pulse motor, do you need to spend a few hours slowly winding the coil and ensuring that the wires are as neat as possible?  The answer is no you don't, you can wind your coil in 10 minutes and it will work perfectly fine in the pulse motor.  The inductance will be the same, the magnetic field pattern will be the same, and the frequency transfer function within a reasonable frequency band will be the same.  That's the point, and it's an important one.  Separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to what's important and what's not important if you are going to build a pulse motor.  Learn the basic fundamentals and apply that knowledge when you do a build.  Don't work in a "voodoo electronics" world, work in the real world of electronics.

Quote
6. I'll bet Farmhand is right about using resonance in a pulse motor, too. If you think about it, a pulse motor that is self-triggered like a Bedini or even one that reads a fixed sensor then triggers a coil after a proportional delay, that tries to accelerate until it reaches equilibrium with its total drag... is a mechanically resonant situation

It's not a mechanically resonant situation, it's a situation that reaches a quiescent RPM where the average power input is balanced by the average power dissipated.  The pulsing is at some "operating frequency" as opposed to a "resonant frequency."   You might recall that I made the same point about a Joule Thief.  It's very encouraging to see that Farmhand is looking at both the voltage and the current waveforms in his setups.  If he can exploit some kind of coil resonance that is aligned with the operating frequency of the pulse train that drives the motor will be interesting to see.  I know that Itsusable added capacitors across his pick-up coils or drive coil(s) or both in his clips where he investigated pulse motor resonance.  In other words, the only way to get a pick-up coil to resonate with the passing rotor magnets is to add a capacitor across the pick-up coil to bring the resonant frequency down.  I looked at those clips about six months ago and to the best of my recollection he did not have any remarkable findings to report.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 07:49:30 PM
@Milehigh,

Four ways to increase electromagnetic strength. Your posts limit the ways to the first two!

1.- Increase the number of coil turns.
2.- Increase the current passing through the coil.
3.- Increase the voltage passing through coil.
4.- Tight wndings.

Electromagnets:

Moreover, you're dead wrong about another thing. You're good at covering outrageous falsehoods like these with slick sophistry!
 
"When the wire is wound into a coil, all the individual magnetic  fields line up. They flow through the center of the coil and back out around the  outside. The tighter the coil is, the greater the magnetic field."

Read more:  How Does the Tightness of the Coil Affect the Strength of an Electromagnet? | eHow (http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5043013_tightness-coil-affect-strength-electromagnet.html#ixzz2TfTsSVWu) http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5043013_tightness-coil-affect-strength-electromagnet.html#ixzz2TfTsSVWu (http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5043013_tightness-coil-affect-strength-electromagnet.html#ixzz2TfTsSVWu)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 18, 2013, 08:59:59 PM
....

Like speaker systems, if you power a speaker 4ohm at 100w, and get 100db, you can now use 2 speakers to get more db with the same input. ;)   Here is why... and how...

The single speaker, 4ohm, with 100w signal produces 100db.  If we double the input to 200w we get an increase of 3db to 103db. 
Now, when we series wire 2 speakers, and input 100w, each speaker will only see 50w but we get 103db, for the same input 100w. Follow me.

1 speaker at 50w only delivers 97db, a loss of 3db. Double the wattage, increase 3db. Halve the wattage decrease 3db.

So we have 1 speaker with 50w putting out 97 db. WHEN WE ADD ANOTHER SPEAKER WITH AN INPUT OF 50w, WE GET A 6db INCREASE!!!! :o :o ;D ;D

How can that be?  But it is. We get the same output from 2 speakers with 100w total input as we would 200w into 1 speaker!!  ;)   

Thats why coils in series. More efficiency. 

4 speakers in series. 4 ohm each, now 16 ohms and 25w/94db each 100w total.

1 speaker 25w     94db

2 speakers, 25w each, 50w total    add 6 db   100db

Add 2 more speakers for a total of four speakers and input total of 100w     106db!!!

1 speaker would need to be powered with 400w to produce the 106db!!!

lol, now tune port those boxes to 30hz and run 100w total 30hz in, add another near 8db typical. Thats some resonance effects for ya. ;) Thats like 1 speaker with 800w but only 100w in. :o ;) Geddit? 

And the tuned box at 30hz, the speaker cone isnt visibly moving, but the port air is, a lot.   Did custom car audio professionally for almost 20 years. Biggest system 17kw, 24 12s and way too many mids and highs for my taste. I like real stereo, none of that surround sound distracting mumbo jumbo. Im a purist. ;D Close your eyes and you can see the band out in front of the car in your mind. Difficult to do but not impossible.


I believe these pulse motors can be thought of this way.    ;)   In fact, its just about a direct correlation. ;)   Electrical input to magnetic field to motive force. Same thing. ;)

Now, if you were going to make an electric car. Would you use 4 motors, 1 in each wheel, or just 1 motor?   ;)

Mags

Hi Mags,

Your series speaker system connection with its higher output possibility at the same input power reminds me to an experiment (I mentioned it to Farmhand in the other thread) by Ian from some years ago. See his post here:
http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg35080/#msg35080

His idea of using more and more identical coils in series and also in parallel combinations so that the resultant coil inductance and DC resistance remains the same as for the single coil sounds good (albeit it would not insure excess output), efficiency would increase for sure.  (Back then I toyed with the idea of using a rotor disk of 30-40 cm OD and fixing many small but strong magnets on it while the many stator coils would be arranged like Ian described, using a moderate number of windings of thicker wire but I did not have the mechanical means for the bigger rotor mechanics.) 
While I do not fully agree with Ian on all his statements as a final outcome, the more and more total flux involved can give more and more output torque for sure,  versus the single same coil - single same magnet setup (albeit the COP > 1 is still a question with it).
Ian compared his single coil pulse motor setup to a 8 coil setup, using the same rotor mass and same input power for both setups. Here is his single coil description http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg31932/#msg31932 and here is his 8 coil setup video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gAKrn5pl4 

So there seems to be an interesting analogy between the series speaker output power increase you observed and output torque increase by series coils in pulse motors, for both cases at the same input power.  (For the latter pulse setup the many coils could also be arranged in series and the series groups in parallel as Ian described above and each such coil would have its facing magnet on a big rotor, the torque increase would surely be significant.)

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 09:56:20 PM
Hi Mags,

Your series speaker system connection with its higher output possibility at the same input power reminds me to an experiment (I mentioned it to Farmhand in the other thread) by Ian from some years ago. See his post here:
http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg35080/#msg35080 (http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg35080/#msg35080)

His idea of using more and more identical coils in series and also in parallel combinations so that the resultant coil inductance and DC resistance remains the same as for the single coil sounds good (albeit it would not insure excess output), efficiency would increase for sure.  (Back then I toyed with the idea of using a rotor disk of 30-40 cm OD and fixing many small but strong magnets on it while the many stator coils would be arranged like Ian described, using a moderate number of windings of thicker wire but I did not have the mechanical means for the bigger rotor mechanics.) 
While I do not fully agree with Ian on all his statements as a final outcome, the more and more total flux involved can give more and more output torque for sure,  versus the single same coil - single same magnet setup (albeit the COP > 1 is still a question with it).
Ian compared his single coil pulse motor setup to a 8 coil setup, using the same rotor mass and same input power for both setups. Here is his single coil description http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg31932/#msg31932 (http://www.overunity.com/1754/pulse-motor-video/msg31932/#msg31932) and here is his 8 coil setup video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gAKrn5pl4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gAKrn5pl4) 

So there seems to be an interesting analogy between the series speaker output power increase you observed and output torque increase by series coils in pulse motors, for both cases at the same input power.  (For the latter pulse setup the many coils could also be arranged in series and the series groups in parallel as Ian described above and each such coil would have its facing magnet on a big rotor, the torque increase would surely be significant.)

Gyula

Hmm, come to think of it, if they are in parallel, and just input less power we can get the same advantages. So what it really boils down to is the number of coils/speakers is what makes it better. So it can go one way or the other.  So having more magnets and coils, covering more surface area, more motive force for the same input.  A whole bunch of tiny magnets and tiny coils.  ;D   

Thanks Gyula

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 10:48:13 PM
I just re-performed "Tesla Coil's" bifilar nail experiment and got his 2x the strength results. Two problems: one; Lash winding and Two; Failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures. 

Precise and tight wire wraps are essential in this experiment. This is how Tesla earned a patent for an electromagnet coil. He had to demonstrate a practical advantage to his U.S. Patent examiners. Also, the SBC won't work cold! It has to be "Energized". I charged both the SBC and the single wire coil with 12 volts, and tested their field strengths with 6 volts. After energizing the SBC, it lifted two paper clips from the table surface, where the single wire coil would only attach one to the face.

"Lorentz" explained how this additional magnetic strength results from electron interaction in the SBC.
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 11:01:36 PM
I just re-performed "Tesla Coil's" bifilar nail experiment and got his 2x the strength results. Two problems, one; Lash winding and failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures.

What does this mean specifically?  "Two problems, one; Lash winding and failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures."

Let me know what Im doing wrong so I can correct it. I have them already wound, ready for action. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 11:08:24 PM
Also, the SBC won't work cold! It has to be charged.

"Has to be charged"   Ok, does that mean connecting the battery to the coil ends but where the coil is connected in series is where we should have our make and break switching, all so that each winding, one is fully positive and the other is fully negative because they are connected to the battery already?   ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 18, 2013, 11:12:03 PM
What does this mean specifically?  "Two problems, one; Lash winding and failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures."

Let me know what Im doing wrong so I can correct it. I have them already wound, ready for action. ;D

Mags

Are the nail cores magnetic iron? Are the wraps 26 gauge, tight against the iron core in one layer, and precision wound with no overlay? Did you "Energize" the SBC coil with High Voltage shock?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 18, 2013, 11:19:17 PM

Are the nail cores magnetic iron? Are the wraps 26 gauge, tight against the iron core in one layer, and precision wound with no overlay? Did you "Energize" the SBC coil with High Voltage shock?

"Did you "Energize" the SBC coil with High Voltage shock?"  LOL, no I did not. Can you show some link or reference to this subject or describe it a bit more?

Mags

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 19, 2013, 12:50:53 AM
I just re-performed "Tesla Coil's" bifilar nail experiment and got his 2x the strength results. Two problems: one; Lash winding and Two; Failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures. 

Precise and tight wire wraps are essential in this experiment. This is how Tesla earned a patent for an electromagnet coil. He had to demonstrate a practical advantage to his U.S. Patent examiners. Also, the SBC won't work cold! It has to be "Energized". I charged both the SBC and the single wire coil with 12 volts, and tested their field strengths with 6 volts. After energizing the SBC, it lifted two paper clips from the table surface, where the single wire coil would only attach one to the face.

"Lorentz" explained how this additional magnetic strength results from electron interaction in the SBC.

Hi synchro1

See this link to the Tesla patent in question: http://www.tfcbooks.com/patents/0512340.htm

And see the 'No Model' notice on the original patent paper. It means that the inventor did not show any model or setup etc on his invention when he applied for the patent. 

Please tell me where you got your info that Tesla had to demonstrate his coil to the patent examiners.

Can you show a photo on your electromagnet coil please?  Would like to see your coil holding the clips or whatever you used for the comparison.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 19, 2013, 12:52:53 AM
"Did you "Energize" the SBC coil with High Voltage shock?"  LOL, no I did not. Can you show some link or reference to this subject or describe it a bit more?

Mags

Danial McFarland Cook was granted a Canadian Patent for a "Battery" that consisted of two SBC's in series. This L.L. tank generated power like a capacitor as the resonance drained away. Naturally, the "Cook Battery", basically two SBC's has to be charged to run like any other battery. Tesla notes his SBC has 250.000 times the voltage differential as a single wrap. The SBC is inert like empty capacitor plates untill it's charged. It runs down over time, but generates it's own power and is technically a battery. A strong electric shock brings the SBC coil to full high voltage power. Charging has no effect on the single wire model.
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 19, 2013, 12:59:45 AM
I'm trying to track my still photographer down right now. My laptop stopped working to upload videos.
 
The Tesla Patent has (no model) then directly beneath that a model number No: 512,340. Could that be an abreviation meaning number model?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 19, 2013, 01:39:50 AM
I'm trying to track my still photographer down right now. My laptop stopped working to upload videos.
 
The Tesla Patent has (no model) then directly beneath that a model number No: 512,340. Could that be an abreviation meaning number model?



No.  The No: 512,340 is the patent number. You can see the 'No Model' notice in the main heading of the patent once again, under the figures:
                                                             COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS.
SPECIFICATION forming part of Letters Patent No. 512,340, dated January 9, 1894.
Application filed July 7, 1893.  Serial No. 479,804. (No model.)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 19, 2013, 02:54:13 AM
I just returned from the shop where I re-ran the experiment and captured nine still shots with my cell phone. The Tesla series wrap bifilar raises two long "trombone" steel paper clips, while the single wrap raises merely one. The single wire model dosen't even come close to attracting a second paper clip. Zero cling on the second clip, while the SBC cleanly raises two whole paper clips high over the test bench. Try charging the SBC like "Leedskalnin's" PMH first, then repeat the experiment with the SBC raised to full potential.
 
Where does the Earth's magnetic field come from if not the ground? Power comes from the ground because the molten iron core revolves faster then the crust acting as a huge dynamo. Tesla understood this and sought to electrify the Planet through it! This sounds preposterous to some blind cynics.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on May 19, 2013, 05:06:18 AM
   My feeling on where the magnetic field of the Earth comes from is that the core of the Earth is not solid or liquid but is a piece of ejected solar plasmasphere spinning round and round.   The entire core is spinning and the electrons move as they would in a coil.  This causes magnetic field effects.  The big magnetosphere.  This plasma current is not uniform by any stretch of the imagination.  It appears to have taken on many states of angular momentum and polarity over the ages.  This may be due to solar activity where the solar magnetic field changes intensity and polarity.  The plasmasphere currents on the Sun create many magnetic poles.  Some people belive that they have found various rhythmic field strength changes but 8 or 20 minute cycles in the order of microteslas isnt very much power.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 19, 2013, 12:08:26 PM
I just returned from the shop where I re-ran the experiment and captured nine still shots with my cell phone. The Tesla series wrap bifilar raises two long "trombone" steel paper clips, while the single wrap raises merely one. The single wire model dosen't even come close to attracting a second paper clip. Zero cling on the second clip, while the SBC cleanly raises two whole paper clips high over the test bench. Try charging the SBC like "Leedskalnin's" PMH first, then repeat the experiment with the SBC raised to full potential.
 ....

Please show me where did Tesla write his coil construction (defined in his patent) is to be charged first with high voltage and then use it with a lower voltage?

Did you check whether the nail manifested a remanent magnetism after your 12V charge up treatment? (I am not saying your nail manifested remanence magnetism, just a possibility for explaining your test result.)

When I did my own tests first with paper clips I noticed that due to the inherently very small touching surfaces of the clips the tests were not fully convincing for me, even though the difference in the number of lifted clips was evident,  and when I repeated the tests  I decided to change the clips to small sized nuts: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952) 
So the small nuts have made the tests more convincing for me and more repeatable.  I suggest you also use small nuts or just cut up your "trombone" clips to many small (say 3 or 4 millimeter long) pieces and do the tests again. 

Here is your post from last night and I highlighted some words in your text I wish to answer:

I just re-performed "Tesla Coil's" bifilar nail experiment and got his 2x the strength results. Two problems: one; Lash winding and Two; Failure to energize the SBC are reasons I suspect that caused the other experimental failures. 

Precise and tight wire wraps are essential in this experiment. This is how Tesla earned a patent for an electromagnet coil. He had to demonstrate a practical advantage to his U.S. Patent examiners. Also, the SBC won't work cold! It has to be "Energized". I charged both the SBC and the single wire coil with 12 volts, and tested their field strengths with 6 volts. After energizing the SBC, it lifted two paper clips from the table surface, where the single wire coil would only attach one to the face.
"Lorentz" explained how this additional magnetic strength results from electron interaction in the SBC.

Well,  see the first picture Magluvin uploaded in his post here:
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705)
He has wound nice coils, precise and tight, no lash winding on his nails, right?  And he did find equal performance for the single and the bifilar (SBC) coils just like I did with my 'lash' winding.  So we got the test results independently from whether the windings were precise or lash, right? 

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 19, 2013, 12:11:17 PM
Dang, Looks like I missed a lot, I got entranced by my experiments, I've made significant headway towards understanding what I'm doing. I found I had a bad diode which was causing bad wave forms and bad performance.

Tinsel, Your point (6) about resonance in a pulse motor, I think there is already people claiming resonant pulse motors but I'm not sure what is the actual claims. Some say resonance is just the return of energy that builds system potential or energy some say otherwise. I want it all, I want sine waves from pulses and energy returned when the frequency means no sine waves. In other words the harmonics should not interfere, they are processed in a way. It is difficult to get the visual out of my head for people to grasp I guess, I think you get it though.

I now have a nice "h" wave with a flat top without a charge battery and efficient high speed running with no load and no charge battery but using a charge battery is still a bit better and the reason is that the battery makes the currents look smoother, the return set up makes waves, but it just a matter of tuning the circuit. If the capacitor is small the voltage on the drain at the discharge portion of the "H" wave is high and short so the current is more intense but shorter (kinda like when a charge battery is used), and like with a battery, when really feeding in the power fast I get a steep climb in voltage on the drain which fires the neons and noise upsets the picaxe which shuts down the boost converter (I think) and that drops the input.
If I feed power in slower and speed the rotor up slower I get the fastest speeds with a charge battery followed closely by my return setup, but if I snub the fly back to the supply or around the coil it just will not accelerate.

I get the best result as far as loading goes when I use a larger return capacitance so that the drain voltage stays lower, however I intend to replace the NE2 neons with 220 volt gas discharge tubes from the drain to ground for now but I think that is a bad idea I think a safety valve from the drain back to the supply might be better, I think in my setup the circuit noise is causing me problems when it becomes too much so I need to keep it in mind.

I think for pulse motors they can be kinda like a self triggered (pseudo synchronous motor) because when I switch in the extra charging capacitance that the charging coils empty into the frequency and speed of the motor slow quickly as a result of the braking effect from the change in phase of the charging coil current. Kind of synchronous to it's circuit frequency.

I'll get a shot of one of my (h) waves. in a minute. I'll need to make another post to reply more anyway.

The way I see it even an ordinary pulse motor of any kind if the pulses make sine waves then I see no reason why it cant be smooth quiet and powerful. Now when I get to high speed the most noise comes from the windage on the rotor, it's full of holes, can hardly hear the pulsing, still not properly balanced though. I'm going to take most of the current video clips down because they are now obselete. I can easily out perform the 18 Watt fan that beat me last time. And considering my motor is much bigger it should beat it for efficiency with the same load. The main thing is I need the computer control, once I get command of all variables I think I can make it work well.

Head down making progress. I'll get the shot. First thing.

Oh I was also only running on three bangs a revolution too, my sensor was ignoring one reflector strip because it was too small.  >:(

Cheers

These wave forms show why I chose to use a resonant charging circuit and how I made the inductive energy return to try to match the effects of a charge battery.

It's quiet because the powerful rectangle pulses are just adding to a sine wave, the sine wave is driving the rotor.  :)

New clip of quiet running unloaded. (except for the wind noise sorry bout that).  :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrlL099cz2Q

...
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 19, 2013, 02:38:44 PM
Gyula, My Tesla transformer primary circuit doesn't use a series capacitor, ( I used to) but the setup now is as the drawing shows, but there is the spark gap in the positive HV line to the primary.
The spark gap can be two shorting bars out of phase or one. It's a very narrow series gap due to the design and I have three points to use on the gap two in phase and one out of phase so I can use two in series if I want, one is good.

Anyway the primary caps in a resonant charging circuit which is the diode the charging inductor (a MOT secondary) and the primary capacitors, if the resonance between the charging inductor and the primary capacitor is too low then the power is restricted. If the charging inductor does not have enough inherent inductance then the spark discharge can draw energy directly from the supply through the charging inductor then the primary. At reonance we get the highest voltage into the HV primary capacitors, the resonance is between the charging inductor and the primary capacitors all the time, but the capacitors are only in parallel with the primary when the gap is conducting, and never in series. Because of the circuit design.  This is true of all two way blocking switches in such an arrangement. But not one way (blocking) switches like mosfets. Maybe why IGBT is preferred dunno. Sorry for the highlighting.  :-[

I have series inductors.  ;)

We can also see by my drawing there that the infamous "Avremenko plug" is nothing more than half of a FWBR and a capacitor ect. . I use A FWBR in two halves which are exactly the same as the diode arrangement for an "Avremenko plug" .

Cheers

P.S. Most of the microwave oven transformers I have posses about the same figure as the supply voltage in mH ie. mine are 236 mH so with 39 uf I am close to 50 Hz resonance for the power factor to be good. It drops the line voltage a bit too I noticed whatever that means. But I can get reliable power measurements behind the 240 line filter at the control box.  So no real interference back through the supply lines. I think that's important to do without using a lot of resistors. For efficiency.


C7-C8-C9 and C10 are my primary capacitors there are no others. the primary swings freely, it's just one turn of two 6 mm copper tubes 5 mm below the secondary.

The thinking is that having primary "resonance capacitors" always connected would lower the "q" factor of the secondary which is high because of the 1 mm wire, very little resistance. I figure it at almost 4000. 760 kHz. I can't recall the exact measurements to post.
..



 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 19, 2013, 03:05:14 PM
Hi Farmhand,

Thanks for returning to the series or parallel cap topic at the Tesla primary coil,  (it has been okay with me) the fireing spark gap put the capacitor in parallel with the primary and the cap was discharged by the primary in that moment. What you show now in the drawing I understand too.
It is interesting you mention Avramenko plug as half of a FWBR and indeed the two diodes' half  seem to copy two 'plugs' but remember an Avramenko plug is driven by a single wire while the FWBR (or half of it) is driven by two wires,  so this difference must have a different loading effect on the source.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 19, 2013, 03:14:58 PM
Oh I see, yes, I think  when the primary capacitors are being charged they are in series with the supply and the charging inductor.  but when they are being discharged they are in parallel with the primary.

I think it's always both, unless the capacitor does not discharge Tesla style. Then a series capacitor is just a series capacitor.

It's the finer points that are difficult to explain, I see you understand it well Gyula. Misunderstanding on my part, sorry. :-[

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on May 19, 2013, 04:03:57 PM
  I always thought that in a Tesla transformer oscillations in the primary are maintained by the power supply and coupled to the secondary through the capacitance of the gap.  As  the oscillations are damped in the secondary the energy stored in the primary is passed into the secondary via ac coupling of the two tanks through the capacitor the gap represents. This makes the whole transformer self-regulating and increases voltage to be distributed to loads far more efficiently than the pole pigs westinghouse was selling and continues to sell to this day.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 19, 2013, 04:40:39 PM
Tesla sometimes used arrangements such as mine, near the beginning of the Colorado Springs Notes he mentions that he sometimes did not bother with primary "resonance" caps he didn't put it quite like that, but he showed an arrangement with two primaries as well one primary with the resonance caps to reinforce the secondary but not directly powered and another primary coil with the spark gap in it's circuit. And he mentions that it's not always necessary if the primary rings well enough. When we use mosfets the primary is connected to the caps for half the cycle of the sine through the body diode when the current reverses.

 It can be done many ways, the objective is to get a wave with as little damping as possible by having a high "q" isn't it. What's the "q" factor of a primary of 1 turn with next to no inductance and resistance and with 14 nF (which is in series with the primary I think when resonating), I do not know. But from doing it I can see it's better not have it. in a rotary spark gap the gap is over an inch when the shorting bar is not there. I don't see how it can couple. My transformer works, did you see the video ? rather than have primary tap points on a multiple winding primary I used a "regulating coil" as Tesla did, and at the bottom of the secondary is another one for fine tuning to different experiments. In a low voltage setup it's easier to have tuning capacitors. but with HV coils are easier. My transformation rate does not change with adjustment I don't think. Transformation rate is about 1:200, with around 4 to  6 kV input mostly. Of course I don't think it's developing 1.2 million volts, quite a bit less than that more like a couple of hundred kV.

Don't be fooled by the wooden frame on the spark gap, it's dodgy looking but finely adjusted, at the end of a long run at high power and low break rate the shorting bars are just clipping the electrodes due to heat expansion. that's the noise at the end of the clip.  At higher break rates the power drops off because resonance in the charging circuit is passed. I can go to break rates over 2 or 3 kHz if I want.  :)

The hard white conductions heat up the gap more I think. The power is restricted to about 500 or 600 Watts. See the twirling of the arcs it makes double helix arcs and pictures can have like fingerprint looking type arcs due to shutter time which is kinda cool. The helices twist up then throw themselves apart if they don't find a hard conduction, if they do they seem to twist back down again..

Link again. Enjoy. Sound Warning it loud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkJtrKCdFg

Cheers

Sorry to go off topic but the resonance aspect is very prevalent in Tesla's patents I think.

If I put another ground connected and tuned resonant coil near it the second coil lashes out at the first and it can light incandescent bulbs from what would be the primary of the second coil no problem. Tesla did those kinds of experiment so I tried it it works. I don't think there is much to doubt about the majority of what he says but only if he is the one who said it.

...




Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 19, 2013, 05:02:52 PM
Please show me where did Tesla write his coil construction (defined in his patent) is to be charged first with high voltage and then use it with a lower voltage?

Did you check whether the nail manifested a remanent magnetism after your 12V charge up treatment? (I am not saying your nail manifested remanence magnetism, just a possibility for explaining your test result.)

When I did my own tests first with paper clips I noticed that due to the inherently very small touching surfaces of the clips the tests were not fully convincing for me, even though the difference in the number of lifted clips was evident,  and when I repeated the tests  I decided to change the clips to small sized nuts: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952) 
So the small nuts have made the tests more convincing for me and more repeatable.  I suggest you also use small nuts or just cut up your "trombone" clips to many small (say 3 or 4 millimeter long) pieces and do the tests again. 

Here is your post from last night and I highlighted some words in your text I wish to answer:

Well,  see the first picture Magluvin uploaded in his post here:
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705)
He has wound nice coils, precise and tight, no lash winding on his nails, right?  And he did find equal performance for the single and the bifilar (SBC) coils just like I did with my 'lash' winding.  So we got the test results independently from whether the windings were precise or lash, right? 

Gyula


I restored my laptop and plan to video tape and upload the experiment for you to let you decide what to make of it. The SBC stores it's pico farad capacitance in kilovolts and nano amps. A 100 turn SBC has 250,000 times the voltage potential between the wraps as a single wire coil. How do you imagine this power gets into the coil if it's not sent there? The high voltage spike from the magnetic field collapse charges the SBC to full potential. This happens automatically when the coil's pulsed, but you need at least one strong field collapse to generate the high voltage that's stored in the bifilar windings. The collapse dosen't effect the single wire coil because it lacks the storage potential. This high voltage storage capacitance eliminates reactance to current direction change in the coil windings, and generates double the field strength from the resulting Lorentz force. I got the experiment to work. You're asking me why yours caused trouble. Please put your thinking cap on!
 
Electrons are attracted to one another as they pass head on. There's no influence between them on the perpendicular. The head on electrons turn when there's no reactance to direction change from the high bifilar windings potential. Imagine two electrons orbiting each other. What happens? Think about it!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 19, 2013, 06:01:03 PM

I restored my laptop and plan to video tape and upload the experiment for you to let you decide what to make of it. The SBC stores it's pico farad capacitance in kilovolts and nano amps. A 100 turn SBC has 250,000 times the voltage potential between the wraps as a single wire coil. How do you imagine this power gets into the coil if it's not sent there? The high voltage spike from the magnetic field collapse charges the SBC to full potential. This happens automatically when the coil's pulsed, but you need at least one strong field collapse to generate the high voltage that's stored in the bifilar windings. The collapse dosen't effect the single wire coil because it lacks the storage potential. This high voltage storage capacitance eliminates reactance to current direction change in the coil windings, and generates double the field strength from the resulting Lorentz force. I got the experiment to work. You're asking me why yours caused trouble. Please put your thinking cap on!

Well, you have to understand. We were doing the nail experiment as it was described. It did not work. So in reality your experiment has added ingredients as compared to the 'experiment' from the web page.

But if there is something missing, I would be happy to see it. ;)

Is your nail ending up permanently magnetized in the process of kicking it with HV? That is the first thing that comes to mind of what might happen.

Looking forward to the vid.  Before you stated  the use of KV, I thought you meant precharging the bifi like below.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 19, 2013, 06:04:45 PM
Hi Gyula, I get you on the AV plug I think.  So if I may could I ask a couple of questions please. Would it be true to say that with the plug and capacitor there is a second instance of displacement current ? The first instance between the capacitor plates and the second instance in series with that capacitor's plates and whatever it can go to, maybe a tin plate or the bench or the ground/air ect. ? And if yes that the quality and value of the second capacitive coupling will give the AV plug it performance in a specific situation ? The plug uses the second displacement current path for the return ?

I think that would be the principal of the receiving of the wireless power transmission of Tesla's last patent. The displacement current path might be possible from the top of the tower's air capacitance to the Earth and the sending Plant's transformer is connected to both as well. There is just no diodes, resonant coils do it all.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 19, 2013, 06:46:59 PM
Doesn't an AV plug work like the drawing shows or similar ? If yes than the AV plug is really just half of a FWBR.  :) Nooooooo darn I think I drew the currents flowing the wrong way hahahaha  but I think you can see what I mean.

I think Tesla describes the effect in his high frequency lectures, he knew what was happening. And that he could use it.

I think if we had say a 1/4 wavelength of say 100 meters then if we place a resonant receiver coil there it would get maximum excitement, but if we place it at 3 x 1/4 wavelengths the wave would be more attenuated or down graded. He may have over estimated the efficiency of doing that at HF though 35 kHz max he said for transmitting at distance through the ground so as to avoid too much degradation of the current waves.

Does displacement current flow in EM waves ?

Cheers

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 19, 2013, 07:37:52 PM
Farmhand:

For the AV plug you are correct.  The key factors are the frequency of the AC signal in the single wire, the amplitude, and how much capacitive coupling the power source has to ground and the charging capacitor has to ground.  For every rising edge of the AC source, a tiny "puff" of charge passes through the forward diode to charge the cap.  For every falling edge, a tiny puff of charge flows through the reverse diode and that also charges the cap.  The tiny puff of moving charge though the diode is the displacement current.  It's the same current that is capacitively coupled to ground at both the source and destination ends of the current flow.  It's a two-wire charging system that only has one physical wire.

Sometimes you can have a an audible high-frequency oscillator on your bench and by bringing your hand near to it you can make the pitch change. Same idea, the capacitive effect of your hand in proximity to the oscillator will cause very faint displacement currents and affect the oscillator.

The higher the frequency and the higher the amplitude of the signal the larger and more frequent the puffs are and the faster the capacitor charges.  The stray coupling capacitance to ground will act like any capacitor and conduct AC more readily the higher the frequency.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 19, 2013, 07:50:12 PM
Well, you have to understand. We were doing the nail experiment as it was described. It did not work. So in reality your experiment has added ingredients as compared to the 'experiment' from the web page.

But if there is something missing, I would be happy to see it. ;)

Is your nail ending up permanently magnetized in the process of kicking it with HV? That is the first thing that comes to mind of what might happen.

Looking forward to the vid.  Before you stated  the use of KV, I thought you meant precharging the bifi like below.

Mags

A capacitor discharge would charge the coil well too. The final coil voltage is a function of the wraps. I just finished the video. I detected a noticeable amount of magnetic remnance in the SBC core, so I connected the nail heads untill the core attractions equalized. The experiment again demonstrated the 2x SBC magnetic force as before. I'll start uploading the video soon!

Tinselkoala could run the paper clip test experiment on his two kinds of coreless pancake coils, and help factor any magnetic core remnance issue out entirely.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 19, 2013, 07:54:31 PM
Synchro1:

Quote
I restored my laptop and plan to video tape and upload the experiment for you to let you decide what to make of it. The SBC stores it's pico farad capacitance in kilovolts and nano amps. A 100 turn SBC has 250,000 times the voltage potential between the wraps as a single wire coil. How do you imagine this power gets into the coil if it's not sent there? The high voltage spike from the magnetic field collapse charges the SBC to full potential. This happens automatically when the coil's pulsed, but you need at least one strong field collapse to generate the high voltage that's stored in the bifilar windings. The collapse dosen't effect the single wire coil because it lacks the storage potential. This high voltage storage capacitance eliminates reactance to current direction change in the coil windings, and generates double the field strength from the resulting Lorentz force. I got the experiment to work. You're asking me why yours caused trouble. Please put your thinking cap on!
 
Electrons are attracted to one another as they pass head on. There's no influence between them on the perpendicular. The head on electrons turn when there's no reactance to direction change from the high bifilar windings potential. Imagine two electrons orbiting each other. What happens? Think about it!

I can suggest a good test for you.  If you have a compass and arrange your setup so the regular coil and SBC will try to deviate the compass from magnetic North you can then measure the relative strength of the fields from the two types of coils at different compass positions.  Say the compass is a foot away from the regular coil and when you energize the coil it deflects 30 degrees.  Now try the same thing with the SBC and see if the compass also deflects by 30 degrees.  This test will be much more accurate than picking up paperclips.

I will remind you that you need to know the current through the coils.  So you measure the DC resistance of the coil and then measure the voltage across the coil when you connect the battery.  You might not know if the battery is freshly charged or nearly discharged.  That will affect the battery voltage under load so you must read the voltage and then calculate the current.  Alternatively you can use your multimeter to measure current.  One way or the other, assuming that you are comparing two coils with the same number of turns and the same core material, you have to measure both setups and be sure the current through both types of coils will be the same when you do the tests.  You should present that data as part of your test results to your audience.

Looking forward to seeing your clip.  We can see if there is any evidence of very high voltage.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 19, 2013, 08:01:19 PM
Synchro1:

I can suggest a good test for you.  If you have a compass and arrange your setup so the regular coil and SBC will try to deviate the compass from magnetic North you can then measure the relative strength of the fields from the two types of coils at different compass positions.  Say the compass is a foot away from the regular coil and when you energize the coil it deflects 30 degrees.  Now try the same thing with the SBC and see if the compass also deflects by 30 degrees.  This test will be much more accurate than picking up paperclips.

I will remind you that you need to know the current through the coils.  So you measure the DC resistance of the coil and then measure the voltage across the coil when you connect the battery.  You might not know if the battery is freshly charged or nearly discharged.  That will affect the battery voltage under load so you must read the voltage and then calculate the current.  Alternatively you can use your multimeter to measure current.  One way or the other, assuming that you are comparing two coils with the same number of turns and the same core material, you have to measure both setups and be sure the current through both types of coils will be the same when you do the tests.  You should present that data as part of your test results to your audience.

Looking forward to seeing your clip.  We can see if there is any evidence of very high voltage.

MileHigh

You do it!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 19, 2013, 08:08:39 PM
Quote
You do it!

It's not going to happen!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 19, 2013, 11:19:54 PM
Hi Farmhand,

Milehigh answered your question on the Avramenko plug so I make some additions only. You surely know that a piece of wire freely hanging in the air has a self capacitance with respect to the ground, measured between any one wireend and a ground pole. This link shows a formula to calculate the CH capacitance of a horizontal wire with L length, d diameter and H height above ground: http://www.strobbe.eu/on7yd/136ant/#CapTop (http://www.strobbe.eu/on7yd/136ant/#CapTop)  So the single wire capacitance to ground behaves as the "second wire" in the power transfer and of course it is frequency dependent too. This explains why the Avramenko plug is not really "working" at 50 or 60 Hz frequencies, high capacitive reactance is the limiting factor at low frequencies.

I do not know if you have read the patent by Avramenko et al here is a link https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US6104107.pdf (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US6104107.pdf)   
I attached a pdf file on practical measurements with single wire power transfer, I find it interesting. (I found it on the net, referenced by someone on a forum I cannot recall.)

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 20, 2013, 07:17:32 PM
Scrap yard magnets are Tesla pancake SB coils attached to flat iron disks. There's a capacitor, a six volt battery and a DPDT current reversing switch.  The electromagnet face drops into a pile of scrap, the capacitor charge pulses the iorn disk and a PMH bond attracts the scrap. This electromagnet is OU now minus the cost of a comparison powered coil. Current reversal drops the load. The bifilar nail test of "Tesla Coil Builder" crudely demonstrates this PMH effect of Tesla's SBC.

Magnetic lock valves, car door locks, magnet conditioners, and countless other devices find ways to make use of this effect. Tesla's patent for "Electromagnets" is a coil for "Making Electromagnets". Portions of Tesla's patent are missing.
 
This lockng effect is a "Lorentz" force. Gravity bends light, E=Mc2. Magnet fields bend electric current. This effect can't be explained with Ampere's law, and is not inductive magnetization which can't unlatch.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 20, 2013, 10:32:59 PM
Synchro1:

Go do some research on scrap yard electromagnets if you want to.  Right now your talk is mostly fantasy talk.  There is no OU related to scrap yard electromagnets and they do not use a PMH effect for their operating principle.

The Lorentz force is has to do with magnetic fields causing a force on a current-carrying wire.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c2)

Quote
In physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), particularly electromagnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism), the Lorentz force is the force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force) on a point charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_charge) due to electromagnetic fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field). If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force F = qE + qv (cross product)B

So there is no special "secret sauce" associated with the Lorentz force.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 21, 2013, 12:42:48 AM
@Milehigh,
                   How do you explain Ed Leedskalnin's PMH effect without your "Lorentz Sauce"? Furthermore, maybe you're the one who should do some research? Tell us how permanent Alnico Magnets are manufactured Smart Aleck? Cap discharge through an SBC perhaps? How about your SBC PMH car door lock?
               
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 21, 2013, 01:52:06 AM
Synchro1:

I can explain the PMH effect.  But before I do that if required, ask yourself what are the required conditions for the PMH effect to work?  Then ask yourself are those conditions met in a scrapyard setting?

Magnets are made by putting ferromagnetic material with high remanence in a very strong unidirectional external magnetic field for a short amount of time.  That will align the magnetic domains in the ferromagnetic material with the external magnetic field.  As long as the magnet is not abused then it will retain its magnetism for a very long time.

I don't know if they use PMH effects in a car door lock and I seriously doubt it.  It's probably just an ordinary solenoid driving some kind of latch mechanism that clicks into the locked or unlocked position.  No SBC would be used for reasons already explained.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 21, 2013, 06:33:51 PM
@Milehigh,
 
                   You make outragous statements. "Magnetic door locks are probably mechanical". That's just complete nonsense! You're not worth the discussion. Take a look at youself for God's sake. You act like a stupid farce!

                     Causeing a sudden high voltage field collapse accross the  SBC instantainiously transmuts the iron nail core  into a permanent magnet. A nickel metal nail could be removed from the SBC and sold in a hardware store. This is what the coil was patented to do. Reversing the current anihilates the field. That's why Alnico's can drop dead if shocked. The scrap yard magnet works with just that kind of Hi-Voltage permanent field producing and unlatching current.
 
                        Skycollection measured a COP of 1.7 with bifilar pancakes and ferrite toroid core. The iron transmuts into a seperate isotope when it's pulsed by hi-voltage and the domains align as a crystal. Can we skim the permanent quanta transmutation to generate free power?
 
 
                 
 
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 21, 2013, 08:01:30 PM
Synchro1:

That was a "far out" reply and it's hard to respond to it.  Yes, I will repeat that electric car door locks are probably driven by an ordinary solenoid.

Skycollection has not demonstrated good measurement techniques and he freely admits that he is not strong when it comes to power analysis of his setups.  He doesn't have over unity with his setups.  If you can point me to the clip where he claims COP 1.7 I'll have a look.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 21, 2013, 08:32:59 PM
Thanks Webby1!  You learn something new every day!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 21, 2013, 10:40:08 PM
I discovered that I can turn the SBC nail core's second level of twin strength permanent field on and off with current reversal. The coil jumps the SBC permanent core field strength up to 2x then back to normal, where the single wire permanent core strength rests at. So I turn the double permanent core strength on and off with current reversal, to half strength. This only effects the second strength level. The single wire coil does not share this characteristic.
 
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 22, 2013, 12:33:57 AM
Synchro1:

You criticise other members here and your criticisms have so far proved unfounded. And when it turns out they are unfounded or mistaken you either do not respond to it when you are faced with them or change topic or start to make another vague topic.

It is okay you make mistakes, it happens with anybody. But so far you have not shown any proof to support your bold statements.
How about the photo (or video you mentioned to upload) on your neatly wound SBC coil having twice the field strength versus a single wound coil?
If you do not wish to share that is fine with me but please tell it and we will all know we can neglect your posts because at least we will know you like telling stories.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 22, 2013, 05:04:54 PM
Synchro1:

You criticise other members here and your criticisms have so far proved unfounded. And when it turns out they are unfounded or mistaken you either do not respond to it when you are faced with them or change topic or start to make another vague topic.

It is okay you make mistakes, it happens with anybody. But so far you have not shown any proof to support your bold statements.
How about the photo (or video you mentioned to upload) on your neatly wound SBC coil having twice the field strength versus a single wound coil?
If you do not wish to share that is fine with me but please tell it and we will all know we can neglect your posts because at least we will know you like telling stories.

Gyula

I encountered problems uploading the video. I was ridiculed from the outset because It's possible to precondition a nail core by storing it in a box of magnets.  The video actually conveys a false impression.
 
I described how the "Scrap Yard" magnet works. Milehigh has repeatedly assailed my explaination as false. The Tesla Hi-Voltage bifilar, counter wound coils over a longitudinal ferrite core share a characteristic  with Ed Leedskalnin's horseshoe PMH: Field collapse induced permenent magnet field.!

The video shows my SBC nail picking up twice the paper clips, but the secret is, it will attract the same number of clips with the power disconnected! Why? The SBC nail core was permently magnetized to twice the strength of the mere electromagnetic strength from coil current alone.

Now, I'm thinking through a format to video tape the "Secret of the "Scrap Yard Magnet". A capacitor takes the place of costly coil winding. The trick is to permently magnatize then demagnatize the core. Perhaps I can compose a new video. Why not simply shock yours and see what happens for yorself. Why should I have to spoon feed you skeptics every inch of the way?

I have personally looked into the inside of a scrapyard magnet. How rude for someone to boldly assert that I'm full of scrap. It's enough that I took the time to figure out how to demonstrate the seperate power of the SBC to magnatize core substrate instantly with a high voltage field collapse spike! You try it!
 

 
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 22, 2013, 05:21:54 PM
Hi Farmhand,

I agree with the 'capacity' and 'capacitance' clarification, albeit Tesla often used word 'capacity' where we now would use 'capacitance' but it was okay for his era. 
 
There is one issue which is not yet a 100% clear for me (English is a second language for me). 

It is the following quote from the patent:

If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it, and the end of A be connected with the starting point of B, the aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns is the same, viz., one thousand, then...     

So in case Tesla meant to use the same length of wire for conductor B, does not it mean he actually doubled the total (aggregate) length of the original winding made first from conductor A?   i.e. he meant to make another 1000 turns in parallel with conductor A which already had 1000 turns?  Alltogether he had 2000 turns in series, no?

Or the two conductors together had to have a total of 1000 turns, then this means that from conductor A 500 turns should be removed, right?  but he did not write it specificaly, it simply comes from the second part of the above quote?  (Because Tesla started with 1000 turns for conductor A in Figure 1 as a single wire coil.)

This is what I am unsure in. Is it a 100% sure for you that conductor A should be reduced to 500 turns and conductor B should have also 500 turns to get the total 1000 turns in the series (bifilar) connection?


In my Reply #63 above I included a link to a PDF file which tested the same situation you wrote in the above quote. The lower self resonant frequency is obvious for a bifilarly wound coil using the same amount of wire like the single wire coil:
 http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eonichelson/VOLTGN.pdf)   

Thanks,  Gyula

Hi Gyula, Sorry I took so long to re-read the patent about this. I can see how English not being your first language would indeed make the patent text difficult to be sure of. If you already came to the conclusion it means what I'm about to say then just ignore this post. 

I think the key word is "assumed",
Quote
being such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns
in that context it means "Taken on" as in [ aggregate ] or [ Total  number turns all together ] ect. So it means he is talking of the same amount of wire in both coils "total", each of the strands of wire in the bifilar coil is half the length of the single strand in the regular coil.

I think he was pointing out in the drawing that the coil should not be just wound so that when finished the ends are cut wherever, but the two strands need be the same length and where the end of the outside wire ends will not be where the end of the inside wire is. Unless if desired the proportion of length between the two wires can be manipulated to finely adjust the "resonance" frequency.

Quote
If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it, and the end of A be connected with the starting point of B, the aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed number of convolutions or turns is the same, viz., one thousand, then...
   

I'm fairly sure you are of the same opinion as many "myself included" that the currents he speaks of need not be the result of the application of a sine wave potential. The currents can be the result of excitation pulses at the correct frequency and they need only be DC pulses if desired, however alternating positive and negative DC pulses can also be used along with sine triangle or square waves ect. the only point on mentioning that is being that if excited at the frequency of resonance for the coil/or circuit including the coil then any arbitrary input wave shape will result in a sinusoidal voltage and current as long as the wave shape is not deformed by loading. This is true with any coil. and Tesla as well quite rightly points out that any coil will act in the same way if the L and C are correct for the frequency of excitement as far as the cancellation of the "effects of self induction" are concerned. And that that is the main point to the patent, to secure the correct L and C for the impressed frequency of vibration. The fact that the coil will actually store more energy for the number of turns because of the greater potential difference is a side bonus or not depending on how you look at it or what you want.

Remembering of course that the insulation thickness of the wire determins the distributed capacitors "voltage rating" and also the effective "capacitance secured" from the voltage potential applied to the winding. Wires can be spaced to reduce the secured capacity for a given voltage as well.

Basically he outlines it all. Even though he just wants to avoid causing "false currents" in the circuit.

Lines 10 to 18

Quote
In electric apparatus or systems in which alternating currents are employed the self induction of the coils
or conductors may and in fact in many cases does operate disadvantageously by giving rise to false currents
which often reduce what is known as the commercial efficiency of the apparatus composing the system or
operate detrimentally in other respects.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 22, 2013, 06:05:56 PM
And to continue with some random thoughts on the subject, just to share. The cancellation of the "effects of self inductance" thing carries over to lots of things. I've shown that an incandescent light globe with a coiled filament can be pulsed to produce an inductive energy release without lighting the globe much, the globe's filament is a very poor coil, plain and simple. Anything with self inductance and "capacitance"/capacity has an EM resonance frequency and pretty much everything has those things. If we put the correct size capacitor across a light globe with a coiled filament we can neutralize the effects of self inductance in the filament at a given frequency and the globe will be more receptive to high frequency currents. This I believe is the effect we see when people light incandescent globes held in the hand from very high frequency currents that would not seem to be able to have the same effect at the same magnitude but at lower frequencies. The human body is the capacitance and conductor ect. the dynamics can be complicated.

At just after 2:00 minutes I get a HF arc burn say owch and show the bulb lighting effect.  ;D Bear in mind the small Tesla coil is running from a 12 volt battery and consuming only about 6 Watts maximum while running at over 600 kHz.

Light bulb effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eRiVu-gd1Y

And this is no biggie but it shows the 180 volt spike obtained by pulsing a bulb at 900 kHz with 12 volts. You can see the miller Plataue effect on my gate drive wave form but just ignore that, it's not good I know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89YgQIIqUY

So if we cancel the self induction of the light bulb it will pass current more readily at the given frequency as per the laws of nature, not mans laws.


Cheers

P.S. I must also say that whilst experimenting I have experienced certain times when the effects of either the electrical oscillations or the related pressure waves have made me feel instantly nauseated or get an almost instant head ache, I think it is a good idea to avoid these frequencies or the processes that cause the sickening feeling, my advice is don't try to ignore it as there is possibility of health issues. Personally I have metal screws in my neck and I think that some frequencies/power levels can have detrimental effects with such things. I find I am very susceptible to resonating pressure waves of certain frequencies in an enclosed space.

This loud spark discharge ringing off the walls in the shed is an example that can be detected but it's not always able to be heard or felt as such, sometimes it just a woosey feeling. It sometimes happens with motors as well.

I made this video mainly for comedy relief as I do at times and to show how the "leaders" reach out from the grounded point towards the terminal then the spark proper uses the ionized route to make a hard conduction. The sound gave me a serious headache a bit later. The video doesn't do proper justice to the suddeness of the crack and ring that follows.

Tesla coil emulating a static machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ojAlZrUZxE


..

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 22, 2013, 06:36:21 PM
A hi-voltage spike does work through Tesla's SBC magnetizing ferrite. The spike fails to have any such effect on the ferrite core of a single wire coil. Perhaps if I demonstrate this difference it will lay to rest the false assertion that the coil types share no difference?

     "Ferrite magnets can be magnetized with shorter pulses, with a width duration of a few microseconds".

                                           This pulse needs to pass through a hi voltage SBC.
 

 "Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. The large amount of magnetic field required to magnetize permanent magnets requires the current to be in the range of 10 to 30 kiloamperes. To provide a safe and reliable method to avoid overheating and fusing the current carrying conductors during magnetization, an extremely fast current pulse is required. A fast pulse is the preferred method for magnetization. Magnetic materials reacts quickly to the applied field; however, care must be taken to limit eddy currents effects created in conductive materials by the fast rise time of the current pulse, toavoid any shielding effects. Pulses width duration in the order of 1 milliseconds are considered ‘long’ enough for the magnetization process to be successful. Ferrite magnets can be magnetized with shorter pulses, with a width duration of a few microseconds".
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 23, 2013, 12:59:13 AM
10.2.2 Capacitor Discharge Magnetizers Capacitor discharge magnetizers employ capacitor banks that are charged, and then discharged through a coil.
 
                 Tesla's bifilar pancake for electromagnets more aptly may have been named:

                                          "Capacitor Discharge Magnetizer Coil".

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 23, 2013, 02:32:09 AM
Syncro1:

We had a discussion about scrap yard magnets.  I also have given you all of the background and links on how a magnetic field is generated by a coil of wire.  So you saw a scrap yard magnet up close and saw the configuration was a series bifilar coil.  So apparently you went, "Eureka!," it's Tesla's design and there must be something special about that design!

Like I explained to you with logic and references, there will be no significant differences in the magnetic field generated when you compare the two coils.  That's not "ridiculing."  Tests were done by some of the people around here and they confirmed the expected results.

To me it looks like you are excited by all of this stuff and you are making leaps of logic and faith in your excitement.  Let's assume that they want an even-strength magnetic field across the disk.  So a spiral coil will do that.  If it is in series bifilar configuration, we don't really know why they did that.  It could be for manufacturability or for better heat dissipation, as some examples.  However, certainly it was not done because of any special properties of an SBC like the way you are suggesting.

Same thing with the Leedskalnin PMH.  The PMH requires that the two pieces you are going to stick together have flat shiny surfaces that will mate perfectly together.  If you are an "enthusiast" you should look it up.  So this effect will never happen in a junk yard setting.  So you can see that's an example where you made an incorrect leap of faith.

I have a pretty decent knowledge level about this stuff.  Feel free to ask me a question if you want.  This is not "World of Warcraft - Special Nerd Edition," this is a place to chat about circuits and exchange ideas and be real.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 23, 2013, 06:18:39 PM
@Milehigh,
                 You are really stupid. You're the one that needs to test the bifilar experiment for yourself to see how the SBC works as  a "Hi-voltage jolt magnetizer". This experiment is too easy to replicate. Take a trip to a scrapyard for yourself where you'll find a large capacitor inside,  not a rats nest of ampere turns like you pretend. Why don't you  knock it off man?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 23, 2013, 07:08:32 PM
Synchro1:

Who says that a "high-voltage jolt magnetizer" works with an SBC?  Do you have a reference or link for that or are you just projecting your SBC wishes and fantasies onto these systems?

Assuming that there is a capacitor inside a junk yard electromagnet, why do you think it is there?  Do you have a theory?

Quote
You are really stupid.

I am sure that the readers of the thread also have formed their own opinions about who is what.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 24, 2013, 08:14:43 PM
Bifilar vs single wrap nail magnet test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxtwS2OsaA&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxtwS2OsaA&feature=youtu.be)


It's a trick! The joke's on you. The bifliar can store the high voltage from the collapse spike, and create a permanent magnet, but it passes right through the single wire coil.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 24, 2013, 11:25:42 PM
Synchro1:

You know that when you disconnect the current-carrying wire from an SBC you get the high voltage spike.  That's actually the first spike in a series of spikes.  It's the ring-down as the self-resonating coil dissipates the stored energy.

The ring-down in the coil like that is what they could use to demagnetize ferromagnetic materials.  So I suggest that you do some surfing and think about your setup some more.

I am not necessarily saying that's what is happening in your setup, I am referring to the general architecture of a magnetizing system.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 24, 2013, 11:26:25 PM
Synchro1

I have mentioned to you to use small pieces of test loads for the electromagnets, either using small nuts like I showed in my repeated test or just cut up some paper clips into 2 or max 3 mm long pieces. The reason I ask you to use small pieces of test loads is that your electromagnets seems to be also weak like my electromagnets were and the touching areas between the bolt and the clip surfaces are very small. I felt uncertainty during my tests with the clips but I was fully certain with the small nuts. The clips were too heavy for the strength of my electromagnets, and I can see the same behaviour from your electromagnets.

What is battery voltage by the way when you connect any one of the electromagnets? Would you measure it?


Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 24, 2013, 11:31:12 PM
Synchro1

I have mentioned to you to use small pieces of test loads for the electromagnets, either using small nuts like I showed in my repeated test or just cut up some paper clips into 2 or max 3 mm long pieces. The reason I ask you to use small pieces of test loads is that your electromagnets seems to be also weak like my electromagnets were and the touching areas between the bolt and the clip surfaces are very small. I felt uncertainty during my tests with the clips but I was fully certain with the small nuts. The clips were too heavy for the strength of my electromagnets, and I can see the same behaviour from your electromagnets.

What is battery voltage by the way when you connect any one of the electromagnets? Would you measure it?


Gyula

Apparently, you still don't get it. The SBC nail core continues to pick up the two clips up even with the power disconnected. The core is completely magnetized. The best way to magnetize is by sudden shock. The bifilar throws a bigger spark. The single wire coil won't work as well as a magnetizer. You retry the experiment.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 24, 2013, 11:47:54 PM

Apparently, you still don't get it. The SBC nail core continues to pick up the two clips up even with the power disconnected. The core is completely magnetized. The best way to magnetize is by sudden shock. The bifilar throws a bigger spark. The single wire coil won't work as well as a magnetizer. You retry the experiment.

Indeed I did not see from your video that the current to the SBC electromagnet was disconnected. Then this is comparing apple to oranges, this is not a proof for the SBC at all.  The test is not about to make permanent magnets from nails but compare two kind of coils with nail cores. Magluvin or myself did not make permanent magnetization to the nails or bolts, it is pointless to saturate an electromagnet's core. 

And please answer my question when any of your electromagnets are connected to the battery what is the loaded voltage across the battery?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 25, 2013, 01:07:45 AM
"The test is not about to make permanent magnets from nails".
 
Where does it say this? Who made this rule?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 25, 2013, 11:54:48 AM
"The test is not about to make permanent magnets from nails".
 
Where does it say this? Who made this rule?

It is not rule of course.   I am 'amazed' by your question I feel when I read Winnie-the-Pooh.  Who told you to make a permanent magnet from the nail? 

IT was YOU who referred to this link http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm (http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm) and please show where David Thomson wrote you have to make a permanent magnet from the nail to lift up the paper clips? 

What is the point in making a permanent magnet from an electromagnet in this test? To lift up objects an electromagnet needs a DC current and the aim is to check any difference between a single wire and the bifilar wire coil provided the two cores have similar (ideally identical) ferromagnetic properties.  The same amount of DC current should be used for both coils while lifting up the objects.

Of course you can make a permanent magnet from a suitable ferromagnetic core and you do this by inserting this core into a coil and switch a big enough current into the coil.  But David Thomson did not write to do the test like making a permanent magnet first and then lift the paper clips with the nails.

Please repeat your test with new nails that are not magnetized yet, please cut up the paper clips into small pieces and do some several runs like I did here: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952 (http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357952/#msg357952)

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 25, 2013, 03:49:25 PM
@Gyulasum,

                    Tesla's Serial Bifilar Pancake coil for electromagnets, is a "Capacative Discharge Magnetizer Coil". That's the end of the story. Just accept it! It won't help for me to cut paper clips up, or measure d.c. current. Jonathan Livingston Seagull thought he was somthing else too.

                     I knew how Tesla's bifilar coil worked the entire time. It's the "Scrap Yard Magnet"! You guys imagine your group of superstitous Hotentots are valuable dehoaxing "Myth Busters"  right? You guys look really, really stupid to me. Wake up, and stop causing trouble. All you labyrinthine Cretans have done is insult and degrade Nicola Tesla, an unparalleled genius!. There's gotta be a hampster hidden someplace!

                    The nail test is just a "PARLOR TRICK" to demonstrate the SBC's real power! Try and get over it. He made a monkey out of you.
 
                    I'm not the person who tricked anyone. I scolded Milehigh for his outraegous assertions on the "Lenz Delay" thread about the no difference between the coil windings. I've been trying hard to explain and distinguish this coil application throughout the entire course of this thread. 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 25, 2013, 06:53:30 PM
Synchro1:

Quote
Just accept it! It won't help for me to cut paper clips up, or measure d.c. current.

You have really dug yourself into a hole.  Why should anybody take you seriously?

You are very close to becoming the new "Innovation_Station," with a very low signal to noise ratio in your postings.  The performance is getting stale and the greasepaint is running.

Myself and Gyula genuinely tried to help you but it's pretty obvious that it's futile.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 25, 2013, 07:14:12 PM
@Milehigh,

                  You're petrified wood! Tesla's bifilar pancake coil for electromagnets is an:
 
                                                          "IMPULSE MAGNETIZER COIL"! 
 
                   D.C. current has no special effect on this coil unless it's powerfully pulsed. You guys don't really believe "Tesla Coil Builder" designed his electromagnet nail core test to fail, do you? His experiment is just a puzzle type teaching tool. The single wire coil won't play the same trick, and therein is the critical difference between the coil types.
 
Here's a Leedskalnin coil shorting video, similar effect:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lspAxYGxWA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lspAxYGxWA)
 
The Leedskalnin horseshoe output coil shares "Impulse Magnetization" power with the SBC. Lorentz force and quanta level power may help explain the extra propulsion..
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 26, 2013, 12:32:37 AM
...
 You guys look really, really stupid to me.
...

You also look really stupid to me.  If you read through your posts, you grasped for anything you thought could be blamed like Magluvin or my coils are not neat, I connected my coils in series so the test was invalid,  I hold the two coils too close, etc etc.  Do you recall what TinselKoala wrote on your last but one claim? here it is:  "If you think that "the serial input invalidates any results" (sic) I put it to you: Prove it. Get some bolts and some wire and some power supplies, and demonstrate some difference between the "serial input" and the same current through the electromagnets individually."  from this link: http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357860/#msg357860
 

You have shown no any proof that you are correct. Magluvin and my tests showed the two different coil windings perform the same job. The series bifilar surely has a higher self capacitance but this is not an advantage for a lifting electromagnet. And your making a permanent magnetization for the core of an electromagnet in the nail core test is just ridiculous, just write to and ask David Thomson about it.

When you show a useful thing in practice which are now only in your dreams I will pay attention again. You may have a pulse motor you think performs unusually but you have done a great job to doubt its real performance, for you do not wish to show any proof it is exceptional. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 01:24:06 AM
Temporay permenant core magnetization delays the change in output coil pole shift, and retards the timing by creating magnetic field interference. My placement of permanent diametric magnets in SBC output coils  has produced the same AUL.

@gyulasum,

 "your making a permanent magnetization for the core of an electromagnet in the nail core test is just ridiculous".

I uploaded a video demonstrating 2x the magnetic attraction with the SBC. How do you explain that?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 01:31:03 AM
Synchro, With a DC supply the SBC will act exactly the same as any other regular winding with the same inductance and resistance, the only diffenece will come with the application of currents at a frequency compatible with the resonance frequency of the coil determined by the L/C/ relationship the coil posses. With DC it's just ampere turns and DC resistance.

Gyula is correct, and it is wise to take notice of the educated guys, then after some time you will need to listen to them less.

The patent claims are clear and correct, I see no need for further claims not made in the patent or even by Tesla regarding Tesla's patent, and they are most definitely not Tesla's claims. The claims you make for the "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" patent coil  Synchro have nothing to do with the patent. Why continue ?

If you have claims then they ought to be demonstrated and documented. Any coil or patented device could conceivably be used for purposes other than is intended.

ie, a bus can be a house. And a hammer can be a plumb bob ect., but so what. Heck I can use a car engine as a boat anchor, good boat anchors used to be P76 Leyland engines.  ;D

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 01:36:55 AM
What's a "Scrap Yard Magnet" Mr. Sherlock Holmes? No one has explained where the power cord is hidden. So Tesla has a patent for an electromagnet you meat heads can't get to work. What a stupid ass Tesla was! Write Mr. Thompson, he'll tell you your way's no good! Sniveling sops!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 02:29:02 AM
Anyone who reads the patent closely and understands it will realize how silly your comments are Synchro.

In the first few posts that I did in fact show that the "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" wind has the intention of securing the correct L and C for the impressed frequency and that with "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" the extra capacity secured causes the bifilar wound coil to have a lower resonant frequency for the same amount of wire and yet retains the ampere turns and the same inductance as the regular wound coil of the same amount of wire.

The resonant frequency is lower because the serial connected bifilar coil has more inherent self capacitance, and later that because of the "capacitor plate distance" due to the insulation thickness the voltage is a factor relative to the capacitance secured as is stated in the patent.

You are entitled to your opinion Synchro but personal abuse and name calling is uncalled for. Please stop. That is a request for decency.

My own disagreements are not so much with the technical content of the educated folks posts but the seemingly constant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I say that some in particular seem to engage in.

Even if you disagree with them or their actions the emphasis should be on the technical matter or the "actions as such" not just a broadside at the persons as insults.

If discussing the patent content, state your case. The focus here should be on the patent and what it says. Not what others would desire to make of it.

If you want to discuss with others about the patent text and meaning, just quote the section of the patent and state your case as "your" case.

Cheers

....
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 02:41:24 AM
To all, I will say this, any who try to dismiss or deny the patent claims made by Tesla which are correct will end up looking silly as they should, and by the same token those who make claims for Tesla's devices or patents that Tesla did not make and attribute them to Tesla will also end up looking silly as they should.

The patents are clear if read and understood as he intended, he wanted people to be able to build and use his devices as he intended, unless the text was tampered with or edited (which I see no evidence of) there is not much to argue about, read the patents and decipher them so that they make sense and logic, Tesla did not intentionally lie or deceive, on some things he may have been a bit off, but in the claims of the patents he is pretty much spot on. People should pay no regard what so ever to the claims people other than Tesla make, there is no reason to do that when the patents tell the claims at the end.

Those who say to disregard the patents are not to be trusted. And that is because they are deniers of truth.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 02:57:42 AM
Take the patent linked below as an example of the way his patents are misunderstood and misrepresented. In reality the claims begin on page 2 from line 101. They are all true and correct, and so the patent is valid. As far as the claims go if the setup transmitted some energy to anywhere and that was utilized in any amount then the patent is valid and correct. It makes no claims of efficiency in figures that I can see. Just the principal of the design of the transmitter apparatus. It is obvious they can transmitt some energy without man made wires and that was demonstrated by Tesla and since by many others. All the BS that some spew about it's near field or bla bla bla mean nothing, the efficiency means nothing in the context of the patent, the patent claims are correct and true and in line with the physical  laws of nature. End of story on that patent. A different patent covers the details of how the transmission physically happens.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

I question the motives of both the folks making the wild claims as well as those who want to dismiss facts by confusing people ect..

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 26, 2013, 03:56:36 AM
You can take this discussion full circle.

Tesla made a patent for a self-resonating coil with interleaved windings.  In his patent he views it as a band-pass filter where at the resonant frequency it acts like an AC short circuit while it resonates.  That corresponds to a damped series LC circuit.  It can also be viewed as a notch filter that acts like an open circuit if you view it as a damped parallel parallel LC circuit.  It looks like some of the clips doing the testing on a small setup show a parallel LC circuit but I am not aware of a definitive one.  I am not aware of a clip that shows the current and the voltage at the same time.

It's even possible that a big series "bifilar" coil that Tesla played with acted as both a series LC circuit and as a parallel LC circuit depending on the excitation frequency.  Hence two resonant points at two different frequencies.  It's also possible that his patent for a self-resonating coil, presumably being used either for energy storage or as a notch or band-pass filter has absolutely nothing to do with an "electro-magnet."  Again, in the historical context, almost nobody understood electronics and nobody understood what inductance was.  However, people would probably have understood "electro-magnet" and the term is used in the patent just to make it "friendlier" for the patent office.  It's possible that he used the term because it meant something to people and they could latch onto it and he never intended for the design to be used as an electro-magnet at all.  "Coil for capacity-inductance electricity self-inducer" has no ring to it.  If that was true then it would deflate Synchro1's dreams for sure.

Does Tesla talk about the application of his patent in other writings?  If not, then you are left with a damped resonator.  A very big one might resonate for perhaps a few tens of seconds before it dies down, just a guess.  Can anybody suggest an application for this?

Tesla is not "the greatest genius in the Universe" like some of you seem to be implying.  He did basic basic experiments that have been learned and since then technology has evolved and progressed and improved in the last 120 years.  Where the application of this type of technology is going on today is what's important.

Quote
All the BS that some spew about it's near field or bla bla bla mean nothing

That's BS, near field vs. far field is an important concept that's used in antenna theory all the time.  In your own way Farmhand you are not that much different than Sychro1.  Some of what you don't understand or disagree with you will dismiss out of hand or you might get upset with others that don't share your views.  Sometimes you will try to steamroll your views over other people's opinions.

Personally, I would not be too surprised if the Tesla self-resonating coil was just an experiment that he did and decided to take out a patent on in case he could use the design.  Ultimately it had no real practical use and ended up being nothing more than a curiosity.  120 years later and it generates about 20 megabytes worth of text per day on the Internet, day in and day out.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 04:11:28 AM
MileHigh, In the context of this patent below, near field v's far field has no bearing.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false 

That subject is dealt with in another patent. The claims show that. You show what I meant by my post.

If I am mistaken you ought to show the claim from the patent that makes near field vs far field relevant.

Cheers

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 04:46:45 AM
I guess I should repeat myself here. If I have made a specific claim that anyone disputes as untruthful, then just quote me (in context) with the reason why my claim is seen as incorrect and if I cannot explain it with logic or provide evidence to my own satisfaction and I can see I was wrong I will retract the claim. But I pay little regard to innuendo and do not take kindly to it. Please do not confuse an opinion given as such with a "claim". I have no reason or desire to defend my opinions on things when I give them as opinions of thinking. If I make a claim I will defend it if I think it correct or retract it if I see I am mistaken. Like anybody I make mistakes and I can admit it when I see it. If I explain myself concerning a claim and I don't think I was understood or am being mistaken about it I might just give up trying to explain it and ignore the complaint. So people should stick to the point. Like many others on these sites I lack the proper terminology in a lot of cases so I just try to explain what I mean if what I say does not immediately make sense. A misuse of terms is not always a mistaken claim, but rather the misuse of words to describe a valid claim. No one is perfect, and few of us have the training to use all the correct words, but it ought to be obvious who understands what by what they can do. Many of us are trades people or otherwise trained in the engineering fields to differing degrees.

Some of us see some minor details as unimportant depending on our goals and motives, we need not feel as though we need to learn to be an electrical engineer in our spare time so we can argue with electrical engineers. I respect very much the knowledge of the people trained in the field. But in a similar way I didn't need to train to be a mechanic to be able to show some mechanics a thing or two about cars and motorcycles, but do I think I know more than them ? No I don't. I just know things that make a difference for me that they might see as insignificant in their frame of reference. Perspective.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 05:02:29 AM
As Far as the "COIL FOR ELECRO-MAGNETS" patent goes, the claims are at the end of the patent, they are correct and truthful. Tesla explains himself well in the patent. I don't see any need for any further argument, if people can use the coil winding advantageously in any way they should feel free to say so if they have evidence of it or it is obvious to others.

All coils that produce a magnetic field from an electric current input are technically electro-magnets, I think it is explained by Tesla he means any coil and the effect of the cancellation of the "effects" of the self induction can be secured in any coil if the right conditions are met. To me it seems plain and simple.

Milehigh, if I may ask, what part of the patent is it that you have a problem with ? If you have a problem with part of the patent then please say so. But I have to say I'm not interested if it has not to do with if the patent is correct or not. If you are not disputing the patent claims then I have no argument with you. I see no need for argument on the patent itself.

Cheers 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 05:10:00 AM
Deepcut promised to try the diametric neo magnet as SBC core to test for AUL, and shortly after, he vanished suddenly and completely from the Free Energy Forum for superficial reasons.. The MIB may have stopped by and shown him snapshots of his children in their school yard. This subject makes alot of people very uncomfortable. Judging from that and the general level of hysteria over my second "tectonic" paper clip claim, it makes me wonder about the seriousness of the MIB threat in U.K., and possible infiltration into this thread by imposters planted to help spread misinformation and falsehood! .
 
Here's more definative proof in support of my claim:
 
Have a look at this video of an "Impulse Charged Multifilar Pancake Magnetizer Coil": from 3zdayz:
 
This is what Tesla's bifilar pancake coil was patented to do! A ferrite slug would PM in the core jolt. Take note of the size of the spark. No single wire coil could match that gap width.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTc35MbOG8s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTc35MbOG8s)
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 05:46:26 AM
Multifilar pancake inductances, from 3zdayz:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQi-5xSeP_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQi-5xSeP_U)
 
Published on Mar 30, 2013A bi-filar is definatly more inductance than a single.  As a motivator (generating a magnetic field) it is a more noticable field.

A quad filar has 50% more inductance than a bifilar; a bi filar has 100% more inductance than a single, or than the sum of the parts.

The flatter the coil, the more notable the effect, chaos, or overlapped windings reduces the inductance.

56+58 = 114; actual 224
13+14 = 26; actual 41

quadfilar 0.026 + 0.026 + 0.26 + 0.026 = 0.104 ; actual 286

0.26 + 0.26 - actual 0.083
0.26 + 0.26 + 0.26 - actual 0.171
and the 4th in series - actual 0.295

so the result is more than 10x a single winding for 4 windings.

the result is 4x a single winding for 2 windings.

So by that I guess it would be 25x a single winding for a hex-filar coil...

but there must be diminishing returns...

The flatest pancake coil is 33 turns each (total 66).  So the quad filar would be like 16 turns.

So if I made like a 32-filar coil with 2 turns, and put them all together?... but then isn't it at some point really getting back to mono-filar coil with an offset of 1?

----
The wider, quad-filar coil (usually to upper left) is fairly flat.  When I took it out of its form it lost integrety a bit.
The narrow-er quad-filar coil is actually somewhat overlapped, so it's 2x2 winding basically.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 08:08:46 AM
Since i started this thread I'm going to take the liberty to go a bit further off topic to illustrate a point.

I hear all to often the claim that the Tesla transmitters for the transmission of signals and such without wires, must use spark gaps or capacitor discharges ect, but that is untrue, and I have words from Tesla to show he never insisted that was the only way.

In this patent linked below. Tesla clearly says that an alternator can be used to energize the primary. The words are crystal clear. As far as I know alternators produce continuous sine waves.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 2 line 62 to 69
Quote
This source is usually a condenser charged to a high potential and discharged in rapid succession through the primary as in a type of transformer invented by me and not well known but when it is desired to produce stationary waves of great lengths an alternating dynamo of suitable construction may be used to energize the primary.


So there is another misconception, Tesla did say an appropriate alternating dynamo can be used, as he did use many times.

As I see it it is our responsibility to point out when people say otherwise and contradict Tesla while purporting to support his work and legacy.

The patent linked in this post describes "The Art Of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through The Natural Mediums". And If any patents are to be questioned I think this is the one to look at. If the claims in this patent are shown be incorrect or false, then that would mean something.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cheers

So anyone want to quote from the patent and say it isn't so ?


...
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 26, 2013, 08:17:01 AM
Farmhand:

I have no issues with the patent.  My real question is what can you do with it?  If there are no real applications then it's just a curiosity.

Synchro1:

Use the Cone of Silence, post your messages in ROT13.   8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 08:19:59 AM
Beam me up Yoda!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: hoptoad on May 26, 2013, 08:59:42 AM
snip....
In this patent linked below. Tesla clearly says that an alternator can be used to energize the primary. The words are crystal clear. As far as I know alternators produce continuous sine waves.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Page 2 line 62 to 69
So there is another misconception, Tesla did say an appropriate alternating dynamo can be used, as he did use many times.
snip....
A transformer output inverter connected to a DC supply, particularly a transformer output inverter with variable fequency capability, would also probably suffice as the primary coil supply source.
Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 10:47:04 AM
Yeah I hear ya MileHigh, To tell the truth I haven't found or envisioned any fantastic uses for it myself either, but for me that isn't important. I don't mind others arguing the point about it's uses. And I might even hint at possible uses just because of conceptual thinking, but that's just me, I suppose things and I try to make it clear when I do so that they are suppositions. But to answer your question, I don't know what it would be useful for except as an example of the effect. The fact he chose to use a spiral coil form in the patent drawing is irrelevant except that a spiral shows the winding in two dimensions very well. The patent is not restricted to spiral coils as Tesla points out early in the patent as well as noting that in every coil exists these properties to differing values. We know that in the Colorado Springs Notes Tesla explains the drawbacks of distributed capacitance in the HF oscillator. For that reason I can't see the coil being designed for HF, because the movement of electricity is restricted or retarded because of the capacitance "holding" energy within the coil, when he wants it to move from the top to the bottom at great rates.

Could such a coil be used as a capacitive top load for a Tesla coil in place of a toroid or in combination with a reasonable sized toroid or sphere to substantially increase it's capacity if tuned so that at the oscillating frequency of the resonator matched the oscillating frequency of the serial connected spiral coil ? A cap coil as some have called it.

Could it be used in an induction cooker so that the ferrite strips we sometimes see was not needed to increase the inductance to lower the effective frequency, if you can gather what I mean to save me some rambling ? Somehow I don't think it would be suitable for that.

It could be used as a filter as you say, I guess. I have one that works as a frisbee but I can't tell if it generates while flying.  ;D Kidding sorry.

One thing I think it would work well for is low frequency boost converter type operations with higher voltage inputs, as long as the coil discharges all of the energy if the coil can store more energy and take in current quicker as a result of the frequency of the currents into it then I see no reason why it might not be useful in that way.

However I did do a very rudimentary test with serial connecting my coils on the pulse motor ( I never intended to ) but I tried it and the inductance was too much for the setup and what I wanted so it didn't help me in that situation nor did I really expect it to. I like to use multiple windings in parallel of thinner wire because 1 mm wire is not so easy to work with and comes on short length rolls for me and I like low DC resistance if possible and applicable. To keep both strands the same length I usually wind the m side by side if I can keep it up.

Your question is a valid question no doubt about it. I have no solid answer.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 26, 2013, 11:08:09 AM
A transformer output inverter connected to a DC supply, particularly a transformer output inverter with variable fequency capability, would also probably suffice as the primary coil supply source.
Cheers

Yes I agree, in low power testing a function generator works well to give the Tesla coil a continuous wave "wave form". The problem comes trying to use an alternator or inverter transformer on a low resistance low inductance primary of only a few turns, I had some success with using an inverter to provide an AC excitement via series capacitors and static spark gaps, it worked but was hell on the inverter circuit when tuning was off or the coil was too close to the IC and circuit. And it wasn't an alternator working at the frequency of the resonating coil either (only remote harmonics) which makes it beside the point, but without the series capacitor primary circuit the primary shorts out the transformer, which is not very good. There are ways around it but I like the DC resonant charging circuit type primary circuit for the way the supply can't be shorted proper. For medium power and voltage inputs solid state rules the roost. And I like the idea of Valves for a continuous wave Tesla transformer to conduct HF experiments. Spark gap coils and Damped wave transformers are for spark gap transmitters and spark making coils in my opinion. For many experiments a continuous wave transformer would be best I think. Every cycle input. I think some solid state setups use primary coupling transformers don't they ?

Cheers

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 06:01:20 PM

Cook's patent:

http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm (http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm)


Here's a quote from Danial McFarland Cook's battery patent. The last line reads:


"The alternate changes of the iron cores or magnets may be used for producing electro-magnetic motion, or motion to a wheel of any suitable device".


Cook was "Impulse Magnetizing" his ferrite cores with two SBC's in series. "If, now, the circuit is broken the current instantly ceases"....

                "The mode of producing or starting the action in the helices consists in the use of a steel or electromagnet, or a helix, around one of the helices, and causing a secondary current in the enclosed helix by means of a battery current in the outer one; the action then in either the simple or compound helices increases in quantity to the maximum capacity of the wires to conduct with the existing tension of the current. If, now, the circuit is broken the current instantly ceases, and can only be restored by the same means that it was first produced; hence to allow the use of the main circuit for common purposes I introduce a rheostat or resistance of any kind into the circuit, so that a small portion of the current only will flow along the resistance, by which means the action in the helices is feebly maintained when the main circuit is broken, and instantly restored when it is closed to its full force. By this means the action becomes in effect the same as the common battery currents, and may be used for similar purposes. For the purpose of preventing the heating of the helices caused by the intensity of the action, and to prevent circulation of the initial secondary currents in the main circuit, a rheostat of any convenient form may be made to constitute a part of the main circuit D. The alternate changes of the iron cores or magnets may be used for producing electro-magnetic motion, or motion to a wheel of any suitable device".


How enormously important this is! Cook maintains that permanently magnetizing the SBC cores alternatingly, can produce motion in a wheel. This is my "Lenz Delay Theory"! Lorentz propulsion.


All the electrons spin in the same direction but for how long? Can ferrite cores draw on the extra strength of permanent magnetization for brief periods? What really happens to the core when we short these types of "Magnetizer" output coils in our pulse motors? 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 26, 2013, 07:14:22 PM
Since i started this thread I'm going to take the liberty to go a bit further off topic to illustrate a point.

I hear all to often the claim that the Tesla transmitters for the transmission of signals and such without wires, must use spark gaps or capacitor discharges ect, but that is untrue, and I have words from Tesla to show he never insisted that was the only way.

In this patent linked below. Tesla clearly says that an alternator can be used to energize the primary. The words are crystal clear. As far as I know alternators produce continuous sine waves.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Page 2 line 62 to 69

So there is another misconception, Tesla did say an appropriate alternating dynamo can be used, as he did use many times.

As I see it it is our responsibility to point out when people say otherwise and contradict Tesla while purporting to support his work and legacy.

The patent linked in this post describes "The Art Of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through The Natural Mediums". And If any patents are to be questioned I think this is the one to look at. If the claims in this patent are shown be incorrect or false, then that would mean something.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Cheers

So anyone want to quote from the patent and say it isn't so ?


...
Yes, that is right.... but also, the important factor for success is not the shape of the primary stimulating wave per se, but rather the rise and fall times of the peak currents.  You can use sine waves just fine, as Tesla knew and stated. The key is to have high currents swinging at high frequencies, so that the rise and fall times of the sine wave are rapid and steep. However, as Tesla also knew, a spike or rectangular wave is even better for a given peak current and frequency, because it has even faster rise/fall time than a sine wave does. Tesla spent a whole lot of time on spark gaps, in order to attain the most rapid striking and quenching possible, while still using high currents.
Nowadays with modern components we can make clean sine waves with great peak currents at appropriately high frequencies to achieve the desired effects, without using big tank capacitors or spark gaps.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 26, 2013, 07:15:31 PM
Farmhand:

I have no issues with the patent.  My real question is what can you do with it?  If there are no real applications then it's just a curiosity.

(snip)
MileHigh

You are kidding, right?

Have you used a radio at all lately?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 26, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
You are kidding, right?


It doesnt seem so...  He really is hell bent when it comes to people talking about or using this coil.  :o ;)   He claims its a waste of time and he is trying to save us from that. There are many other threads here that could use that kind of savior, but they dont use or talk about bifi coils, soo... ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 26, 2013, 08:26:28 PM
TK:

This patent has nothing to do with a radio circuit.  The basic building blocks of an AM radio are a variable-capacitor LC tank circuit to do the tuning an an LC-based IF amplifier to generate the IF multiplying frequency and a band-pass filter and a peak detector to extract the audio.  I am talking of course about original radio.  Many experimenters could do well to investigate those circuits, tubes and all.  That has nothing to do with a big self-resonating coil.

Magluvin:

Quote
It doesnt seem so...  He really is hell bent when it comes to people talking about or using this coil.  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif) (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)   He claims its a waste of time and he is trying to save us from that. There are many other threads here that could use that kind of savior, but they dont use or talk about bifi coils, soo...

That's a false Strawman argument.  I am not hell-bent on anything and I am not trying to 'save' anybody.

Quote
A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy

based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a

proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it,

without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical

debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

The original position:  I said I am not aware of any applications for a big self-resonating coil as described in the patent, it might just be a curiosity.

Can you suggest some applications for it yourself Magluvin?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 26, 2013, 08:48:47 PM


Magluvin:

That's a false Strawman argument.  I am not hell-bent on anything and I am not trying to 'save' anybody.

The original position:  I said I am not aware of any applications for a big self-resonating coil as described in the patent, it might just be a curiosity.


"That's a false Strawman argument."      Oh really?  ;D   Here is some hay for ya.....

"The basic point is to not have the misconception that so-called "series bifilar" coils have some imagined advantages when it comes to making a pulse motor, whether it be as drive coils or as pick-up coils.  You want to not have beginners spend months or more with this false notion." http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg360620/#msg360620

"The basic point is to not have the misconception"     'The basic point is' you should eat your hay now. ;)



"You want to not have beginners spend months or more with this false notion."     No, it is you that does not want beginners to spend time..... You.  ;)    More hay? ;D


So you can take your strawman diagnosis and description and put it where it really fits. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 26, 2013, 09:05:06 PM
Magluvin:

One more time you are doing it again, making a Strawman argument.

The points I made are valid points.

You said:

Quote
He really is hell bent when it comes to people talking about or using this coil.  He claims its a waste of time and he is trying to save us from that.

There is no connection between me trying to clear up misconceptions so people can learn from that and your gratuitous negative spin on what I was saying.

In addition, you can quote me but you can't make a technical argument against me.  Most notably, nor can you suggest an application for the self-resonating coils in this patent.

All that we are left with is that you can't refute that what I say is true, your frustration because you can't suggest a single application for these coils, and your pretentious preening.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 09:46:58 PM
@Milehigh,

                   These coils act as "Impulse Magnetizer Coils". That's a single application. Tesla's Scrap Yard Magnet was made obsolete by the transistor. The one I looked into was an antique back in the 70's.

                     Take a look at the Cook Battery. Two reciprocating Impulse Magnetization events. Enough power to drive a freight train off Cook's nearly 3' long magnetic cores. This is a real effect. Look at Cook's circuit schematic for the two SBC's in series!
 
 
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 26, 2013, 09:51:47 PM
Magluvin:

One more time you are doing it again, making a Strawman argument.

The points I made are valid points.



What I have noticed and 'taken note of' is your propensity to argue, attack and ridicule those that post things about this coil. You did it in the 'Confirming delayed lenz'  you did it in the thread about Zeropoint132's self running bifi thread, and you are doing it here. You seem to be greatly magnetized to the subject, and will fill page after page with what you want others to think and believe about these coils, Tesla of which you claim he wasnt that great. As with Tesla, you are in a minority of those that know of him. If it were up to you, there would be a web site called Teslawasabum.com.

I suppose to you, Edison and Marcony did it all right? Tesla was a bum. Tesla was an average Joe wire man. You imply that in recent posts here.  Basically you imply that he was nobody special. 

Tesla could out smart you with what he had in his little finger compared to your complete postings on the internet.

You have something against people messing around with this coil, this is for certain. You use degrading wording as much as you can of it and the people that post about it.

I can only hope that people can see this clearly and it empowers them to persue more experimentation. Being that there is 'soo much' implied negativity towards the experimentation with these coils, there must be something to it. ;) You attack the idea of a bifi coil like an atheist to a Christian.  Something is up with that. :-*


Mags

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 26, 2013, 10:58:00 PM
@Mags,
 
         He's an extrodinary Gadfly, pehaps afflicted with a Freudian fetish. We need to Arduino the Cook battery. The relationship is atomic COP!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 26, 2013, 11:05:42 PM
Magluvin,

Right, I look at certain things and make some technical points that are valid and have merit.  Then you attempt to spin that into a Strawman argument about combative arguing, attacking and ridiculing.  You are frustrated when sometimes there is no logical reason or any valid data to back up your "free energy buzz."

And you even go so far as to use a Strawman argument that I have something against people experimenting when what I am really doing is giving them a sensible viewpoint that they may have not heard before.  I do that for their benefit.

But the glass is always half empty and cloudy and dark from your perspective and that dulls your free energy buzz and you are not happy so you try to pull off this silly stunt.

I think that people might be seeing through you and your motivations and I encourage them to do as much experimentation as they want.  Occasionally I get emails from people that thank me for my comments.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 27, 2013, 12:01:36 AM
Multifilar pancake inductances, from 3zdayz:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQi-5xSeP_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQi-5xSeP_U)
 
Published on Mar 30, 2013A bi-filar is definatly more inductance than a single.  As a motivator (generating a magnetic field) it is a more noticable field.
.... snip....


Synchro1,

(This post is a bit long, please take your time to digest it fully before name calling.)

I cannot help but notice that while it is true when you connect two individual coils in series their inductances add (like in case of two series resistors the resistances add) BUT if the coils have magnetic coupling between each other, then you have to consider the mutual inductance between them too. This means that the flux coupling can increase or decrease the resultant series inductance with respect to any one of coil values.

So when 3zdayz makes a bifilar pancake coil and measures its total inductance (in his video above at 1:56) to be 0.145 - 0.146 mH and then measures the "half" winding of it to be 0.043 mH (and measures the other half winding of it also 0.043 mH) and he says they together should be 0.086 mH (0.043 + 0.043=0.086), THEN he is mistaken because due to the close magnetic coupling between the two "half" windings the resultant inductance must be higher than the algebraic sum of them when the two windings are in series aiding connection.

Before you call me a MIB agent or stupid or hottentota, please study this link on mutual inductance between two magnetically coupled coils: http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/mutual-inductance.html (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/mutual-inductance.html)  and their resultant inductance in series when there is magnetic flux coupling between them:  http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/series-inductors.html (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/series-inductors.html)  Depending on how close you position the coils to each other and how the flux of any one coil can aid or repel that of the other, you can receive a widely varying result.

These are facts, I myself actually measured (years ago) bifilar, trifilar and quadrifilar coils' resultant inductances with an L meter when any of these were connected in series aiding. So I agree with the measurements 3zdayz shows with his L meter, right?

In theory, when there is say a perfect magnetic coupling in a bifilar coil, the inductance can be maximum 4 times as high in series aiding connection, than any one of the "half" windings has individually. Mr 3zdayz correctly measured his bifilars etc as I mentioned above, my problem is he expected the sum of the individual windings, just like you expected or accepted.
His individual windings in the bifilar were 0.043 mH each and in series aiding they gave 0.145 mH, (this shows the magnetic coupling between them was not 100% perfect, had it been perfect, the resultant series inductance should have been 4 x 0.043=0.172 mH.)
For another pancake coil of his, he measured 0.056 and 0.058 mH for the individual windings in a bifilar coil and in series aiding connection he got 0.224 mH (he wrongly expected 0.114 mH).

For a trifilar coil the series aiding connection would give 9 times as high inductance than any one of the 3 windings and for a quadrifilar coil the series connection would give 16 times as high inductance than any one of the 4 windings.

To understand this, take the bifilar coil example: suppose any one of the "half" windings within a bifilar has say 200 turns. When you connect them in series you will have 400 turns instead of the 200, and for any coil (not only for bifilar ones) when you double the number of turns (i.e. you continue winding to have 400 turns instead of the 200) the inductance increases to 4 times as many as it is with the 200 turns, ok? (The relationship between the coil inductance and the number of turns is quadratic, provided a close magnetic coupling exists between the total number of turns to approach the maximum 4 times, 9 times, 16 times etc theoritical upper inductance limit.)

NOTICE 1
I do not say a bifilar, trifilar etc coil cannot have any other, useful properties under certain circumstances versus a single wire coil, right? An example is just the Tesla patent Coil for Electromagnets when a bifilar is driven with a resonant frequency AC current.

NOTICE 2
When you compare a single wire coil to a bifilar coil and both the single and bifilar coils have identical wire lengths then you can measure nearly the same inductance for either the single or the bifilar coil (this latter is meant to be connected in series aiding). So from inductance point of view there is no difference between them, this means under a static electromagnet operation they perform identically (I repeat again: when their wire length is identical). 
This means that the first sentence in 3zdayz's quote above: "A bi-filar is definatly more inductance than a single."  is correct only when the bifilar coil is made from a longer wire length than the single wire coil. In case you happen to be in correspondance with him, please forward this fact to him.   

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 27, 2013, 12:10:03 AM
Temporay permenant core magnetization delays the change in output coil pole shift, and retards the timing by creating magnetic field interference. My placement of permanent diametric magnets in SBC output coils  has produced the same AUL.

@gyulasum,

 "your making a permanent magnetization for the core of an electromagnet in the nail core test is just ridiculous".

I uploaded a video demonstrating 2x the magnetic attraction with the SBC. How do you explain that?

Synchro1,

This is why I asked you to measure your battery voltage when your nail cored single or bifilar coil is connected to it but you refused.  I wanted to know how much Amper may have been drawn from your battery by the coils.

If you are willing to answer, could you tell how long you connected your nail cored coils (shown in your video) to the battery, to make them magnetized?  Did you measure the time for both coils case?  This is also important to answer your above question.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 27, 2013, 12:13:46 AM
...
I think the key word is "assumed",  in that context it means "Taken on" as in [ aggregate ] or [ Total  number turns all together ] ect. So it means he is talking of the same amount of wire in both coils "total", each of the strands of wire in the bifilar coil is half the length of the single strand in the regular coil.
....


Hi Farmhand,

Thanks for taking your time to answer my question.  Yes, in the meantime I consulted also with other people (with "born" English knowledge)  and got similar interpretations. 

Greetings,  Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 27, 2013, 12:56:19 AM
Synchro1,

This is why I asked you to measure your battery voltage when your nail cored single or bifilar coil is connected to it but you refused.  I wanted to know how much Amper may have been drawn from your battery by the coils.

If you are willing to answer, could you tell how long you connected your nail cored coils (shown in your video) to the battery, to make them magnetized?  Did you measure the time for both coils case?  This is also important to answer your above question.

Gyula

I'm not setup to make those kinds of measurements. A pico second pulse is all it takes to bring all the electron spins into alignment and permenently magnatize the iron ferrite. A permanent magnet is free energy compared to electromagnetic field. The SBC nail permenently magnetizes from the high voltage field collapse spike, and needs no further current. The permanent field is twice what the single wire electromagnet produces under power. Have you seen my Cook battery post above?.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 27, 2013, 01:03:37 AM
@Gyula: Excellent post, and completely correct of course.

@MH: Here's an article that may be of interest.

http://mwrf.com/systems/standardized-approach-feeds-wireless-power (http://mwrf.com/systems/standardized-approach-feeds-wireless-power)

Note the construction of the transmitter coil that is described down the page. It's a 2-layer flat pancake coil-- essentially achieving the same effect as a series bifilar but in a smaller footprint.

And some low-frequency transmitting coils-- big coils in resonance --

http://lualualei1959.com/lowfreq2.htm (http://lualualei1959.com/lowfreq2.htm)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 27, 2013, 01:10:50 AM
At 14 seconds into this video, freeze frame, and You'll see a picture of an industrial "Tesla Scrap Yard Magnet" from 1914. What strikes you as peculiar about this photo? The wire's kinda small?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJG4M4wi1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJG4M4wi1o)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 27, 2013, 01:17:25 AM
I'm not setup to make those kinds of measurements. A pico second pulse is all it takes to bring all the electron spins into alignment and permenently magnatize the iron ferrite. A permanent magnet is free energy compared to electromagnetic field. The SBC nail permenently magnetizes from the high voltage field collapse spike, and needs no further current. The permanent field is twice what the single wire electromagnet produces under power. Have you seen my Cook battery post above?.

Of course I did not mean picosecond accuracy but you hit the nail on its head: when you magnetized your nails, how did you keep magnetization time for them to be nearly identical? Even if we assume the nails had a nearly identical magnetic permeability (which is also a question)  in case the ON time for your input power to the coils was not a repeatable process with good accuracy then your nails got magnetization at a different degree which can easily explain the difference in strength between them.
You still did not answer your battery voltage used. Why?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 27, 2013, 01:28:03 AM
Of course I did not mean picosecond accuracy but you hit the nail on its head: when you magnetized your nails, how did you keep magnetization time for them to be nearly identical? Even if we assume the nails had a nearly identical magnetic permeability (which is also a question)  in case the ON time for your input power to the coils was not a repeatable process with good accuracy then your nails got magnetization at a different degree which can easily explain the difference in strength between them.
You still did not answer your battery voltage used. Why?

I used a 12 volt battery to them both. The SBC generates a much larger spark. Did you catch the photgraph of the old fashioned Tesla type sctap yard magnet? What do you notice funny about it?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 27, 2013, 01:37:58 AM
I used a 12 volt battery to them both. The SBC generates a much larger spark. Did you catch the photgraph of the old fashioned Tesla type sctap yard magnet? What do you notice funny about it?

Yes I watched it and you surely mean the wires feeding the electromagnet seems not to be thick right?  Well we do not know how much lifting power the electromagnet was originally designed for?
You always mention the scrap yard electromagnet: have you seen the winding style inside? I bet you will say it was made from bifilarly wound windings...  but please understand that only a comparison test to an identical input power single coil electromagnet should decide their performance, (wire lengths should be the same for both).
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: picowatt on May 27, 2013, 01:38:56 AM
At 14 seconds into this video, freeze frame, and You'll see a picture of an industrial "Tesla Scrap Yard Magnet" from 1914. What strikes you as peculiar about this photo? The wire's kinda small?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJG4M4wi1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJG4M4wi1o)

Synchro1,

What makes you believe the picture labeled "industrial electromagnet" is a "Tesla Scrap Yard Magnet"?

Same picture and construction details for a similar lifter are given here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet

Small wire?  Lots of turns (i.e., ampere-turns) ... 

They may have used lots of turns of potted wire in 1914 (as opposed to the copper or aluminum strips indicated in the Wiki).  Higher voltage, less amps, smaller wire.

PW
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: picowatt on May 27, 2013, 02:00:34 AM
These guy's only need #8 wire for their 48" lifter, and #6 wire for up to their 57" model.  They use 230VDC for the supply.

Those wire sizes seem consistent with those in that 1914 photo.

http://www.walkermagnet.com/scrap-magnets-scrapmaster.htm

PW
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 27, 2013, 02:31:03 AM
That was called the "Westinghouse Magnet". The only thing those wires did was charge the 6 volt battery. A very thick wire bifilar pancake "Impulse charging Coil" lay flat up against the iron ferrite magnet disk. A large thermos size capacitor supplied the pulse.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: picowatt on May 27, 2013, 02:53:57 AM
That was called the "Westinghouse Magnet". The only thing those wires did was charge the 6 volt battery. A very thick wire bifilar pancake "Impulse charging Coil" lay flat up against the iron ferrite magnet disk. A large thermos size capacitor supplied the pulse.

Synchro1,

Do you have any evidence or references that verify that?

The 1914 image looks consistent with every other DC lifter.  A DC lifter of that era would likely use a cap to suppress arcing across the power on/off switch.  If rectified AC was used, it was likely smoothed with a cap to reduce eddie current heating.  More likely a DC gen was used, as rectifying AC back then, at that level, usually meant using mercury arc rectifiers.  Even a commutated DC gen output would benefit from some smoothing using a cap, again to reduce eddie current heating.

Just curious as to whether you have supporting material for your claim or if this is just speculation on your part.

PW

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 27, 2013, 03:35:34 AM
Here is a cutaway view of the old scrap magnet below. And the page link here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifting_electromagnet_cross_section.png

It says flat conductors and it looks like 4 pancakes together?

Then there is this from a link you guys provided. Its the repair page with some pics that show flat conductors.   
http://www.walkermagnet.com/service-repair-scrap-magnet-repair.htm

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: picowatt on May 27, 2013, 03:57:29 AM
Here is a cutaway view of the old scrap magnet below. And the page link here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifting_electromagnet_cross_section.png

It says flat conductors and it looks like 4 pancakes together?

Then there is this from a link you guys provided. Its the repair page with some pics that show flat conductors.   
http://www.walkermagnet.com/service-repair-scrap-magnet-repair.htm

Mags

Hey Mags,

Is it not logical to expect that some lifter designs may use multiple coils as a way to increase ampere turns for more lifting power or to allow for a more physically compact unit?  Any increase in DC resistance can be compensated for via application of a higher DC voltage to maintain a given DC current.

Heating of the windings is usually a limiting factor with these lifters, and you will note that the mfg page cited specifies a 75% or so duty cycle for most of their lifters.

I just don't see anything in that 1914 image that is not consistent with a standard DC lifter. 

PW
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 27, 2013, 04:09:17 AM
Hey Mags,

Is it not logical to expect that some lifter designs may use multiple coils as a way to increase ampere turns for more lifting power or to allow for a more physically compact unit?  Any increase in DC resistance can be compensated for via application of a higher DC voltage to maintain a given DC current.

Heating of the windings is usually a limiting factor with these lifters, and you will note that the mfg page cited specifies a 75% or so duty cycle for most of their lifters.

I just don't see anything in that 1914 image that is not consistent with a standard DC lifter. 

PW

Hey Pico

Im just stating what I read and see.  The page of the pic I posted says flat conductors. And so does the modern magnet link claim this in the repair section.

Of the 2, the pic posted seems to have 4 layers if Im interpreting the cut away view properly. And the pics of the repair coils look as to have 2 layers, like pancakes made of flat conductors and stacked ready for butter and syrup. Possibly they are in series with each other, dont know yet.  Just laying out what I think of it so far. Not saying they are bifilar or not. There is no indication so far.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: picowatt on May 27, 2013, 04:24:42 AM
Hey Pico

Im just stating what I read and see.  The page of the pic I posted says flat conductors. And so does the modern magnet link claim this in the repair section.

Of the 2, the pic posted seems to have 4 layers if Im interpreting the cut away view properly. And the pics of the repair coils look as to have 2 layers, like pancakes made of flat conductors and stacked ready for butter and syrup. Possibly they are in series with each other, dont know yet.  Just laying out what I think of it so far. Not saying they are bifilar or not. There is no indication so far.

Mags

Mags,

Check out the following:

http://www.jobmachineryinc.com/generator_sets.htm

http://magstargenerator.com/

If there was an easier way (i.e., more energy efficient), don't you think a tight profit margin industry like a scrap yard would be using it?

There are PM lifters available for lifting flat sheets, but for irregularly shaped scrap, big DC electromagnets rule. 

PW
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 27, 2013, 04:35:14 AM
Mags,

Check out the following:

http://www.jobmachineryinc.com/generator_sets.htm (http://www.jobmachineryinc.com/generator_sets.htm)

http://magstargenerator.com/ (http://magstargenerator.com/)

If there was an easier way (i.e., more energy efficient), don't you think a tight profit margin industry like a scrap yard would be using it?

There are PM lifters available for lifting flat sheets, but for irregularly shaped scrap, big DC electromagnets rule. 

PW

Hmm, not gettin your drift. Im not arguing that they are DC or AC. 75% duty cycle indicates pulsed DC. Are you saying that you dont think they are wound with flat conductors?  Not sure of the point.
 ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: picowatt on May 27, 2013, 04:50:58 AM
Hmm, not gettin your drift. Im not arguing that they are DC or AC. 75% duty cycle indicates pulsed DC. Are you saying that you dont think they are wound with flat conductors?  Not sure of the point.
 ;D

Mags

Mags,

Not at all.  I fully agree that many, if not all, of these lifting magnets use flat windings.  Particularly wrt the more modern versions.

I just don't see anything that supports Synchro1's claim that the lifter depicted in the 1914 image operates on a 6 volt pulse using a capacitor that somehow causes it to remain magnetic until, I assume, a second pulse is somehow applied.

That is basically how he described the operation of that "industrial electromagnet" depicted in the 1914 image that he stated was a "Tesla Scrap Yard Magnet".

I see nothing in that 1914 image that is not consistent with a standard DC electromagnetic lifter and wondered if Synchro1 had any evidence to support his assertions, or if that was just speculation on his part.

PW 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 27, 2013, 09:01:27 AM
Tesla also used flat conductors for ordinary transformers for obvious reasons.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=p5g_AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 2 lines 11 to 19.

Quote
In practice for apparatus designed for ordinary usage the coil is preferably constructed on the plan illustrated in Fig 3 In this figure LL are spools of insulating material upon  which the secondary is wound in the present case however in two sections so as to constitute really two secondaries. The primary C is a spirally wound flat strip surrounding both secondaries B.

Flat copper strips make good coil conductors in some applications. The most obvious reason to me would be the reduced resistance and increased surface area. A flat strip primary would give good coupling to a secondary winding even with not many turns itself simply because of how much of the secondary winding area the primary strip is in close proximity to. Similarly for a large spiral coil if the turns are flat strip the inductance would be more for the turns I think, because more copper is in closer proximity per turn.

Just an uneducated look at the flat strip conductors.

Happy to see the discussion heated up. I don't want to seem as though I am trying to stifle discussion, people should feel free to speak their mind, within reason.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: fritz on May 27, 2013, 09:37:27 AM
Flat copper strips make good coil conductors in some applications.

Using flat foil coils is pretty standard in switched mode powersupplies.
To increase the coupling and prevent stray flux, the primary might be split in multiple parts, surrounding the secondaries.

rgds.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 27, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
Hi Fritz, I've noticed in some appliances like televisions and such that some small HF transformers have a wide copper band around the wire windings, the copper band is soldered as a band like a shield. Wouldn't that reduce the inductance kinda like a shorted winding on a multi-strand coil ? I think I've been told it's for shielding from memory.

Anyway when I wound my second motor coil, I had to use a slightly different former with a slightly bigger core so the coil has more inductance than the other one so to keep the same DC resistance I just wound some "extra other" wire around it and soldered that extra wire "shorted" which lowers the inductance of the coil a bit. It could do with a bit more yet. It's not important though because it's just a rough test setup.

Hmmm Just thinking. 

I'm guessing that a coil wound from iron or steel wire would have lots of inductance compared to the same length of copper wire with no ferrous core.

What about aluminium wire ? Will it yield the same inductance (with a steel core) as a copper coil would for the wire length and diameter (with a steel core) or is mass a factor ?

To all:  Anyone know of a source of about 0.5 mm to 1 mm or so insulated aluminium wire for magnets ? Or even stranded thinly insulated aluminium wire ?

CHeers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 27, 2013, 03:11:44 PM
Pancake Magnetizers are a still in use:
 
 "To test the device, we generated a magnetic field using a "PANCAKE-TYPE MAGNETIZER" and a cracked magnetized ferromagnetic specimen and imaged the vectors".
 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6332808&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6332808 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6332808&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6332808)

 
I came across this, I found to be very interesting about the coil's properties:

 "It is well known that the inductance of a pancake type coil put on the metallic specimen changes according to the electromagnetic properties of the metallic specimen"
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 27, 2013, 03:38:30 PM
This might help stifle the hysteria,
 
From: Electromagnetic pulse generator plans:

 "Pancake coils are perfect for the job".
 
"If you want true emp pulses, you would need to do a little research. Combining a high frequency pulsing circuit that pushing a good amount of current into pancake coils. Look up Nikola Tesla and Pancake coils to see what I mean. It is my opinion that you would not want any ferrite in any of the coils if you expect the electromagnetic field to disipate in the surrounding air either. Pancake coils are perfect for the job. Maybe a nice stack of them, and you will kick a pulse directional much stronger than firing a nail through a coil of wire with dynamite. Not to mention, you might survive when you fire it off".
 
The issue is; What are this coil's special applications? I think I've built a sufficient case so far to prove that the pancake bifilar coil's used as an "Impulse Magnetizer"!  Alright?
 
                                             " we generated a magnetic field using a "PANCAKE-TYPE MAGNETIZER"!

The question remains, how do Skycollection's ferrite toroids react when pulsed from a stack of these kinds of magnetizer pancacke coils?
 
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: fritz on May 27, 2013, 03:50:35 PM
Hi Fritz, I've noticed in some appliances like televisions and such that some small HF transformers have a wide copper band around the wire windings, the copper band is soldered as a band like a shield. Wouldn't that reduce the inductance kinda like a shorted winding on a multi-strand coil ? I think I've been told it's for shielding from memory.
There are shielding layers with ferrite transducers, typicalwise between primary and secondary, foil type, with just one end connected to protective ground.
The idea behind is that in case of extreme overvoltage - the discharge should happen toward protective ground. In this case the foil is just a cap - not a single turn.

I´ve seen what you mean - I think this is used for non-flyback situations with ferrite and metal cores, reduces stray flux and works as kind of base loading to keep (iron) losses down / if no secondary load.


I'm guessing that a coil wound from iron or steel wire would have lots of inductance compared to the same length of copper wire with no ferrous core.

What about aluminium wire ? Will it yield the same inductance (with a steel core) as a copper coil would for the wire length and diameter (with a steel core) or is mass a factor ?

To all:  Anyone know of a source of about 0.5 mm to 1 mm or so insulated aluminium wire for magnets ? Or even stranded thinly insulated aluminium wire ?

CHeers
I would expect only small difference between steel, copper, al wire in terms of inductivity.
The major difference would be the resistance. Stanley Meyer uses SS resistive wire for his pulse transformers...
If you have lots of turns and thin and long wire - the resistance will give you somewhat completly different.


rgds.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 27, 2013, 08:20:36 PM
 
This video shows a permanet magnet locking device that works by impulse shifting an alnico field. This single wire coil pulse is changing the pole around not magnetizing the alloy: Very interesting effect that in part, drives the Flynn motor  This is well worth a look!

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZzosuvfvE4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZzosuvfvE4)
 
Flynn gets the power of 3 magnets from 2.  A roman numeral II with an alnico and neo cylinders for cross bars, between ferrite legs completes the "Horse shoe". Imagine a monopole rotor pulsed by a micro second alnico pole switch impulse through a DPDT reed switch! This is not a "Leedskalnin" locking device. This magnet circuit field attracts from a distance. Look at the potential power savings advantage from controling a powerful permanent field with split second impulse, rather then wasting power on electrifing ampere turns.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 27, 2013, 10:10:25 PM
Imagine an attraction motor, with a two permanent horseshoe magnet rotor mounted in opposition, and in repulsion to the 'Flynn" pulse power magnet pole polarity. The rotor horseshoes would be attracted to the ferrite legs, then a micro second pulse would release the 3x PM repulsion, and really send the rotor spinning with that little input power. We may new thread to explore this promising new build!!
 
                                                                       "THE IMPROVED FLYNN GAP ROTOR MOTOR"

                                                                   I broadened the field simply to " The improved Flynn Gap"!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 28, 2013, 12:52:08 AM

I would expect only small difference between steel, copper, al wire in terms of inductivity.
The major difference would be the resistance. Stanley Meyer uses SS resistive wire for his pulse transformers...
If you have lots of turns and thin and long wire - the resistance will give you somewhat completly different.

rgds.

But my point is, weather right or wrong ( I don't mind which) that the steel or iron wire should act as a core as well as a wire. I mean the comparison with steel/iron to other wires when no specific core is involved (air cored coils). I am probably wrong but wouldn't a coil wound from steel or iron wire act as though it had a core of sorts (inductively speaking) even without a core piece proper. Meaning that say 100 meters of steel wire wound as an air core coil in my imagination would have more inductance than 100 meters of copper wire wound as an air core coil. I don't see why the steel/iron windings would not act as a kind of core to increase the inductance, but not as a core to concentrate flux as a regular core would. The steel wire thing is just a matter of interest I have no use in mind for that, just wondering.

Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire.   Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former. I would like to build as light a motor as possible but not a small motor and I don't want to try to use air coils I want to use cores of some kind to get good force on the rotor. I can get uninsulated aluminium wire as welding wire, but how to insulate the turns, the layers can be insulated easily enough but the individual turns per layer has me a bit stumped except for using some spacing material between turns, then a short is but a bump away kind of, shorting between two individual turns is not a great loss I guess if it was to happen it's not the end of the coil.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TEKTRON on May 28, 2013, 03:22:42 AM
But my point is, weather right or wrong ( I don't mind which) that the steel or iron wire should act as a core as well as a wire. I mean the comparison with steel/iron to other wires when no specific core is involved (air cored coils). I am probably wrong but wouldn't a coil wound from steel or iron wire act as though it had a core of sorts (inductively speaking) even without a core piece proper. Meaning that say 100 meters of steel wire wound as an air core coil in my imagination would have more inductance than 100 meters of copper wire wound as an air core coil. I don't see why the steel/iron windings would not act as a kind of core to increase the inductance, but not as a core to concentrate flux as a regular core would. The steel wire thing is just a matter of interest I have no use in mind for that, just wondering.

Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire.   Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former. I would like to build as light a motor as possible but not a small motor and I don't want to try to use air coils I want to use cores of some kind to get good force on the rotor. I can get uninsulated aluminium wire as welding wire, but how to insulate the turns, the layers can be insulated easily enough but the individual turns per layer has me a bit stumped except for using some spacing material between turns, then a short is but a bump away kind of, shorting between two individual turns is not a great loss I guess if it was to happen it's not the end of the coil.

Cheers
http://www.hmwire.com/Aluminum_Wire.html (http://www.hmwire.com/Aluminum_Wire.html)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 28, 2013, 03:24:15 AM
But my point is, weather right or wrong ( I don't mind which) that the steel or iron wire should act as a core as well as a wire. I mean the comparison with steel/iron to other wires when no specific core is involved (air cored coils). I am probably wrong but wouldn't a coil wound from steel or iron wire act as though it had a core of sorts (inductively speaking) even without a core piece proper. Meaning that say 100 meters of steel wire wound as an air core coil in my imagination would have more inductance than 100 meters of copper wire wound as an air core coil. I don't see why the steel/iron windings would not act as a kind of core to increase the inductance, but not as a core to concentrate flux as a regular core would. The steel wire thing is just a matter of interest I have no use in mind for that, just wondering.

Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire.   Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former. I would like to build as light a motor as possible but not a small motor and I don't want to try to use air coils I want to use cores of some kind to get good force on the rotor. I can get uninsulated aluminium wire as welding wire, but how to insulate the turns, the layers can be insulated easily enough but the individual turns per layer has me a bit stumped except for using some spacing material between turns, then a short is but a bump away kind of, shorting between two individual turns is not a great loss I guess if it was to happen it's not the end of the coil.

Cheers

"Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire.   Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former."

Some speaker companies use aluminum wire for their voice coils. Ive seen flat(well rectangular) and square wire on voice coils but not round as of yet in Al. So yes it should be available. Im pretty sure Al has a higher melting point than copper and is definitely lighter so high power and less moving mass could be a motive there. If we were to pick apart the resistance value differences, for a speaker 4 ohms is 4 ohms and 16ohms is 16 ohms.   I dont believe there are any operational differences between copper and aluminum coils with equal/similar electrical properties.

Iron wire? I dont know what would happen there. If it acts as a core, then maybe most of the field produced remains in the wire/core till over saturation. I dunno. Maybe it wont saturate so easy because of a core with many gaps and voids between windings. Square wire would help but still a bit gappy. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 28, 2013, 04:03:08 AM
Thanks guy's, TEKTRON I think either of the two basic lower temp coatings would suit for my intentions, preference to the 180 degree rated stuff. Much appreciated.

I'll search for other suppliers now I can see it seems common. Just hope the price is do able.

I'm not sure that many compromises can be made on the cores as far as weight goes. As far as wire is concerned then aluminium would have to be the best for lightweight performance.

Thanks again, please forgive my ignorance I should have been able to find that myself.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 28, 2013, 04:45:37 AM
Now that annoys me, I just spent almost a half hour filling in a quotation request form and then when I went to press the submit button nothing happened, the request can't be sent.. So now I will have to send a personal Email which probably won't be replied to because I only want 1000 feet of wire. They even want to know a business name and why I want it.

Anyone know where the prices are listed I can just order some and it will come in the post ? I can't find any places that list the price and allow direct orders of listed stock/products.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: kooler on May 28, 2013, 05:16:35 AM
"Still cant find any aluminium magnet wire.   Does anyone know if aluminium magnet wire exists ? I mean thinly insulated stuff so as much wire as possible can go on a certain former."

 
Mags
the only aluminum magnet wire I have got is the degauss coil out of a crt.. it looks like copper but everyone I have torn down isn't but that may be to big for you..
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 28, 2013, 05:58:20 AM
the only aluminum magnet wire I have got is the degauss coil out of a crt.. it looks like copper but everyone I have torn down isn't but that may be to big for you..

Thanks kooler

Im not lookin, but that sounds like an in the pinch source.  ;)   

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: fritz on May 28, 2013, 10:06:27 AM
But my point is, weather right or wrong ( I don't mind which) that the steel or iron wire should act as a core as well as a wire. I mean the comparison with steel/iron to other wires when no specific core is involved (air cored coils). I am probably wrong but wouldn't a coil wound from steel or iron wire act as though it had a core of sorts (inductively speaking) even without a core piece proper. Meaning that say 100 meters of steel wire wound as an air core coil in my imagination would have more inductance than 100 meters of copper wire wound as an air core coil. I don't see why the steel/iron windings would not act as a kind of core to increase the inductance, but not as a core to concentrate flux as a regular core would. The steel wire thing is just a matter of interest I have no use in mind for that, just wondering.

I got your point - but if the windings are almost 90 degrees to your sum flux direction - there wont be an induction phenomenen in the wire - and there should be pretty no contribution to the overall inductivity.
The contribution to overall inductivity would increase if you change the inclination of your windings from 90 degrees towards 45 degrees in  relation to your sum flux / rotational axis.
As long as you don´t exceed flux saturation in your ferro magnetic wire - you will observe increased inductivity - if you saturate the wire, inductivity will fall back to normal - and there will be iron losses in the wire.

rgds.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 29, 2013, 12:44:42 AM
Here is a cutaway view of the old scrap magnet below. And the page link here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifting_electromagnet_cross_section.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifting_electromagnet_cross_section.png)

It says flat conductors and it looks like 4 pancakes together?

Then there is this from a link you guys provided. Its the repair page with some pics that show flat conductors.   
http://www.walkermagnet.com/service-repair-scrap-magnet-repair.htm (http://www.walkermagnet.com/service-repair-scrap-magnet-repair.htm)

Mags

Hi Mags,

I found a patent on this type of electromagnet i.e. on the old scrap yard magnet. Yes, it has 4 pancake coils layered one above the other i.e. there are 4 layers (in the patent: sections) from the pancakes as the cross section drawing shows. BUT the pancake coils has no parallel conductors as per FIG 2 of the Tesla Coil for Electromagnet patent defines, they are all wound from single flat conductors and not parallel guided ones and insulating layer is interposed between the turns. And if say the first layer at the top is clockwise wound, then the next layer under it is in counterclockwise and again the 3rd layer is cw the 4th at the bottom is ccw,  so that connection could be simplified for the layers while getting like poles for all layers. This is a link to the patent US1325914, filed in 1907 and granted only in 1919): http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914)
(In fact there is another patent on quasi the same construction from the same Cutler-Hammer MFG by another guy, filed in 1910 and granted in 1920: http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504) ).

This means that no series bifilar coil construction (SBC as synchro1 labels it) was used in the Cutler-Hammer scrap yard electromagnet construction. The fact that this flat pancake coil construction utilizes its both magnetic poles for lifting the scrap iron pieces makes it to be a strong electromagnet indeed (the magnetic poles can close via the lifted iron pieces, multiplying the holding force).

Gyula

PS I have attached a rough drawing as an addition to the cross section drawing to show the created magnetic poles. Notice that the pole in the center has a higher surface area than the one at the outer edge, this is intentional as described in the patent.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 29, 2013, 04:06:46 AM
Hi Mags,

I found a patent on this type of electromagnet i.e. on the old scrap yard magnet. Yes, it has 4 pancake coils layered one above the other i.e. there are 4 layers (in the patent: sections) from the pancakes as the cross section drawing shows. BUT the pancake coils has no parallel conductors as per FIG 2 of the Tesla Coil for Electromagnet patent defines, they are all wound from single flat conductors and not parallel guided ones and insulating layer is interposed between the turns. And if say the first layer at the top is clockwise wound, then the next layer under it is in counterclockwise and again the 3rd layer is cw the 4th at the bottom is ccw,  so that connection could be simplified for the layers while getting like poles for all layers. This is a link to the patent US1325914, filed in 1907 and granted only in 1919): http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914)
(In fact there is another patent on quasi the same construction from the same Cutler-Hammer MFG by another guy, filed in 1910 and granted in 1920: http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504) ).

This means that no series bifilar coil construction (SBC as synchro1 labels it) was used in the Cutler-Hammer scrap yard electromagnet construction. The fact that this flat pancake coil construction utilizes its both magnetic poles for lifting the scrap iron pieces makes it to be a strong electromagnet indeed (the magnetic poles can close via the lifted iron pieces, multiplying the holding force).

Gyula

PS I have attached a rough drawing as an addition to the cross section drawing to show the created magnetic poles. Notice that the pole in the center has a higher surface area than the one at the outer edge, this is intentional as described in the patent.

Layering counterwound pancakes together cause them to share the same kind of characteristics found in the serial bifilar pancake.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 29, 2013, 04:12:04 AM
Hi Mags,

I found a patent on this type of electromagnet i.e. on the old scrap yard magnet. Yes, it has 4 pancake coils layered one above the other i.e. there are 4 layers (in the patent: sections) from the pancakes as the cross section drawing shows. BUT the pancake coils has no parallel conductors as per FIG 2 of the Tesla Coil for Electromagnet patent defines, they are all wound from single flat conductors and not parallel guided ones and insulating layer is interposed between the turns. And if say the first layer at the top is clockwise wound, then the next layer under it is in counterclockwise and again the 3rd layer is cw the 4th at the bottom is ccw,  so that connection could be simplified for the layers while getting like poles for all layers. This is a link to the patent US1325914, filed in 1907 and granted only in 1919): http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1325914)
(In fact there is another patent on quasi the same construction from the same Cutler-Hammer MFG by another guy, filed in 1910 and granted in 1920: http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504 (http://www.google.com/patents/US1334504) ).

This means that no series bifilar coil construction (SBC as synchro1 labels it) was used in the Cutler-Hammer scrap yard electromagnet construction. The fact that this flat pancake coil construction utilizes its both magnetic poles for lifting the scrap iron pieces makes it to be a strong electromagnet indeed (the magnetic poles can close via the lifted iron pieces, multiplying the holding force).

Gyula

PS I have attached a rough drawing as an addition to the cross section drawing to show the created magnetic poles. Notice that the pole in the center has a higher surface area than the one at the outer edge, this is intentional as described in the patent.

hey Gyula

I was just showing what I found on those magnets. I hadnt stated that they were bifi or not. Didnt know. ;D

I dont know if old lock motors in cars were bifi either, but the old impala I worked on recently used large solenoids. They did all kind of weird stuff back then. Like wind 2 stator coils in window and windshield wiper motors. Naturally they were wound together, bifi, but only one was used for one direction and one for the other direction.

The stators were in series with the armature, but one stator was wired in opposite polarity. Apply power to the stator that makes the motor go in one direction or the other.  What a waste of wire.  I guess they just didint know.  Everything is so much easier with PM's. ;)


I had an idea of weirdness the other day...

Ever really look at how a voice coil functions in the speakers magnetic gap?

If you have ever put dc to a speaker terminals, the speaker cone is forced forward or backward depending on the input polarity. Well if you hold the dc on the terminals, the cone is kept in that forced position being held back by the cone suspension.
Now, if the voice coil were 10ft long or even 100 ft. and the whole thing was built for the coil to be able to move full stroke, if we applied dc, the coil would move all the way till it left the magnet gap. ;) It would keep going till the mag field was no longer affecting the coil.

Ok, here is what I propose. Some things will have to be worked out, but follow me...

We wind an air core toroid, air core for now, in a complete loop(toroid) say 2in thick and 12in outside and 10in inside diameter.  Now we make a rotor with say just 2 magnets on opposite sides of the rotor, same polarity outward, that are set to rotate within the inner diameter of the toroid coil so that the rotor magnets are in close proximity to the inner side of the toroid winding...  This I believe would emulate the 10foot long voice coil but it instead would be infinitely long, not just 10 in.

This is just and idea that popped into my head. It is only a possible proof of concept design as described. Might work with a toroid core, or maybe more core toward the outer diameter of the toroid but inner side of the windings stepped away(inward) so the field of those parts of the winding are not just trapped in the core and can affect the rotor magnets.

It is just a possible way to make a dc motor without switching what so ever. If one really understands the workings of a speaker, then it isnt hard to imagine this motor idea to work similarly, with dc input.  ;)

Just throwing it out there. ;D   So simple to implement.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on May 29, 2013, 04:26:08 AM

Layering counterwound pancakes together cause them to share the same kind of characteristics found in the serial bifilar pancake.

I was thinking the same thing, but Gyula has shown another pat that seems to clearly show that the connections from coil to coil alternate one wound out, then connected to the outside of the next coil down and so on. This would mean that each cake is wound in the opposite direction of the next for the magnetic polarity to stack up. If it were that they are in series and each series connection started at the inner or outer end of each coil then yes, this would divide the voltages between adjacent upper and lower windings to be defined as a bifi. It might have a very small effect though being that only the upper and lower 'edges' of each winding are in proximity to the next level winding, being they are ribbon conductors.

Now, if you were to 'show' me that each layer were bifi with 2 conductors each, then I would agree. But I have not seen that so far.  Maybe there were some out there. But so far it doesnt seem so. Yet. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 29, 2013, 04:49:13 AM
Look at this discussion:

                        "Alternatively, a three-wire coil design has two windings in opposite directions".

Latch Valve Designs

Reversing electrical polarity is accomplished in one of two ways.  A two-wire coil design has one winding and the device’s electrical source changes the polarity applied to the valve.  Alternatively, a three-wire coil design has two windings in opposite directions. Power is then selectively applied by the device’s power source to one of the windings creating a certain polarity or applied to the other winding for the reverse polarity.  Again, electrical power is applied in brief 20 to 50 millisecond pulses after which no power is applied.  Three-wire valves are more expensive than two-wire valves. Latching valves operate on DC current.  AC current can be used, but a special valve coil must also be used to convert the AC to DC current.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 29, 2013, 05:23:05 AM
You can see when you look at the drawing that there are four layers of band-iron formed into coils that are stacked one on top of the other.  There are some nice supplementary drawings if you follow the patent links.

All four layers form a giant ampere-turn magnetic field generator that work together.  You can see how the metal casing of the electromagnet takes the "top" flux and channels it to the center and "points" it downwards.  The same "top" flux is also channeled to the outer ring of the casing and is also "pointed" downwards.  So Gyula's "magnetic footprint" drawing is wrong.   If the center circle of his drawing is red, then the outer ring that he has marked in blue is also actually red.  Following Gyula's convention where blue represents the opposite polarity, then what Gyula shows as white should be blue.  In summary, at the inside you have the red circle, then you have a blue ring around that, and on the outside you have a thin red ring.  That's how the electromagnet is designed.

In looking at the other drawings, the blue area (my definition) seems to be recessed.  That makes the recessed blue area a kind of "suction zone" for scrap metal when the electromagnet is energized.

I will repeat again, to make a connection between Tesla's patent and the two electromagnet patents shown here is nonsensical.  Talk about minuscule inter-layer capacitance in this brute force application makes no sense at all.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on May 29, 2013, 01:07:55 PM
   The old magnets in junkyards have to let go of the stuff.  They used at least two windings.  Like an automotive starter solenoid.  One high current to polarize the load steel.  One low current to maintain the stuff on the magnet while it was transported.    Then when you want to drop the stuff the holding current winding is opened.  The kick voltage of the high resistance winding goes sky high so the switching devices used mercury plungers I believe and dumped the kick energy into resistor banks.  This is from memory of a brief read 30 years ago so take it for what it's worth.
  IMHO a tesla pancake coil is nothing but a piece of coiled coax.  If you take a piece of coax and hit it with RF to INCREASE the standing wave ratio  (reflected signal)  soon you develop high voltage relavent to nodes and antinodes within the coax.  If your node and antinode develop at terminals then you get what Tesla was after.  We know that electromagnetic waves carry energy so when they stand and are constructive the pancake coil acts as an energy storage unit.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 29, 2013, 03:39:34 PM
Hi sparks,

I agree with you, in the Tesla pancake coil as defined in his Coil for Electromagnet patent, Figure 2, the two conductors (in very close proximity but still isolated from each other) constitute a transmission line just like the coax cable that also includes two isolated conductors.  Ham radio operators do use so called coax trap coils to get frequency selective switches in their antennas to have multiband operation in the short wave bands. The coax traps have many series and parallel resonances as per their impedance curve shows in the function of frequency: http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png (http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png)  from this link: http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/ (http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/) 
It is sure that Tesla was aware of how the impedance of his two conductor coil changed when connected the two isolated conductors in series because he wrote that at resonance the input AC current finds no impedance other than the conductors resistance, this way the usual and inherent coil propety to resist initial current flow is solved. 

However, in the junkyard electromagnets (as per the two patents described in my previous post above) the pancake coils used single conductor and no any mention of using two conductors as per Tesla's  Fig.2 defined.  So what you wrote energy-wise for the coiled coax (which I agree with)  is not valid for a single conductor pancake coil.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 29, 2013, 04:06:15 PM
   The old magnets in junkyards have to let go of the stuff.  They used at least two windings.  Like an automotive starter solenoid.  One high current to polarize the load steel.  One low current to maintain the stuff on the magnet while it was transported.    Then when you want to drop the stuff the holding current winding is opened.  The kick voltage of the high resistance winding goes sky high so the switching devices used mercury plungers I believe and dumped the kick energy into resistor banks.  This is from memory of a brief read 30 years ago so take it for what it's worth.
  IMHO a tesla pancake coil is nothing but a piece of coiled coax.  If you take a piece of coax and hit it with RF to INCREASE the standing wave ratio  (reflected signal)  soon you develop high voltage relavent to nodes and antinodes within the coax.  If your node and antinode develop at terminals then you get what Tesla was after.  We know that electromagnetic waves carry energy so when they stand and are constructive the pancake coil acts as an energy storage unit.

Thanks Sparks. The high voltage polarization you speak of is also refered to as: "Impulse Magnetization". Those old fashioned magnets are long gone. Consider what the time frame did for the field of Aviation, from Kitty Hawk to the Mars Rover. It's hard at first for us to understand the Wright brother's method of wing warping to gain directional control, even though wing flaps are commonplce today on aircraft.

The argument arose about the differences between SBC and single wire coils. Both coils are used to "Impulse Magnetize" but they work differently. The SB Pancake directs the pulse to align electron spin in a substrate while the single wire wrap coil polarizes.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 29, 2013, 04:16:10 PM

Layering counterwound pancakes together cause them to share the same kind of characteristics found in the serial bifilar pancake.

Sorry, it is not correct.  The facing pancake surfaces are not comparable for the two cases, that is why I disagree.  See also Magluvin answer here http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg361720/#msg361720

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 29, 2013, 04:24:40 PM
Sorry, it is not correct.  The facing pancake surfaces are not comparable for the two cases, that is why I disagree.  See also Magluvin answer here http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg361720/#msg361720 (http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg361720/#msg361720)

Gyula

The coils don't have to be connected to cancel the inductance. It's enough that the current is running in the other direction between the conductors in close adjacency to one another.
 
 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 29, 2013, 04:35:10 PM
The coils don't have to be connected to cancel the inductance. It's enough that the current is running in the other direction between the conductors in close adjacency to one another.

Well, nobody wrote that the coils have to be connected to cancel the inductance. Your answer above proves again your typical topic twisting when it is proved what you wrote was not correct. Please change this behaviour, it leads to nowhere.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 29, 2013, 06:01:19 PM
Milehigh just stated there was no comparison between the magnets! The  serial bifilar pancake projects a directional electromagnetic pulse that's focused.  This allows it to broadcast and recieve it's own power, as well as align electron spin. The current electromagnet is merely an modern improvement. All the fundamental forces are at work in those counter facing pancakes. They jolt a field into the scrap first, then produce a low level cling current. You can spark the sigle wire nail wrap all you want, you will never get the kind of impulse magnetization effect the SBC delivers.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 29, 2013, 07:02:52 PM
I want to correct a mistake that I made:

Quote
All four layers form a giant ampere-turn magnetic field generator that work together.  You can see how the metal casing of the electromagnet takes the "top" flux and channels it to the center and "points" it downwards.  The same "top" flux is also channeled to the outer ring of the casing and is also "pointed" downwards.  So Gyula's "magnetic footprint" drawing is wrong.   If the center circle of his drawing is red, then the outer ring that he has marked in blue is also actually red.  Following Gyula's convention where blue represents the opposite polarity, then what Gyula shows as white should be blue.  In summary, at the inside you have the red circle, then you have a blue ring around that, and on the outside you have a thin red ring.  That's how the electromagnet is designed.

This is poor visualization on my part and I got confused.  Gyula's original comments on the configuration of the "magnetic footprint" of the electromagnet are correct.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 29, 2013, 07:18:12 PM
Synchro1:

Quote
Milehigh just stated there was no comparison between the magnets! The  serial bifilar pancake projects a directional electromagnetic pulse that's focused.  This allows it to broadcast and recieve it's own power, as well as align electron spin. The current electromagnet is merely an modern improvement. All the fundamental forces are at work in those counter facing pancakes. They jolt a field into the scrap first, then produce a low level cling current. You can spark the sigle wire nail wrap all you want, you will never get the kind of impulse magnetization effect the SBC delivers.

This "fantasy world" of electronics that you seem to live in is not healthy.  Where do you get these statements from?

I challenge you to post a diagram that illustrates your comment about "projecting a directional electromagnetic pulse that's focused."  Please post a diagram that is annotated with some supplementary information.  Also when you make the posting give us a few paragraphs of text that explain exactly what you mean and explain your annotations in the diagram.  Please tell us all about the electron spin.  Tell us all about the pulse and where it comes from.  Please explain to us all about the "impulse magnetization effect" that you claim is a special property of the SBC.  Please illustrate that with an annotated diagram also and explain the diagram with a few paragraphs of text.

If can you do that then we will comment on your posting.  If you can't do that then you have been caught talking fantasy nonsense.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 29, 2013, 09:12:40 PM
@Milehigh,
                  Another miserable homework assignment huh?  Here's one for you: Whats a spark?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 29, 2013, 10:08:42 PM
Synchro1:

Busted!  lol

It's like Bioshock Infinity a la Tesla!

Get your protein pills and keep your helmet on!

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

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 29, 2013, 10:28:36 PM
I got your point - but if the windings are almost 90 degrees to your sum flux direction - there wont be an induction phenomenen in the wire - and there should be pretty no contribution to the overall inductivity.
The contribution to overall inductivity would increase if you change the inclination of your windings from 90 degrees towards 45 degrees in  relation to your sum flux / rotational axis.
As long as you don´t exceed flux saturation in your ferro magnetic wire - you will observe increased inductivity - if you saturate the wire, inductivity will fall back to normal - and there will be iron losses in the wire.

rgds.

Hi Fritz, I think i get it now, and it seems basic logic so it makes sense to me. Thank you very much for explaining that in that way. Much appreciated.

So to carry the thinking further to a different situation. If I was to wind an air core steel wire coil, then if I insert a smaller steel coil inside it with the coil terminals open, the inserted coil would not act as core because the turns are in the same plane as the main coil. It would simply act as an open secondary ?

Alternatively if I was to wind a steel coil that was long loops of turns and placed that inside the main coil so the windings were at 90 degrees it would not act as a secondary but as a core, the inserted coil would develop no emf but would support or engage the magnetic flux.

So the in between case would be a steel wire coil with the windings done in a 45 degree cross hatched pattern, ie. one layer at 45 degrees  to vertical from 0 degrees to 180 degrees circumference wise, then progressive layers of 45 degree windings around the coil circumference in 90 degree progressions. Just as a thought experiment such a winding with steel wire should do both, or if two coils wound as such so that one could fit inside the other then the inserted one would act as a coil and a core, it must and the individual coils would also act as coils and cores as long as there was some angle between enough windings within the coil.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 30, 2013, 12:22:09 AM
Milehigh just stated there was no comparison between the magnets! The  serial bifilar pancake projects a directional electromagnetic pulse that's focused.  This allows it to broadcast and recieve it's own power, as well as align electron spin. The current electromagnet is merely an modern improvement. All the fundamental forces are at work in those counter facing pancakes. They jolt a field into the scrap first, then produce a low level cling current. You can spark the sigle wire nail wrap all you want, you will never get the kind of impulse magnetization effect the SBC delivers.

Synchro1:

I have asked you to to change your behaviour but you try to defend your 'brainchilds' with fire and iron, however you do not show any proof.  Words you desperatly keep repeating or you search on the net for pancake etc and quote others' words on them are not proof.

You showed pictures of some components but you did not show measurements to prove what you claim with those components.
I already also asked you to show the current drop to zero you claim to happen above a certain rpm in your setup. What 'secret' would you lose if you showed it??  Just an Ammeter hooked up to your setup, is that too problematic? Can you rebuild your setup again to have a second identically behaving setup?

When your attitude change to the better, I will pay attention again.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 30, 2013, 12:23:28 AM
I want to correct a mistake that I made:


MH:  okay, no problem.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 30, 2013, 05:50:54 AM
@Gyulasum,

                    You guys are real good when it comes to dishing jobs out, why not do the jolt test on your nail coils?

                                                                   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE)
 
TK shows his SB pancake throwing a larger spark in this video. Go ahead and spark your nail coils and see for yourself wether or not you notice any difference.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 30, 2013, 04:25:27 PM
synchro1

I simply asked you about 'apples' and you answer with 'oranges' as usual.

I did not ask for your setup "blueprints",  I did not ask for any details. I simply asked for showing the input current draw drops to zero with an Ammeter  as you claimed happening above a certain RPM.   If this asking is "a dishing jobs out" for you,  then I think your claims are fishy, that is all. Be happy with your setup.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 30, 2013, 05:24:51 PM
Synchro1:

Quote
TK shows his SB pancake throwing a larger spark in this video. Go ahead and spark your nail coils and see for yourself wether or not you notice any difference.

TK is a great guy but he is human and like anyone else he can make mistakes or oversights.  It that clip he does a "swap" as opposed to doing an "A-B" comparison with some kind of reference.  So you have no idea in the second part of his experiment if the SB coil is a better "broadcaster" or if the regular coil is a better "receiver."   So the test is inconclusive.

Electronics is a REAL discipline Synchro1, and it has to be studied for years to understand and apply it properly.  Your actions simply spread disinformation and confuse people like it's all some kind of silly game.  Think about that.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on May 30, 2013, 05:31:30 PM
The only point TK makes in the video is that the serial pancake generates a larger spark. TK'S spark is not an entertaining rock music video.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 30, 2013, 05:36:25 PM
Synchro1:

TK is a great guy
No argument there...
Quote
but he is human
not according to some you might ask...
Quote
and like anyone else he can make mistakes or oversights. 
Who... me? Oh ye of little faith....
Quote
It that clip he does a "swap" as opposed to doing an "A-B" comparison with some kind of reference.  So you have no idea in the second part of his experiment if the SB coil is a better "broadcaster" or if the regular coil is a better "receiver."   So the test is inconclusive.
That's right, as shown. But this and other tests I've done support the basic conclusion.... that there is a difference in performance between the two coils in the same conditions. This difference is due to the increased inter-turn capacitance and the effect of this capacitance on the coil's total impedance at the stimulating frequencies. Any way you look at it, the bifilar wound coil can store, and release, more energy than the flat pancake coil of the same wire length and geometry.
It is possible to take this simple fact and twist it and warp it around, but the fact remains: you get out what you put in, minus losses.
Quote

Electronics is a REAL discipline Synchro1, and it has to be studied for years to understand and apply it properly.  Your actions simply spread disinformation and confuse people like it's all some kind of silly game.  Think about that.

MileHigh
I'm sure Nikola Tesla would be rolling in his grave, if he wasn't secretly working in some underground government laboratory, being kept alive by periodic jolts from a huge Tesla coil......

 ;)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 30, 2013, 06:15:58 PM
The real shocker is that Walt Disney and Nikola Tesla have a thing going on!!!!!    8)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 30, 2013, 08:10:36 PM
Hi TinselKoala,

Quote
the fact remains: you get out what you put in, minus losses.

I would refer to a paper from Nichelson (you may have read it: http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf) ) where he also tested two coils, albeit they were not pancake but solenoid types (it does not matter though as Tesla wrote). Nichelson measured the voltage gain for the single wire and the bifilar solenoid coils and found the voltage gain of the bifilar coil was 5.39 times higher than that of the single wire coil while the calculated voltage gain gave 0.57 times as high only.
You can see the measured voltage gains, plotted on a scale of 0 - 1 for both coils in the figure below from the above paper: the bifilarly wound coil has Vin/Vout ratio of 0.98 at 11 MHz self resonant frequency while the single wound coil has Vin/Vout ratio of 0.18 only, at 19 MHz self resonant frequency.

So his findings (Vin/Vout=0.98 for the bifilar) can confirm your above quote, unfortunately  8) . Among some questions I consider one question maybe the most interesting: how the single wire solenoid (or your single pancake) would perform if it were tuned to the same frequency the bifilar coil has its own self resonant frequency (11 MHz in the above example), by using a suitable tuning capacitor in parallel with the single coil?  Somehow I "feel" the bifilar coil would still win (by not much though) due to its distributed type 'tuning' capacitance, albeit wire insulation (dielectric qualities) may also have a role in that.
Any chance you may dig out those 'ingredients' from 2008 for some more tests on the two pancakes?

Thanks, Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 31, 2013, 01:36:10 AM
Unfortunately those coils are in Canada and I'm not. So I'll have to make a new bifilar to match the pancake I already have. I did do some tuning tests with air variables on those older coils but nothing really quantitative, and I can't really recall anything coherent about that testing now. But I'll be working on the issue over the next several days, and I'll let you all know what I observe.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on May 31, 2013, 01:40:06 AM
Gyula,

I have never played with a network analyzer like the HP3577B.   The closest I ever came to that was playing with a frequency spectrum analyzer.   It appears to be a device that puts out an excitation signal which typically will sweep a sine wave over a given frequency range on an output port.  Then on an input port it will record the response to the excitation and produce things like gain and phase plots.  In the spec sheet they mention how a typical application might be to measure a filter response and make sure the attenuation at a given excitation frequency is within some kind of programmable tolerance.

I am under the impression that the output port is 50 ohms and the input port is either 50 ohms or it is high impedance.  However, from the spec sheet I read it was not clear for me.

All that being said, I have "issues" with the paper and suspect that yet again, it's the people that are writing the paper that are the issue and not the equipment itself.

For example, when they talk about the "gain" they seem to be implying an impedance divider network where the coil is one element and a one ohm resistor is the other element.  Of course there is no one-ohm resistor anywhere to be found and no impedance divider network.

Then, what they refer to as the "calculated voltage gain" for each coli is in fact nothing more than the impedance of each coil in "reactive ohms."

Then, they use the measured resonant frequencies of each coil for the "voltage gain" calculation.   Since the "calculated voltage gain" for each coil is nothing more than the reactive impedance for each coil where each coil is modeled as a pure inductor only.  But when you start talking about resonant frequencies you are _not_ talking about a pure inductor only, you are talking about a series or parallel LC circuit.

Then when they discuss the ratio bifilar/single they are comparing the impedance ratios of two pure inductors at two frequencies.  Back to the same conundrum of mixing pure inductance with two different frequencies that are based on LC resonance.

I am not feeling it for that paper at all.  I am seeing some amateurs playing with a sophisticated network analyzer and crunching numbers together that don't really make any sense.  That's a phenomenon that I have seen several times before.

I have no doubt that the HP network analyzer will show distinct differences between the two types of coils.  However, the "voltage gain" number crunching that they did in that paper does not smell right to me at all.

Going back to TK's experiment, there at least he is in the ballpark for finding differences between the two types of coils.  He is using a spark gap so that's exciting the coils with a lot of high frequency content and there indeed, the capacitance can and will come into play.  That's distinctly different from imagining that a series bifilar coil is going to make a big difference in the operation of a pulse motor.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: TinselKoala on May 31, 2013, 02:02:21 AM
I can't argue with that either.
 :-\
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on May 31, 2013, 03:15:38 AM
But as it says in the patent and as is logical, it depends on the inductance and the capacitance of the particular series connected bifilar wound coil as to the frequency of excitement that will cause the resonance (which is true for all coils), no matter what the application, if the frequency of excitement is compatible with the inductance and capacitance of the SB coil so that resonance is produced in the coil, or the coil is excited at the frequency of resonance, then the difference will be there.

Seems to be an insinuation that some people think a HF coil will show the benefit when excited by low frequency. A higher frequency coil requires high frequency excitement and a lower frequency coil only requires lower frequency excitement as is well known by most, to get resonance we need to excite the coil with the correct frequency. Of course.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on May 31, 2013, 08:28:45 AM
  I can understand how by use of resonance we can store energy.  Not unlike a battery or a catapault of a flywheel-etc.  The part I don't get about Tesla and his magnifying transmitter is his claim that the natural medium offered no resistance to really high potentials at high frequency.   What he may have been doing is creating plasma emanating out from his terminal in the air.   This would greatly increase the mass in play.  The plasma would electrically extend the terminal.   I don't see him creating a plasma construct from radiator to receiver without encountering huge amounts of difficulty.  But he could make one big ass sky conductor.  By excluding any sharp edges or defects his sky terminal would not create the lightning bolts he is famous for.  In fact the guys who have those sharp little pipes hanging out of a Tesla transformer are using Tesla's safety circuit.  I have created a weird plasma thing before.  It isn't bright white crackling zig zag lightning looking stuff.  It is  more like a flame.  I used an iron coil (by chance) mid-tapped with the anode of an old tv set attached to the middle.  It created ion wind at least a foot away.  The flames were coming out of both ends of the iron wire and bowing towards each other along a smooth circumference.  I imagine if I put information riding the hv flyback somehow the flames would have danced.  I gotta repeat this experiment again.  I've had this old microwave oven sitting around just too busy to get past the one way screws built for guys like me.  If tesla did make a huge antennae made out of plasma instead of conventional metals,  any wave activity in the plasma would act just like wave activity in an antennae mast.  I haven't seen any broadcast antennae's 2 or 3 miles high with a 20 mile radius at the top.  I really don't know what the fuck he was up to in NJ but I believe a metal object like an airplane flying over that tower would have let go a couple of electrons and look like a ship lit up with St. Elmo's fire right before the crackler blows the mast to shit.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: forest on May 31, 2013, 08:49:54 AM
I think Tesla wanted to rather supress plasma  ::)  Wasn't that the famous spikes whcih killed DC generator operators ?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on May 31, 2013, 10:29:11 AM
I think Tesla wanted to rather supress plasma  ::)  Wasn't that the famous spikes whcih killed DC generator operators ?
  Definitely within the transmitter core.  Arcing between turns would have resulted in eddy currents (lightning currents) and destruction of any dielectric used to insulate the secondaries.  You can have a dark plasma.  Most metals that we consider conductors are room temperature partially ionized plasma.  My logic path is that he needed a big tall antennae and that it would be impossible to construct such an antennae so he ionized the air.  The only other thing I can think of was that he was trying to use the intervening dielectric  (atmospheric gasses) for the dielectric and excite the receivers like we excite secondaries when we couple an ac circuit to another circuit  via a condensor sandwiched between the two circuits.   His terminal= capacitor plate a- the air=dielectric, the receiver terminal=capacitor plate b..  This I can see happening but he constantly referred to rendering the ambient medium conductive.  Maybe he considered current as the information conveyed between two points in space charged to different degrees or electrically polarized. There is some information being conducted between a charged cloud and Earth.  A highly charged negative cloud can make the Earth below it positively charged relative to those parts of the Earth not directly below the cloud.  It appears that the negative charge information of the cloud is conducted through space and moves electrons in the Earth without any electrons actually moving from cloud to ground.   Then again we have electrolytic capacitors too which rely on ionized stuff which you would find in a plasma.  This is why I am confused.  Was he using electrostatics or electrodynamics?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: profitis on May 31, 2013, 12:42:44 PM
hey @sparks,did you get my pm reply about infrared.what do u think?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on May 31, 2013, 11:46:16 PM
Hi Milehigh,

I have done some calculations, based on coil data from the Nichelson paper I referred to above.

Given: air core coil OD=4"   and number of turns=43

I looked for the possible wire diameter the coils were wound because I disagreed with the impedance divider network you supposed whereby the coil is one element and a one Ohm resistor is the other element in the divider network (see my EDIT comment below).

So I found from the calculations that the length of the wire (any coil was wound from) was 13.72 meter. Then I looked up wire gauge tabelle with electrical resistance values and figured that Nichelson must have used OD=0.56mm (copper) wire, the nearest awg is #23 (0.57mm).

The reason I disagree with your voltage divider idea (see EDIT)  is that while it is true Nichelson et al used 1 Ohm in the denominator of the "voltage gain" formula but now it is clear (for me) that the 1 Ohm came from the coil DC resistance.  Further, if you have a look at Figure 1 in the above paper, the network analyzer (generator and receiver) ports were directly "bridged" with any one coil during the measurements, there was no 1 Ohm resistor used (see EDIT).  I looked up a manual for the HP3577B and its generator output impedance is 50 Ohm, its receiver input impedance can be chosen to be either 50 Ohm or 1 MOhm with 30pF parallel capacitance. (It is very reasonable to assume that they used the 50 Ohm input for the receiver side too.)

Now there is one more thing: have you noticed since then that the formula they used for calculating the voltage gain is nothing else but the Q of a coil i.e. XL/R  (inductive reactance divided by the wire resistance)?  You mentioned that the calculated voltage gain was the reactive impedance for each coil.

I think my above calculations and deductions are correct (if you notice any issue, or disagree,  please comment).

Gyula

EDIT  Where I inserted the  EDIT above, I somehow avoided to consider that you eventually stated: "Of course there is no one-ohm resistor anywhere to be found and no impedance divider network."   Sorry for this.  All the other things I wrote I consider still valid.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on June 01, 2013, 12:07:02 AM
  I can understand how by use of resonance we can store energy.  Not unlike a battery or a catapault of a flywheel-etc.  The part I don't get about Tesla and his magnifying transmitter is his claim that the natural medium offered no resistance to really high potentials at high frequency.   What he may have been doing is creating plasma emanating out from his terminal in the air.   This would greatly increase the mass in play.  The plasma would electrically extend the terminal.   I don't see him creating a plasma construct from radiator to receiver without encountering huge amounts of difficulty.  But he could make one big ass sky conductor.  By excluding any sharp edges or defects his sky terminal would not create the lightning bolts he is famous for.  In fact the guys who have those sharp little pipes hanging out of a Tesla transformer are using Tesla's safety circuit.  I have created a weird plasma thing before.  It isn't bright white crackling zig zag lightning looking stuff.  It is  more like a flame.  I used an iron coil (by chance) mid-tapped with the anode of an old tv set attached to the middle.  It created ion wind at least a foot away.  The flames were coming out of both ends of the iron wire and bowing towards each other along a smooth circumference.  I imagine if I put information riding the hv flyback somehow the flames would have danced.  I gotta repeat this experiment again.  I've had this old microwave oven sitting around just too busy to get past the one way screws built for guys like me.  If tesla did make a huge antennae made out of plasma instead of conventional metals,  any wave activity in the plasma would act just like wave activity in an antennae mast.  I haven't seen any broadcast antennae's 2 or 3 miles high with a 20 mile radius at the top.  I really don't know what the fuck he was up to in NJ but I believe a metal object like an airplane flying over that tower would have let go a couple of electrons and look like a ship lit up with St. Elmo's fire right before the crackler blows the mast to shit.

I don't think he said that, do you have a reference "in context" for that claim ?

Tesla had two separate and distinct uses for the Magnifying transmitter, one was the transmission of signals which could be done at a higher frequency because of the need for less power and the other was the transmission of power which needed to be done at lower frequencies to avoid losses. Tesla often spoke of the losses.

A quote from Tesla "in context" showing the claim or it didn't happen. I think I know the text you refer to but I think it is most likely misunderstood, and to reply to a claim it needs to be considered in the context it was made.

discussing hearsay is pointless and causes more problems than it solves, IF you wish to discuss a claim made by Tesla or anyone else for that matter you should provide a quote "in context" containing the claim and a reference for where it was taken from. Otherwise it can't be verified as an actual claim made.

Cheers
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on June 01, 2013, 01:25:01 AM
@farmhand your right.   It may not have been in reference to his wireless transmission of power.  I took the liberty of assumption that he was rendering the natural medium conductive in the magnifying transmitter.  If you look at the progression of patents filed on transmission of energy without wires he first has a wire strung between transmitter and receivers.  Then the wire disappears. My best guess is that he had the high voltage minute duty cycle energy input to simulate the electric field flux changes of an ultraviolet wave.  This would ionize the air molecules rendering it into a plasma.  Then the low frequency information caused plasma wave activity.   No idea as to what plasma with low frequency wave patterns does as far as radiation of energy but it would be interesting to find out.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Tito L. Oracion on June 01, 2013, 03:07:11 PM
cheers ???
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on June 02, 2013, 07:29:18 PM
    I believe the information below may explain what Tesla was up to with the magnifying transmitter.  If we add the Earth into the transmission line standing waves would begin to develop in the Earth and extensions of the Earth like his receivers.  The voltage between nodes and antinodes developed within the reciever could be used to charge local capacitors.  Or the magnetic field changes associated with the currents inside the transmission line could drive various transformer secondaries.  This would effectively insert a dummy load to the transmission line superimposed oscillations.  This would allow more waves to leave the transmission line than are reflected.  Power then flows from scource to load.  http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/6.html (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/6.html)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 06, 2013, 01:18:27 PM
Quoting Farmhand about this thread from an EF thread:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14165-solenoid-electromagnet.html#post233920 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14165-solenoid-electromagnet.html#post233920)

Quote
Please just ignore the posts by Synchro and Milehigh, they are extremists.

Farmhand's comment about my postings in this thread is pure junk trash talk.  My comments in this thread are sincere and real and they should not be ignored.  They are not extremest at all.  The guy has some issues.

Quote
Here is what I think the claims are saying. If the voltage is too low, then the distance between the capacitor "plates" is too great for the capacity to be effectively used.
 ie. If the conductors have insulation 5 mm thick then using 1 volt won't utilize the capacity very well and the capacity will not then contribute to the lowering of the resonance frequency. Kinda like trying to use 1 volt with a HV parallel plate air capacitor with 10 mm spacing between the plates, it won't work very well.
 
 It makes sense to me.

Farmhand's comments in fact make no sense at all.  Trying to draw a relationship between the capacitor voltage and the separation between the wire conductors (a.k.a. "plates") makes no sense at all.  There is no real relationship between the voltage and the separation, it's just a speculation that is completely off base.  The notion that "low voltage won't 'use' the capacity and the the capacity won't contribute to the lowering of the resonance frequency" is dead wrong.  The effect of the capacitance on the coil is completely independent of the voltage.

Quote
Kinda like trying to use 1 volt with a HV parallel plate air capacitor with 10 mm spacing between the plates, it won't work very well.

The above statement by Farmhand is a completely nonsensical statement.  Again, the idea that putting only one volt across a high-voltage capacitor "won't work very well" is ridiculous, it will work just fine.

What's also very clear in reading the EF thread called "The Solenoid/Electromagnet" is that there are indeed many misconceptions about the Tesla coil and people simply want to believe that the coil has some fantastical properties just because Tesla's name is attached to it.  A thread like this one on OU is worth reading and thinking about.  This reflex among Tesla enthusiasts that says, "whatever Tesla did must be fantastic and amazing and ahead of its time" is clearly the wrong way of going about things.  You should not prejudge something to be great.  Rather, do the investigation yourself with an open mind without preconceiving anything ahead of time.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 06, 2013, 11:47:32 PM
   I agree that alot if not all public information regarding Tesla's work are limited to his development of alternators-transformers and development of the dynamic capacitor.   By this imagine that you are able to dump a thousand horsepower into something.  That would be the work of a thousand horses for an hour.  This device fits in a suitcase.   You then transport the briefcase to your car.   There the oscillations are damped and you get your thousand horsepower hours out as you drive around town.  The Steven Marks device is very similar to the Tesla dynamic capacitor.   It is a dynamic capacitor.  It needs to be charged.   It's energy density makes solid hydrogen density about as dense as a cup of water at room temperature. 

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 07, 2013, 08:50:34 AM
More responses to Farmhand in the EF thread called "The Solenoid/Electromagnet."

Quote
The self capacitance is related to the voltage applied in Tesla's coil for
 Electro-Magnets due to the reasons I outlined about the capacitor plate
 separation. Some people who claim to be quite smart tried to deny that.
 But it is true and it fits conventional knowledge and is logical.

Again, this is wrong.  The self-capacitance is related to the geometry of the coil and the permittivity of the dielectric insulation between the windings.  It is not related to the voltage applied.  The voltage applied will determine how much energy can be stored in the capacitance.  This is not to be confused with capacitance and inductance interacting at a given frequency to cancel each other out.  This cancellation effect will take place independent of the applied voltage.

Quote
So to properly tune a Coil for electro-magnets, the voltage to be used is also
 a consideration. A coil wound for effect at 100 Khz using 10 000 volts will not
 work the same if 10 volts is used due to the capacitor plate separation
 (thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self
 capacitance to be less.

One more time, Farmhand is wrong.  If you excite the coil with a 100 KHz, 10,000 Vrms signal to get the self-cancellation effect, then you can excite the same coil with a 100 KHz, 10 Vrms signal and you will get exactly the same self-cancellation effect.

When he says, "due to the capacitor plate separation (thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self capacitance to be less," he is wrong again.   We know that the capacitor plate separation is a constant.  Therefore the self-capacitance will be a constant.   The self-capacitance does not change with voltage like Farmhand seems to be suggesting.

Anybody that doubts me can look up capacitance and see how a basic capacitor is constructed with two metal plates separated by a certain distance with the separation filled with a dielectric material with a certain permittivity.  You will not find any voltage variable that comes into play to determine the capacitance.  Don't get thrown off in your understanding of the basic building blocks of electronics because this has the potential to corrupt all of your subsequent learning.

Quote
This is evidenced by the way Radio coils are spaced to reduce self capacitance.

The above is a comment that does not make any sense.  The self-capacitance in radio coils will be ignored, assuming that we are looking at the example of an early 20th century AM radio.  The coils in an AM radio are all paired with capacitors or variable capacitors to make LC resonators.  The manufacturers of the coils for use in radios and the designers of radios were never concerned about the insignificant self-capacitance of their coils.  They were designing LC resonators for radios using external capacitors and the self-capacitance of the coils was never even considered.   This is another example of this phenomenon of reading too much into the patent like I have already stated.

For what it's worth, radio coils are normally spaced in a way to avoid mutual coupling between coils.  So it's the form of the external magnetic field outside the coil and possible undesirable mutual coupling and not the self-capacitance that is the prime consideration for the spacing and placement of coils inside an AM radio.

Quote
People can dispute whatever they like but time will tell all truths.

You sure as hell are right about that one.

Quote
Don't listen to the extremists. They avoid the valid points and dwell on, "it has
 no uses so the patent is pointless", or, "this coil makes free energy".

I am not an extremist, I am a practical realist.  Nor am I ignoring any valid points.  Right now the patent is next to pointless.  If you want an LC resonator you pick a coil and a capacitor to make your resonator, you don't need to investigate a self-resonating coil.  A resonator designed with separate L and C components will be more stable and superior to relying on a coil's self-capacitance.  Beyond that, nobody has offered up a practical application for this "series bifilar" coil and the question was posed by me on this forum more than a month ago.

You want even better advice?  Don't listen to people that you have some doubts about.  If you are not getting the right feeling or something doesn't seem quite right, then do the research for yourself if you are capable.   Trust your instincts and be honest with yourself about your ability to make these kinds of technical judgement calls.  Another possibility is to bootstrap yourself up the learning curve.   Or perhaps consulting with people that you do have a good feeling about and believe that they are competent with respect to the subject matter at hand would be another way to go.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 07, 2013, 09:05:15 AM
More comments on Farmhand's posting on EF:

Quote
.S. The effect of the "cancelling of the effects of the self inductance" is a
 reactance thing, but it is not limited to AC excitement, the coil can be excited
 with DC pulses at the correct frequency or alternating positive and negative
 DC pulses (less than 50% duty or less than a Square wave AC). What the
 patent does not relate to is Uninterrupted DC, uninterrupted DC after some
 initial time only faces the DC resistance of the coil anyway, so no need for a
 special coil, unless Pulsed DC is used or AC or alternating DC pulses.
 
 If a coil is pulsed with DC pulses at a random frequency the coil will exhibit
 reactance and the reactance can be cancelled if the excitement of the coil is
 done at the correct frequency for the effect to manifest.
 
 It's Tesla, 101. Using resonance effects.

When Farmhand says, "but it is not limited to AC excitement, the coil can be excited with DC pulses at the correct frequency" he is dead wrong.  For starters, "DC pulses" are actually AC from a circuit perspective.  You cannot equate an AC sine wave at a given frequency to a DC pulse train at the same frequency.  The coil will not react the same way to the two waveforms, even though they ostensibly are at the same frequency.  A square wave can be broken down into a series of separate frequencies, each one a sine wave.  The coil will react differently to each separate frequency and you get the final response from the coil by adding up all of the individual responses.  All of the sine waves with the exception of the fundamental frequency sine wave will result in some form of reactive response from the coil.

I just described the frequency-domain analysis.  The entire analysis for how the coil will react to a square wave pulse train can also be done in the time domain.

It turns out that "Tesla 101" is a little bit more complicated than some people think.  Note also that "Tesla 101" kind of has a feeling that somebody is trying to teach you something.   Please refer to my comments at the end of my previous posting about that issue.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 07, 2013, 09:55:24 AM
   I would think that Tesla was having trouble with developing high voltage capacitors so he used the capacitance of the coil itself.  The coil is just a tank but the components are not discrete.  This would save on resistive and inductive losses in any shunts between discrete components.  If you take two sheets of aluminum with a seperator between same.  coil them up and drop them in some oil you have an oil filled capacitor.  You also have a bifilar wound coil.  You have mutual inductance as I would imagine electrons would be moving within the capacitor and give rise to magnetic field flux changes that would cause eddy currents in the foil.  All sorts of changes in the resonant frequency of the tank as the rlc values drift all over the place.  The necessity to monitor all the major components for values and adjust for changes in same.   Meanwhile the tesla bifilar wound tank suffered from few of these problems if any.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 08, 2013, 02:48:35 PM
   I would think that Tesla was having trouble with developing high voltage capacitors so he used the capacitance of the coil itself.  The coil is just a tank but the components are not discrete.  This would save on resistive and inductive losses in any shunts between discrete components.  If you take two sheets of aluminum with a seperator between same.  coil them up and drop them in some oil you have an oil filled capacitor.  You also have a bifilar wound coil.  You have mutual inductance as I would imagine electrons would be moving within the capacitor and give rise to magnetic field flux changes that would cause eddy currents in the foil.  All sorts of changes in the resonant frequency of the tank as the rlc values drift all over the place.  The necessity to monitor all the major components for values and adjust for changes in same.   Meanwhile the tesla bifilar wound tank suffered from few of these problems if any.


 You hit the nail on the head. He was having trouble with capacitors and Higher voltages. This is why he developed the coils initially. But if we look at the Pancake coils we will understand something quite remarkable about the coils. As with the JLN LAbs experiment there is something when the (cap coil) is used in an unconventional way. Even though the self induction is vastly reduced it still receives a signal at an amplified manner through induction. This is from the flat sides of the pancake coil. The amount of amplification is based on a few things. One is the capacitance of the coil and the other thing is the length of the wire of both parallel wires. Since we know capacitance is real and works like any real capacitor this is used to put power behind any signal the coil is tuned for, for output from the receiving bifilar pancake coil to load.


 As for the increased magnetic component I am designing aa simple experiment to prove this to any nay-sayer. It's there but most only play with solenoids and this won't be a prevalent as with the pancake design. The lengths of the coils must also be Long and the signals used must be 1/4 wave of that length or there about for the coils to have a resonant response.


 My first experiments with a cap coil were with regular caps and an outside signal being fed into a coil around the caps. Itsu did a small set of experiments with this and it led me to other experiments with a katcher coil and it's output being fed to the coil around the cap which energized the cap to a limited degree. But none the less it did energize the cap from outside of the cap. What JNL Labs did was to continue these initial tests with a different approach that others have tried in the past. Through induction from the flat side of the coils of a bifilar wound pancake coils they saw a greater response to induced power in the bifilar receiver coils which powered a load. As for the type of signal we need I have not gotten that far in my investigations of this bifilar design. Most investigations have been with inputting a signal directly into the coil and that is an incorrect way to view this coil. It is what is external to the coil that we must investigate and the coils response to that external environment. It is what is being put out and what is being received that we must investigate.


 What is the correct geometry of the input and output.
 Would a normal wire axial to the center of the cap coil net more in and out then we see with a traditional solenoid coil? How does a bifilar coil react to impulses applied to it in the normal fashion?
 Does the bifilar coil charge up faster then a traditional solenoid since self induction is cancelled from the bifilar coil?
 How does the bifilar react to impulses as apposed to an AC or DC waveform, both internally or externally?


 These are real questions that have not been asked and most certainly not been answered in the correct manner by most.
 I suspect that Kapanadze did ask these questions and found the correct geometry and method to use with a bifilar coil to amplify a signal and found a way to convert the response into real current for use from his devices. In all of his devices I see a common theme which is not a trick. That theme is TESLA. This is not hero worship it is a stated fact from MR. Kapanadze. All of his Tricks are just common Tesla methods. If it is true then looking at Tesla methods is what we need to do. There is nothing magical about Tesla's methods and nothing magical about Tesla. He was a doer and not an armchair scientist/physicist. Now we need to investigate, for real, what Kapanadze learned about Tesla's methods. How these methods can be applied to our lives to improve our lives should be the goal. Not disputing and fighting the claims in un-humanistic ways, we should be able to do this with dignity and basic respect for one another.


 I have shown many times before how Kapanadze and others have taken Tesla's methods and used them to an advantage. I have tried to explain these findings with an honest approach. Most of the time I have been accused of heresy to the dogma that is science today. I have been debased and attacked on a most personal way and I relish the attempts because I know there is truth behind me. Tesla felt the same. We just need to put aside our prejudices to the current proposed methods and look at it with fresh eyes and open minds. We need this as a society if we are to survive. Our lives are changing every day and we should be able to live without sacrificing our lives for money to afford the basics of life. In this day and age we should be able to live without toil and the forced "fight to survive". Life doesn't come at a price, it is a gift from the Universe. Living that life should not cost us our souls and our precious moments in that life. We should live to experience life and not be forced into slavery to afford that life and experiencing the worst of that life.


 So lets try to learn what Tesla and others were trying to say. Lets experience the wonder of life again and learn the true nature of nature.


 Peace to you all
 jbignes5
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 08, 2013, 04:34:26 PM

 You hit the nail on the head. He was having trouble with capacitors and Higher voltages. This is why he developed the coils initially. But if we look at the Pancake coils we will understand something quite remarkable about the coils. As with the JLN LAbs experiment there is something when the (cap coil) is used in an unconventional way. Even though the self induction is vastly reduced it still receives a signal at an amplified manner through induction. This is from the flat sides of the pancake coil. The amount of amplification is based on a few things. One is the capacitance of the coil and the other thing is the length of the wire of both parallel wires. Since we know capacitance is real and works like any real capacitor this is used to put power behind any signal the coil is tuned for, for output from the receiving bifilar pancake coil to load.


 As for the increased magnetic component I am designing aa simple experiment to prove this to any nay-sayer. It's there but most only play with solenoids and this won't be a prevalent as with the pancake design. The lengths of the coils must also be Long and the signals used must be 1/4 wave of that length or there about for the coils to have a resonant response.


 My first experiments with a cap coil were with regular caps and an outside signal being fed into a coil around the caps. Itsu did a small set of experiments with this and it led me to other experiments with a katcher coil and it's output being fed to the coil around the cap which energized the cap to a limited degree. But none the less it did energize the cap from outside of the cap. What JNL Labs did was to continue these initial tests with a different approach that others have tried in the past. Through induction from the flat side of the coils of a bifilar wound pancake coils they saw a greater response to induced power in the bifilar receiver coils which powered a load. As for the type of signal we need I have not gotten that far in my investigations of this bifilar design. Most investigations have been with inputting a signal directly into the coil and that is an incorrect way to view this coil. It is what is external to the coil that we must investigate and the coils response to that external environment. It is what is being put out and what is being received that we must investigate.


 What is the correct geometry of the input and output.
 Would a normal wire axial to the center of the cap coil net more in and out then we see with a traditional solenoid coil? How does a bifilar coil react to impulses applied to it in the normal fashion?
 Does the bifilar coil charge up faster then a traditional solenoid since self induction is cancelled from the bifilar coil?
 How does the bifilar react to impulses as apposed to an AC or DC waveform, both internally or externally?


 These are real questions that have not been asked and most certainly not been answered in the correct manner by most.
 I suspect that Kapanadze did ask these questions and found the correct geometry and method to use with a bifilar coil to amplify a signal and found a way to convert the response into real current for use from his devices. In all of his devices I see a common theme which is not a trick. That theme is TESLA. This is not hero worship it is a stated fact from MR. Kapanadze. All of his Tricks are just common Tesla methods. If it is true then looking at Tesla methods is what we need to do. There is nothing magical about Tesla's methods and nothing magical about Tesla. He was a doer and not an armchair scientist/physicist. Now we need to investigate, for real, what Kapanadze learned about Tesla's methods. How these methods can be applied to our lives to improve our lives should be the goal. Not disputing and fighting the claims in un-humanistic ways, we should be able to do this with dignity and basic respect for one another.


 I have shown many times before how Kapanadze and others have taken Tesla's methods and used them to an advantage. I have tried to explain these findings with an honest approach. Most of the time I have been accused of heresy to the dogma that is science today. I have been debased and attacked on a most personal way and I relish the attempts because I know there is truth behind me. Tesla felt the same. We just need to put aside our prejudices to the current proposed methods and look at it with fresh eyes and open minds. We need this as a society if we are to survive. Our lives are changing every day and we should be able to live without sacrificing our lives for money to afford the basics of life. In this day and age we should be able to live without toil and the forced "fight to survive". Life doesn't come at a price, it is a gift from the Universe. Living that life should not cost us our souls and our precious moments in that life. We should live to experience life and not be forced into slavery to afford that life and experiencing the worst of that life.


 So lets try to learn what Tesla and others were trying to say. Lets experience the wonder of life again and learn the true nature of nature.


 Peace to you all
 jbignes5

  I see value in just creating an electrical tank circuit that would be able to store electrical energy.   This would allow a huge and diverse source of "conventional" alternative energy sources to be Universally distributed.   If his magnifying transmitter was successfully deployed then we would be able to jump over the proposed hydrogen fuel distribution scheme and just put up magnifying transmitters everywhere.   When your source supply is not needed at your site it pops up in an oscillator whose vibrations are being damped at a load center.  The need to package and transport fuels completely unnecessary.  The need to string wires with huge self-inductance losses all over the place done with.  The need for unsightly microwave towers beaming highwattage emwaves into communities done.   (Tesla devised methods to hetrodyne information carrying frequencies on the power carrying waves)  This is literally decentralization of power generation.   Not a good thing in the eyes of various emperor wannabees.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 08, 2013, 06:03:20 PM

  I see value in just creating an electrical tank circuit that would be able to store electrical energy.   This would allow a huge and diverse source of "conventional" alternative energy sources to be Universally distributed.   If his magnifying transmitter was successfully deployed then we would be able to jump over the proposed hydrogen fuel distribution scheme and just put up magnifying transmitters everywhere.   When your source supply is not needed at your site it pops up in an oscillator whose vibrations are being damped at a load center.  The need to package and transport fuels completely unnecessary.  The need to string wires with huge self-inductance losses all over the place done with.  The need for unsightly microwave towers beaming highwattage emwaves into communities done.   (Tesla devised methods to hetrodyne information carrying frequencies on the power carrying waves)  This is literally decentralization of power generation.   Not a good thing in the eyes of various emperor wannabees.


 The problem with that solution is that without induction that is separate from the capacitance we have zero oscillations. The only point in including the capacitance is that it changes the kickback effect or in Tesla's words False currents. Self inductance or resistance to change is neutralized in the bifilar design so that any change is met with near zero resistance, besides the resistance of the wire. This lets impulses travel at faster speed then what they were put in.**explained below** If we follow Tesla on this route we realize that when something has an increase in speed it's energy value is also increased.


 Now if we look at the geometry and winding direction of the bifilar pancake:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets (http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets) , we see that current flows from outside to inside of the coil, then goes from outside to inside yet again. All while reducing the self inductance by keeping theses conductors apart from themselves. This is what raises the capacitance and hence lowers the self inductance. This process also has a lot to do with how the energy pulls on itself in the capacitance. Since there are two conductors and each conductor must be either a negative or positive there is a definite direction to the current. Also the winding direction of the current or turns determines  the polarity of the magnetic field. With two wires flowing in opposite directions of the same current we can see it can get very complicated. The magnetic field would compound and become stronger, on not two wires but a very complex 3 component system. Let me explain.


 Besides the outside wires all wires in this coil are surrounded by two conductors. Check the patent and you can see this in the lower bifilar pancake coil. Since charges take time to flow this means charges would effect other charges flowing in the coil at any given point except for the outside winds. **** Not to mention that each conductor flowing in each direction would have an opposite polarity as given by your own physics (right hand rule)****. This is very complicated stuff and not any backyard technician would know much about that type of stuff unless he educated himself on a very great many things.


**** After further review I have to correct my mistake. Each coil flows in the same direction twords the middle. I am sorry about the mistake and fully take that statement back about opposite polarities. There is an attached picture #2 of the bifilar coil with color coding for the coils except I added something to think about. High voltage impulse emitter single turn coil around the bifilar with added ground nipple in the middle. The radial lines going into the center nipple(Blue & Black & Blue) are the e-field lines(blue) flowing twords ground.


 Not only is this very complicated there is another aspect that I wish to touch on and that is the subject of an e-field on the velocity of such charges flowing in the coil. Say a biasing high voltage e-field is applied to the environment around the coil. What effect do you think this would have on charges flowing on the inside of the coil? Given your own physics lets say a certain wattage is flowing in the bifilar coil. If this e-field gets induced into the coil would this change the wattage flowing out of the coil? What happens when you raise one of the components of the supply? The wattage would increase right? More current would raise the wattage and more voltage would do the same right? The e-field could be given a direction by including a way to concentrate that by including a grounding wire in the center of the coil right? This would concentrate the e-field and give it a way to stream across the bifilar coil raising the inducing voltage as it streams to the ground wire. The e-field can be created by a single loop around the bifilar pancake and the ground wire is the exit through the center of the bifilar. Now this ground wire shouldn't be very large at all, just a nipple could be used in the center because the bifilar pancake is 2d based. Where there to be multiple coils all in parallel you could use a much longer wire as a single source of the ground wire and reduce the wire resistance to near zero values. What kind of impulses could be used in a system like that? What kind of current do you think would be flowing in a system like that?


 Tesla even devised a better capacitor that was oil filled:


http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-567,818-electrical-condenser (http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-567,818-electrical-condenser)


 These caps were designed for use extreme high voltages as with his impulse devices. In these devices it was merely to create an exciter like e-field around, lets say his bifilar coil for instance. if the e-field had a way to flow out of the coils center, what kind of effect would it have on the bifilar coil(s) as they were working? My guess and the guess of many High energy physicists say it would accelerate charges. ie The example of how a particle accelerator works. This is not fantasy as some say because if it was then particle accelerators would not work as seen today. This idea was started via Tesla through his death beam work. You might want to check out the open ended vacuum tube he designed just for particle accelerator weapon systems. This system was also used in generating huge currents when the particles slammed into copper plates that were grounded. The measuring device was in between the plate and ground. The ground in this case was the proverbial sink Tesla was talking about.

Below is the picture of the tube design:

 I will leave you with that to chew on for a bit.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 08, 2013, 09:22:10 PM
Jbignes5:

I find your comments depressing and disheartening.  You have people that are beginners interested in learning and experimenting with electronics and they read stuff like you posted and it completely corrupts their understanding.

I can't tell you how many times I have looked at YouTube clips where people are fascinated with their experiments and they are convinced that they are doing something out of the ordinary but it's not true.  They are observing their circuit doing exactly what it is supposed to do and convincing themselves that they are seeing something that "conventional science" does not understand.  Part of that problem stems from reading stuff from people like you.

You just posted a big treatise on what you call a "cap coil" or what we decided to call a "series bifilar coil" on another thread.  So you have a lot to say implying that you think you know what you are talking about.

I will repeat the challenge that I made to you before:  If you think you understand how a coil works I will give you a ridiculously simple circuit that includes a coil.  I will ask you to explain what the circuit does.

If you can't answer the simple question about the operation of the circuit that includes a coil then I would suggest to you that you do some soul-searching because your two posts above are outrageous.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 08, 2013, 10:31:15 PM
  Tesla said electrically that the Earth acted like a small highly polished copper ball.   Also in explaining his magnifying transmitter system he used the analogy of the Earth as a waterballoon with the mt a piston pump and a far receiver a piston pump also.  When the mt piston was forced down the internal pressure of the balloon would be increased.  This pressure could only escape through the far piston being forced up.   When the mt was relaxed the far piston would then return the mt piston to it's raised position.  I would think that if you pump electrons into the ground they would physically displace electrons surrounding the cathodic element.   So put the two together.   If he was going to hit the ground with lots and lots of negative charge carriers this would increase the pressure inside the copper ball.   He determined the capacitance of the entire Earth to be very small.  Microfarads or something.  This means it wouldn't take much current flow to fill her up.   Any further electrons accelerated into the cathode would result in a linear increase in the amount of charge residing in the copper ball.   This pressure would then be vented into receiver tanks whose oscillations when damped through a load resistance would furnish power.   He also noted that this damping of the load tanks would result in a decreased amplitude of the reflected wave proportional to the amount of wave damping.   Like a room full of tuning forks.
You stirke one and soon all the others are ringing.   Including one you touch.  The one you touch rings down because of the resitance to it's natural harmonic movement afforded by your hand.  The mt ringsdown faster because it isn't getting any oscillations back and needs to make another strike.  In Tesla's case lightning strike.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 09, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
Jbignes5:

I find your comments depressing and disheartening.  You have people that are beginners interested in learning and experimenting with electronics and they read stuff like you posted and it completely corrupts their understanding.

I can't tell you how many times I have looked at YouTube clips where people are fascinated with their experiments and they are convinced that they are doing something out of the ordinary but it's not true.  They are observing their circuit doing exactly what it is supposed to do and convincing themselves that they are seeing something that "conventional science" does not understand.  Part of that problem stems from reading stuff from people like you.

You just posted a big treatise on what you call a "cap coil" or what we decided to call a "series bifilar coil" on another thread.  So you have a lot to say implying that you think you know what you are talking about.

I will repeat the challenge that I made to you before:  If you think you understand how a coil works I will give you a ridiculously simple circuit that includes a coil.  I will ask you to explain what the circuit does.

If you can't answer the simple question about the operation of the circuit that includes a coil then I would suggest to you that you do some soul-searching because your two posts above are outrageous.

MileHigh


 Frankly I don't care what you think. Lets look at what happened to someone on the cutting edge:


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ZgJBuq4XY


 This is exactly what you are doing.You like the professionals of the day assumed it was impossible without and experimental proof. You pose questions about a certain circuit that you know will fail the quest we are on. Always you talk about another thread that you fully understand this coil. You don't have any clue at all. Nothing in your explanations refute what I said besides you relating to this other thread...


 Like I said before I don't much care what you think, just like the man above who didn't listen to any of the professionals saying it was bunk, he really was the father of lasers. Now go bother someone who does care. I'm not here for you or anyone else but my own discoveries and experiments and to share such with others who do want to understand these things.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 01:17:23 AM
Jbignes5:

You are the one that doesn't have a clue at all.

You are citing a very legitimate example about a scientist on the cutting edge not being able to convince his peers, it happens all the time.  It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms.

The major problem is that you are trying to draw an analogy with what you are doing and the introduction of the LASER in the early 1960s and nothing could be further from the truth.  You are simply talking clueless pseudoscience junk.  So much of it in fact that it's not worth rebutting it point by point.

Nor are you talking about anything on the cutting edge, you are talking about an inductor.  This is a basic building block of electronics.  It's something that has been understood for more than a century.  So that means that someone from 1910 would look at your two postings about coils and think that you were living in a fantasy land.

The point behind my simple circuit and the question is to see if you can demonstrate to the readers the most basic fundamental understanding of how a coil works.  I am not suggesting the question to "fail the quest you are on," rather, I am suggesting the question because it is so basic and I know that you won't be able to answer it.   So you can talk on and on about all of the pseudoelectronics talk, but you can't answer the most basic question to show that you understand how an inductor works.  That's to make you think and also frankly to give the readers an opportunity to consider your whole pitch.  You are afraid of the question.

Finally, almost none of that mumbo jumbo you talked about in your two postings cold be verified on the bench, and by reading your prose it's obvious you don't have the bench skills to verify them even if you wanted to.

That's it Jbignes5, I am not going to force the issue.  My posting is a posting on principle.  You make a mockery of science and electronics and you aren't even self-aware or you are in denial.  I set the record straight for the readers and they can make up their own minds.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 09, 2013, 04:17:08 AM
Jbignes5:

You are the one that doesn't have a clue at all.

You are citing a very legitimate example about a scientist on the cutting edge not being able to convince his peers, it happens all the time.  It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms.

The major problem is that you are trying to draw an analogy with what you are doing and the introduction of the LASER in the early 1960s and nothing could be further from the truth.  You are simply talking clueless pseudoscience junk.  So much of it in fact that it's not worth rebutting it point by point.

Nor are you talking about anything on the cutting edge, you are talking about an inductor.  This is a basic building block of electronics.  It's something that has been understood for more than a century.  So that means that someone from 1910 would look at your two postings about coils and think that you were living in a fantasy land.

The point behind my simple circuit and the question is to see if you can demonstrate to the readers the most basic fundamental understanding of how a coil works.  I am not suggesting the question to "fail the quest you are on," rather, I am suggesting the question because it is so basic and I know that you won't be able to answer it.   So you can talk on and on about all of the pseudoelectronics talk, but you can't answer the most basic question to show that you understand how an inductor works.  That's to make you think and also frankly to give the readers an opportunity to consider your whole pitch.  You are afraid of the question.

Finally, almost none of that mumbo jumbo you talked about in your two postings cold be verified on the bench, and by reading your prose it's obvious you don't have the bench skills to verify them even if you wanted to.

That's it Jbignes5, I am not going to force the issue.  My posting is a posting on principle.  You make a mockery of science and electronics and you aren't even self-aware or you are in denial.  I set the record straight for the readers and they can make up their own minds.

MileHigh


"It's actually part of a healthy process and of course now science has embraced the LASER in all its forms."

Now see, this is where I have issue with some of your replies. You make it seem like everything has been found out about everything. In your statement I put in quotes above, you are claiming that everything about lasers and what they can be used for has already been done and there is nothing left to find. That is wrong. I see new things that lasers are used for all the time. Maybe there hasnt been for 2 months lets say. Does that mean there done and thats all? Well I guess so, till someone comes up with something new, when ever that happens. And it does. Your statement discourages innovation. It discourages possible discovery of new kinds of apple pie! lol

Is that statement something you want to stick with? Or does it need editing for correction? ;)

The same goes for bifilar coils. Not 'everything' has been tried yet. I mean like, is there only one kind of apple pie? Are there only a small number of types of apple pie? Is it impossible to bake an apple pie that might taste better than any apple pie ever made before? ;) Now, the books you might have read may say there are only so many kinds of apple pie, and thats all there is or can be. If we went to a baking forum, Im sure many would be up for the 'Can there be a new apple pie' challenge. ;) Would you reply to them calling them pseudobakers? Accuse them of bakery??  lol

Im putting in the time on this one and so far, lets just say Im not discouraged. ;)

Lets just say what I have learned so far, is what direction I need to go with it.  ;D


Mags

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 05:38:58 AM
Magluvin:

You are reading into my simple sentence that you quoted and extrapolating and drawing the wrong conclusions.  I am fully aware that the photonics industry is amazing and new things are being developed on a daily basis.  In the 1990s I worked in the photonics industry and used to flip through Photonics Spectra magazine.  It was a "hard core" magazine and I mostly just read the headlines and flipped though it.   I did the search and this is what came up:

http://photonics.com/ (http://photonics.com/)

Honestly, the whole photonics industry is absolutely mind blowing.  It's amazing to think how it just materialized out of nowhere (more or less.)

For coils, on the other hand, that's a pretty established and understood thing.  Many people that read this forum may not be aware that there is an entire magnetics industry and it has been around for a very long time.

http://www.intl-magnetics.org/aboutima.php (http://www.intl-magnetics.org/aboutima.php)

Seasoned professionals in the magnetics industry would read Jbignes5's postings and either laugh, or look for a straightjacket.

Here is the real point that I think sums it up nicely:  Any coil, and I mean any coil, will have it inductance and frequency response characteristics, and the associated stray capacitance characteristics, the DC pulse response characteristics, magnetic field pattern, etc.  Certainly there is room for a lot of variation when you look at those characteristics.  But the key point is that they are still all fundamentally coils and will work as per the differential and integral equations that define that two-terminal device.

Why do I say, "two-terminal device?"  Because when you strip it down to the bare bones, all that you have is two terminals and you can apply some sort of stimulus to those two terminals (pulse, AC, etc.) and then see how those two terminals respond.  You can put any kind of inductor across those two terminals hidden inside a black box and by observing how those two terminals respond you can deduce that there is an inductor connected to those two terminals.  (That's why I hate the fact that you guys call the Tesla cola a "bifilar" coil.)

So you can put any standard coil, or a Tesla series bifilar coil, or a Rodin coil across those two terminals and by making measurements you can determine that yes indeed it is a coil and then you can determine the other parameters.

In that sense, a "Rodin coil" or a "Rodin starship coil" are simply exercises in nonsensical folly.  The star points don't do much, they might add a smidgen of extra capacitance.  There is nothing that a "Rodin" coil can do that a regular coil can't do better and more efficiently.

MileHigh

P.S.:  Part two coming up.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 05:58:46 AM
Part two - just to make it more manageable....

Let's assume that there are some niche applications for the Tesla series bifilar pancake coil.  That's all fine and dandy, it just represents the application of coil technology to meet certain design requirements.   For example they use regular pancake coils to induce eddy currents into pots and pans in an induction stove.  That's great, but is it some kind of amazing thing that is "outside the norm of conventional electronics?"  The answer is absolutely not.

So my challenge stands, if anybody can demonstrate something totally amazing and out of the ordinary about the Tesla series bifilar coil, or they can come up with a special unique application that is outside the realm of "conventional electronics" then bring it on and we can discuss it.  If nobody can do that then my previous comments stand.  There is no magic to the Tesla series bifilar patent from the late 19th century, none.  Instead of studying the patent, you should be studying how an inductor works first to give yourself a foundation to work from.  The same applies to capacitors and transistors and MOSFETs.  I have seen people that have been building pulse motors for two or more years and they have an oscilloscope but they still don't know how to use their scope to check how well or poorly the transistor is functioning in their pulse motor.

But when you get into what Jbignes5 says about the Tesla series bifilar coil, most of it is ridiculous nonsense.  I dropped into a recent EF thread about the same stuff and about half of the posters are posting similar fantastical claims and they clearly believe what they are posting.

I am not here to save the world and in the final analysis I don't care, it's just a forum.  But there are some real principles involved and it's fun to state the truth and expose the people that try to sound authoritative for what they really are.  Look at the case of the person that got his hand ripped to shreds by the ball bearing motor.  Perhaps one day an amateur experimenter, egged on by someone like Jbignes5, will be be doing some crazy experiment with a big coil and emitting tons of RF noise.  On the other side of his apartment wall there will be somebody in bed  hooked up to some kind of neural stimulator and the RF noise will fry the neural stimulator and crash it.  Then the person hooked up to the now dead neural stimulator will have a brain seizure and die.  (Has anybody looked at Itsu's clips where he scrambles the brains of his modern DSO when he makes his spikes go too high in voltage?)

So seriously, to everybody, don't listen to Jbignes5's talk about inductors.  The guy doesn't even understand how one works.  I say this from reading many of his postings over the years and from my own technical background.  By all means have fun experimenting but don't listen to Jbignes5's crap.  Find other legit sources of information and have some fun.  There are literally hundreds of legitimate YouTube clips that teach you the basics about electronics.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 09, 2013, 02:28:11 PM
 Ok so here was my point about the last link. In my real research that others here like milehigh shun or should I call him Verpies. Yes his speeches definitely sound just like Verpies. In fact Verpies is known to have multiple accounts. See Verpies has a thing for me and any time he can he uses his alt accounts to try and discredit me. This makes me think I'm really onto something here.


 So back to the direction I was going.


 Lets look at what current science knows about my last link. The Laser. This set of clips is about the laser. I know what does this have to do with the bifilar coil. Well.. To be honest not much but lets look at where it parallels magnetic interactions. And yes from what we know today light is just a electro magnetic phenomena.


  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgivGZqFcfY    Part 1
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR0LmJbcUxU Part 2
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXGBmExbumI Part 3a
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVqoVl-CYKo   Part 3b


 Just hear me out with these. If we understand that light is a wave and that in these teachings they show us how to create an oscillator for light then we should be able to do the same thing with slower magnetic phenomena right? Isn't that what is being taught here.


 What I am proposing is a new kind of oscillator that is much like a Laser. The gain medium would be matter like powder ferrite rods. Much like a laser uses a gain medium of ruby or gasses we would use what magnetic medium is good for it. The only gain medium we could use would be ferrite or iron. Since iron would be too much of a loss then there are some nice high permeable ferrites on the market. When you watch the videos keep in mind that you can always substitute electromagnetism for light. Even in the examples of oscillators they give they have a plain tank oscillator as an example. Yes it would be slower but it is the same concept. A magnetic field laser to run the oscillations into our coil.


 Don't pay attention to Milehigh. He is not here to find anything outside of his little safe box. He is not here for overunity research, he is here to debunk Overunity and to discredit the ones who are here in honesty for this community to find a better solution to our current problems. This is what they do. In order to work in this field we must form a hardened armor against such people. Do not let them distract you with their mumbo jumbo and attacks on yours and my credibility. Forge ahead and do the experiments. See for yourself what is going on. If you fail then try again and again and again. Watch and observe the experiment and record your findings. Forge on without paying attention to the ones who make a living off of all of us. They are parasites to the human condition. They bleed us of our precious time and imagination and stifle the creative process because it would not gain them anything.

 Milehigh is not here for anything but to keep the status Quo. He has admitted this. He is here to keep the sheeple just that, sheeple. They do not want another Tesla because he would free us from the chains that bind us. Those chains are cleverly devised over tens or hundreds of years. They chain us with their math and keep us from making sense of the now labeled "anomalous" transients. Now back to the discussion.

 My original thought was to design something that was proof positive that this concept and observations are in fact based in reality. Not to listen to little men who make tons of cash off of you and me and shun anything that breaks that control over us. Just like the creator of the original light laser we must not listen to the detractors and do the experiments and learn what is real. Not what is chaining us as slaves to these guys. Do not let them stifle your wonder or chain your imagination. If others had listened to them where would we be today?

 So what is this question Milehigh? In all of this you have never even asked the question. In fact you have done nothing but say how wrong I have been about even the most simple of inductors? WHATS IS THE QUESTION oh Wonderful OZ.

 Here is something I bet you didn't know all knowing OZ. I have a degree in Electronic Technician. I have worked in the field as an electronics technician for over 10 years professionally. I have worked in the field of computers as a Computer Technician for over 20 years and I do not take this area of interest lightly. I was the best warranty Technician at the company I worked for. I was a sub-contractor for many Computer stores for 15 of those 20 years.

 Here is a question for you. What makes up a magnetic field, heck what makes up an electric field? How can these fields have order (lines)? None of these questions have been or can be answered. Yet you believe them. If not then Coil theory goes out the door because they talk about lines cutting the matter of the copper. Your theories are bunk and full of made up concepts and just because you created math to prove them does not make them any more real then what I am proposing or what I have experienced in my whole life. Care to explain what causes a toroid transformer to work? Shall we explain that one? If there is a core and the core acts like a sponge to the magnetic field then how does the toroid work? The magnetic field is supposed to be inside of the circular iron or core material, then how does the magnetic field lines cut the wire on the secondary even on the lowest of power levels? From the current understanding it can not cut the secondary, yet it does by all explanations.

 So to answer the absurd example posed by MileHigh. Who are you to tell me about the dangers of experimenting. I know full well what the dangers are and in many of my postings I have always talked about safety of the experimenter. If one is experimenting in this field they better know the dangers of that experimenting. You posed some ridiculous example of me scrambling someones brain? WTF is that about? A neural stimulator is used for muscle stimulation not brain stimulation? What kind of crap is that? If it is a medical device your talking about, why would someone be using a neural stimulator that was not designed with shielding to protect the device?

 Now you are making up absurd claims of harming others to make your attack have any meaning? Really?

 In the first place I never experiment around others. I have done most of my experiments in the basement completely surrounded by the ground and no one above me. To make such an absurd claim is getting desperate and very pointless. Anyone who knows me personally or on these forums knows that I am all about safety when experimenting with any experiment.

 Lets talk about safety of our current AC system. Have you ever walked around your house with a good EMF meter? Do you know that AC from the wires is broadcasted into our bodies by this system? Did you know that people living under power lines have a 30% higher chance of getting Cancers? So to speak about safety at this point is absurd. The current system will kill you faster then a Tesla type device ever designed. In fact Tesla when experimenting with his impulses and the Longitudinal wave said at the proper cycles per second that it was most beneficial to the human condition. That most life including Plant life thrives in it's radiations with the proper cycles a second. This value is starting at around 2k a second.

 If you are trying to state that I'm using RF you couldn't be further from the truth. Impulse technology is not Hertzian. Hertzian waves are Transverse waves not longitudinal waves. They propagate in two different methods. Of which you have no idea because you reject the concepts before you even know anything about them. When using the bifilar coil you must use Longitudinal waves, not herttzian waves. No wonder you didn't see anything from the bifilar coil thread that you dropped in on and never did the experiments to prove anything, either to yourself or others, this because of your limited belief system and you lack of understanding and experience with Tesla technology.

 You are out of your field here and I respectfully ask you to not comment on my posts again until you educate yourself on these topics Verpies. The evidence that you are an alt of Verpies is damning. You have the same style of writing and the same misconceptions as Verpies. The same below the belt attacks as Verpies too. Just give it up ok. You are not gonna stop me or anyone else from researching this technology. End of story.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 07:20:39 PM
Jbignes5:

I am not Verpies.  Certainly I have seen his name on the forums and must have read his postings.

Quote
See Verpies has a thing for me and any time he can he uses his alt accounts to try and discredit me. This makes me think I'm really onto something here.

Rosemary Ainslie says similar things but certainly she isn't onto something.

Quote
Don't pay attention to Milehigh. He is not here to find anything outside of his little safe box. He is not here for overunity research, he is here to debunk Overunity and to discredit the ones who are here in honesty for this community to find a better solution to our current problems. This is what they do. In order to work in this field we must form a hardened armor against such people. Do not let them distract you with their mumbo jumbo and attacks on yours and my credibility. Forge ahead and do the experiments. See for yourself what is going on. If you fail then try again and again and again. Watch and observe the experiment and record your findings. Forge on without paying attention to the ones who make a living off of all of us. They are parasites to the human condition. They bleed us of our precious time and imagination and stifle the creative process because it would not gain them anything.

That's the old cliche of the paranoid manifesto.  I am just here for fun and to comment on stuff from time to time.  Like I discussed qualifying a coil as a two-terminal device.  Did you read that?  I make a living off of being here?  In your fantasies only Jbignes5.  I am a parasite on the human condition?  That's a goodie.  The truth is a substantial number of "free energy professionals" are parasites on the human condition.  John Rohner of Inteligentry is one of many many examples.

Quote
Milehigh is not here for anything but to keep the status Quo. He has admitted this. He is here to keep the sheeple just that, sheeple. They do not want another Tesla because he would free us from the chains that bind us. Those chains are cleverly devised over tens or hundreds of years. They chain us with their math and keep us from making sense of the now labeled "anomalous" transients. Now back to the discussion.

Manifesto part 2 and it's the same old story.  I am not here to "keep the status quo," you are just constructing a form of Straw Man argument.  I would be thrilled if someone solved our energy problems with some new ideas.  Sometimes when someone makes comments that are so off base and nonsensical that they can corrupt other people's understanding of electronics I will comment.  That's exactly what you did so I commented.

Quote
So what is this question Milehigh? In all of this you have never even asked the question. In fact you have done nothing but say how wrong I have been about even the most simple of inductors? WHATS IS THE QUESTION oh Wonderful OZ.

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

Quote
Here is a question for you. What makes up a magnetic field, heck what makes up an electric field? How can these fields have order (lines)? None of these questions have been or can be answered.

I know those questions are right out of the free energy enthusiast playbook where it says ask them if someone is talking technical with you and you need a diversion.

Quote
Your theories are bunk and full of made up concepts and just because you created math to prove them does not make them any more real then what I am proposing or what I have experienced in my whole life.

So it appears that you are anti-math because math is hard.  And then you dismiss the theories that bring you heat and light and power your computer and run the guts inside your computer?  So does that mean you are in favour of the dumbing down of society?  lol

I will respond more in part 2.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 09, 2013, 07:28:34 PM
 Respond to this then:


 http://www.overunity.com/10043/litmus-test-fail-by-milehigh/

 On second thought just don't respond ok. Your credibility is null.

 "I know those questions are right out of the free energy enthusiast playbook where it says ask them if someone is talking technical with you and you need a diversion."

 It is not a diversion it is a valid question that is much like yours, a diversion did you call it? So your question when getting beat up so bad is to divert the Focus of this topic.

 Here is another good question. Lets look at when you use impulses into the very same coil? What happens. Now what happens when you apply those impulses to the bifilar coil. <- this you don't know at all since you have done zero work at all in this field. I mean for gods sake you don't even know that transistors can be made at home and relatively easy too.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qph8BNrnLY

 This is a person who is demystifying electronics. Completely explains everything in the process and is able to do it at home. Please just stop with the crap you are pushing.

 For the last time I am not anti math but when you apply mathematics to explain something why the need to make things up to make it work like the electron? Then apply all that made up math to support your other crap claims.

 The first link IS who you are and when called out you either ignore it and switch the subject or you spout crap and expect people to take it for granted that it is fact.

 I on the other hand am not stating a fact I am stating my direction in experiments that I think will help us understand energy with a complete concept. These are experiments that are scheduled to be done and I posted them here because they are relevant to the discussion in this thread.

 Your intent is to discredit, attack or even discourage people to ask why or how and then prove it to them selves.

 Again the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.

 Bifilar coils will in my opinion excel in impulse technology since there is nothing in the way of a very high voltage or current impulse. This will allow the coil to convert all of the impulse into the other two components. These impulses as seen by my laser example can have values into the extreme wattage values. Mostly due to the very high currents involved. And with a new oscillator like I proposed getting those high voltage impulses would be very easy and better then solid state products now that can not handle such huge currents or voltages.

 So again for someone who doesn't know much about this process I would just stay quiet before you leave this forum like you did at the other forum.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_generator

 And as for your last statement the only dumbing down of society is you and how you are debasing the free thinkers of our society for fun as you put it. So continue to act like a fool and attacking me and others I will be talking to the owner of this forum, Stephan. This will only be done if you continue to attack me or others.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 07:56:13 PM
Jbignes5:

Okay here we go with part 2.

Quote
Care to explain what causes a toroid transformer to work? Shall we explain that one? If there is a core and the core acts like a sponge to the magnetic field then how does the toroid work? The magnetic field is supposed to be inside of the circular iron or core material, then how does the magnetic field lines cut the wire on the secondary even on the lowest of power levels? From the current understanding it can not cut the secondary, yet it does by all explanations.

See, here Jbignes5, you are just exposing yourself as being clueless about electronics and also as being a bad influence on anybody learning about electronics.  I am just speechless that you are even posing these questions.  I suppose that the conclusion is that you don't understand how a toroidal transformer works.  What is implied by that is that you don't understand the basic concepts about magnetics.

Quote
So to answer the absurd example posed by MileHigh. Who are you to tell me about the dangers of experimenting.

I gave a purely hypothetical example not to be taken literally.  Even the comment about a "neural stimulator" was purely hypothetical and not to be taken literally.  But the message is valid:  "Teaching" people nonsensical incorrect stuff about electronics so that they don't have a clue what they are doing but they believe that they know what they are doing could put an experimenter at risk.

Quote
The current system will kill you faster then a Tesla type device ever designed. In fact Tesla when experimenting with his impulses and the Longitudinal wave said at the proper cycles per second that it was most beneficial to the human condition. That most life including Plant life thrives in it's radiations with the proper cycles a second. This value is starting at around 2k a second.

You are just talking more Tesla fantasy fan boi talk there Jbignes5.

Quote
If you are trying to state that I'm using RF you couldn't be further from the truth. Impulse technology is not Hertzian. Hertzian waves are Transverse waves not longitudinal waves. They propagate in two different methods.

Has anybody done the "moon bounce test" yet to prove that longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves?  No?  This is just more fan boi talk.  When you work on your bench and say to yourself "I am working with impulse technology using longitudinal waves" your are just fooling yourself.  When you work on the bench what you observe is reality staring you in the face.  You are then superimposing your Tesla fantasies on what you see and drawing incorrect conclusions.  That's the crux of the problem.  Do you know how many times I have been told by beginning experimenters that "this is 'cold' electricity and not understood by conventional science?"  Of course it's not "cold" electricity at all, they simply don't understand what they are observing and they have been corrupted by people like you.  That's a serious issue.

Quote
When using the bifilar coil you must use Longitudinal waves, not herttzian waves.

Big Tesla is watching you.  Ignorance is Truth.

Quote
You have the same style of writing and the same misconceptions as Verpies.

Well I am not Verpies and you are the one with misconceptions.  I know I am not going to stop you from doing your thing.  At times though people like you should be called out to account for what you say.  It's a healthy process and we need it.  Without it there is a danger that your power of "ignorance and dumbing down" will adversely affect too many people.  A person with a limited and corrupted grasp of basic electronics needs to be held in check from time to time.  You stated a lot of fantastical and nonsensical stuff about the Tesla "cap coil" and I decided to comment.  It's unlikely that I will get into a full debate with you again.

My advice to you is to learn the basics about electronics and it will help you a lot and also give you a new and better understanding of Tesla.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 08:07:58 PM
Jbignes5:

Quote
Respond to this then:


 http://www.overunity.com/10043/litmus-test-fail-by-milehigh/ (http://www.overunity.com/10043/litmus-test-fail-by-milehigh/)

 On second thought just don't respond ok. Your credibility is null.

You are pointing to an old thread where I already responded.

So you are trying deflection again.  I asked you the question and you are unable to answer it:

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

Think about this:  You made two long postings all about the Tesla "cap coil" a.k.a "series bifilar" coil extolling all the virtues for this device and making all sorts of outlandish and nonsensical claims about it and sounding very authoritative about it.

So I ask you to give us the solution for one of the simplest circuits possible that has only one component connected to the power supply, a coil.  And you can't answer the question.

It's your credibility that is null, dude.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 09, 2013, 08:41:10 PM
Jbignes5:

You are pointing to an old thread where I already responded.

So you are trying deflection again.  I asked you the question and you are unable to answer it:

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

Think about this:  You made two long postings all about the Tesla "cap coil" a.k.a "series bifilar" coil extolling all the virtues for this device and making all sorts of outlandish and nonsensical claims about it and sounding very authoritative about it.

So I ask you to give us the solution for one of the simplest circuits possible that has only one component connected to the power supply, a coil.  And you can't answer the question.

It's your credibility that is null, dude.

MileHigh


 I answered your question but like some people on this forum you are not so patient when looking at the forum. And as usual you have no clue as to my credentials. I told you the credentials and how long I have been in this field of electronics but you ignore such things. I have nothing to prove to you and to tell you the truth you can not stop me period or the concepts that Tesla and many others were or are working on.

 In fact you are the one who hasn't answered one question that I posed. Hmmmm
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 09, 2013, 08:51:02 PM

 I answered your question but like some people on this forum you are not so patient when looking at the forum. And as usual you have no clue as to my credentials. I told you the credentials and how long I have been in this field of electronics but you ignore such things. I have nothing to prove to you and to tell you the truth you can not stop me period or the concepts that Tesla and many others were or are working on.


This Milehigh guy sends everyone back to first grade including Tesla. The bifilar coil capacitance changes with the charge unlike the jackass contraprtion he says does the same work. He would need to scarf a variable capacitor, or radio tuner onto his single wire coil to get it to match the bifilar's performance!  
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 11:05:28 PM
Jbignes5:

I have some closing comments and that's most likely it because my points will have been made.

For the transistor issue.  I learned about how they get silicon and purify it.  I can't remember what the purification steps are.  Then they melt it so that the silicon is just above the melting point.  Then they take a seed crystal of pure silicon and touch it to the surface of the molten silicon and slowly draw it up and the molten silicon starts to form a large ingot of near-perfect crystallized silicon.  That might take a few weeks if I recall.  Then they slice that into thin wafers.  Then the thin wavers are bombarded with a spray of aluminum or phosphorus atoms in a vacuum chamber (if I recall correctly) in combination with a photo-lithography process to "dope" the silicon into "N" and "P" regions to make the PN and NP junctions to make transistors.  Then the wafers are cut up into dice and packaged into transistors.  This process requires multi-million dollar machines in a wafer fabrication plant that typically costs billions of dollars.

Now, I was ignorant of the fact that in the 1950s people used to look for various minerals and cleave them and put them together to make home-made transistors.  Since I was ignorant of this, mainly because I am not from that generation, and my only frame of reference was a multi-billion dollar wafer fabrication plant, I said what I said and I was wrong.  So I made a mistake out of ignorance and I have no apologies for thinking like that because it seemed too far fetched to me that you could make a transistor yourself.  None the less, in the thread I apologized for my mistake after learning that you can indeed make your own transistors.

Quote
It is not a diversion it is a valid question

Here we are revisiting the "what is an electric field?/what does water taste like?" issue.   Here is an analogy for you:  You need new tires for your car and you go to the tire dealer.  The salesman starts to show you the latest models of tires and the prices, etc.   But you look at the salesman and stop him.   You say to him, "What is rubber, really?  What is a polymer chain, really?"  The salesman will look at you like you are nuts.  We are talking about the Tesla patent for the "series bifilar" coil here.  We are not talking about what electric fields and magnetic fields _really_ are.  That's just a diversion that I have seen many times before.

Quote
Here is another good question. Lets look at when you use impulses into the very same coil? What happens. Now what happens when you apply those impulses to the bifilar coil. <- this you don't know at all since you have done zero work at all in this field

I can't answer that question because you are not posing it correctly.  I doubt that you are aware of that fact.  What's the circuit?  I have done lots of work on the bench believe me.

Quote
I on the other hand am not stating a fact I am stating my direction in experiments that I think will help us understand energy with a complete concept.  Your intent is to discredit, attack or even discourage people to ask why or how and then prove it to them selves.

When I challenged you, I challenged you to make you think, to help you and the audience to understand energy, and most importantly to give the audience a balanced viewpoint so that they can make up their minds for themselves.  I am not discrediting or attacking, I am giving you the truth.  Will you understand what's going on on your bench or will you see it all through the lens of your dogma?  Will you be open to all ideas?  Those are important issues for you to contemplate.

Okay, I will break this up into two parts.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 09, 2013, 11:28:05 PM
Jbignes5:

Here is the biggie:

Quote
Again the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.

I will repeat that I am assuming that we are talking about the Tesla patent, "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS," as per the title of this thread.

The coil will have the same "push back" a.k.a. inductance as a similar regular coil if you give it a DC energizing pulse.  This can be easily verified on the bench.

Special attention to this comment from you, "besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void."

They don't put the kind of coil we are talking about in wire-wound resistors.  So you are in the clouds here.  You can buy wire-wound resistors where the turns of the wire go clockwise and counter-clockwise to eliminate as much of the inductance in the wire as possible through magnetic flux self-cancellation.  This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.  So your dogma just got corrected.  See you got lucky and you have me here to educate you a bit.

Quoting you again, "But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance."

Only at the main resonant frequency.  In other words this only applies for AC excitation of the coil.  I get the strong feeling  that you thought that this cancellation of self-inductance applied to all aspects of the coil.  You need to do some soul searching Jbignes5 and open up some books.

So please think about these things Jbignes5.  No need for you to go running to "mommy" because you had a strong debate with someone on the forum.  There is a very strong peer pressure in places like this that says "I don't dare correct the posting my friend made."  I am 100% sure that you have made postings where you say stuff that I took issue with, like from your first two big postings in this thread, but nobody said anything even though your friends knew that you were wrong.  I will coin a new term for that, "Orwellian stagnation."

Finally, you clearly did not answer my question about the coil connected to the voltage source.  If you think that I am supposed to extract the answer to my question from the big paragraph in your last posting then you got the answer wrong.  So if you are up to trying again, go for it and quote the question and supply your answer.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 09, 2013, 11:56:39 PM

 Easily verified. You are a liar and here is the proof:


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE

 Since some work has been done on this already I think I shall continue without your tripe interfering.

 Strong debate is one thing but you are a person that likes to debase anything you don't understand. You get off on it and it is easily seen from your previous post history that you enjoy debasing people because they don't follow your path. This debasing is a multiple technique that you use. If you can not win you insult people and if that doesn't work you try to make other people afraid to experiment along the lines of the intended thread.

 Stop please. You are no more credible then the ones who oppose anything they don't understand or even didn't do any bench work ever. Stick to subjects you have experience with. Oh wait you are I guess... Because this is all that you do from your post history. Again why is it you have the same logical fallacies that Verpies has shown in the past with his various multiple accounts on here and your post style mimics his exactly? Never mind you statements have been proven wrong now go away and let us finish our investigations before I get mommy involved.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 10, 2013, 12:25:15 AM
Jbignes5:

That experiment is flawed and even if it wasn't flawed what would it prove?  Differently wound coils can couple differently?  Wow that really confirms all of your "mind blowing" statements.

You couldn't answer my question about the circuit with a single inductor as the only component in the circuit.  Why should anyone listen to you about coils with that fact now established?  Don't you want to know the answer?  Do you have enough character to ask me to explain the answer to you?

For what it's worth, you were the first one to tell me that I was clueless in our debate.  I am not Verpies and you could use some character and debate like a man.  Nor am I out to debase people, I challenged you on your quasi educational stance in your postings where almost all that you posted about the Tesla "series bifilar" coil was wrong.  I challenged your ideas and statements, I didn't try to debase you.  Don't play the spin game.

Electronics is not some Tesla-inspired fantasy land.  It's real, real electronics make the world go round.  It's the largest industry in the world.  The debate is done and we have both made our points and the readers can decide for themselves.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 10, 2013, 12:47:56 AM
 It proves you were wrong about the difference of the two coils. Now go argue your tripe somewhere else. It proves you are wrong that there is nothing special about the coil.

 And again I answered your question. But you never answered my questions as expected.

 As for your statement about a Tesla inspired electronics fantasy land? Who exactly do you think designed the AC system you use now? Or concepts like radio transmission?

 I am trying to be civil here. You are not. " I challenged you on your quasi educational stance" and this is not debasing me? I do not wish to detract from our original conversation any further. You are derailing the thread and you are disrupting the thread. The evidence is clear there are big differences between the coils. And that was my original assertion. Everything else is proposed experiments and of course is being left to experiment on to validate. For which you responded with a statement that I might get someone hurt. That is a low tactic. Go back to the Mary Ainsely thread and get your rocks off there.

 This is the last time I respond to you "Friend".

 Here is a good way to show your ignorance of Tesla technology. This guy knows as much as you probably (nil). He doesn't even know anything about Tesla and his statements show it. Was that you in the front row?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A63u3i_O4AQ
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 10, 2013, 01:01:30 AM
Jbignes5:

Please clearly show me where you answered my question.  Please tell me what questions you want answered and I will answer them.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 10, 2013, 02:42:07 AM
Jbignes5:

I looked at the gentleman's clip and it was very good.  It would be good for you to look at all of of his clips and and absorb the information.  It's a shame that his clips have so few views because he obviously put a lot of effort into producing them and he looks like a seasoned retired person with a wealth of experience in electronics to share.

As far as the Wardenclyffe tower goes, it was a viable early attempt at very long distance communications.  But the notion of using it to power ships at sea or power individual houses in cities goes, that would never have worked.  It's simply too inefficient, and most of the broadcast power would never make it to the end users, it would be lost.  Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge, Tesla did not have the time or finances or technology to broadcast thousands of megawatts of power though the air.  It would never have been a viable solution because perhaps for every kilowatt of power broadcast into the air, perhaps a few watts at best would make it to the end user.  So that would mean a lot of coal or oil would be burned for nothing which would be unacceptable.  The ridiculously low efficiency would make it too expensive.  Finally, nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air.  People simply would not accept that.   So ultimately, it was an early experimental communications tower.

I have made a valuable contribution to this thread.  Instead of a bunch of back-slapping were people post that the Tesla "series bifilar" coil is the greatest thing since sliced bread, people hopefully are using their critical thinking skills and thinking more seriously about this coil.  Your argument that TK's clip shows something special because the coupling is different (which would likely be confirmed if the clip was redone and the errors corrected) is not correct.  I can wind another coil with a different geometry and the coupling will be different again.

My argument is that right now it appears the patent may have been a stop-gap measure to make an LC resonator, and no more than that.  It appears that the coil configuration is no more than a curiosity that never saw any serious application.

So I have a challenge posed to the readership of this thread and the experimenters to demonstrate something truly out of the ordinary or especially unique and advantageous associated with this "series bifilar" Tesla coil that's based on inter-woven windings of two half-coils put together.  That rules out showing that it can act like an LC resonator.  Even an ordinary coil can act as an LC resonator, and the real-world way to make an LC resonator is to mate an ordinary coil with a capacitor.  The notion that like "magic" you can quickly pump current into the coil when you DC pulse it is false, and I have covered that several times now.  There is no logical reason for that to happen.  The notion that it can produce a stronger magnetic field as compared to a similar regular coil is also false.  All of the fantastical attributes you assigned to this coil in your original two postings are also not true.  If you disagree, please by all means make a clip demonstrating your proposition.

So the challenge is still open.  Right now this coil is only marginally different from an equivalent regular coil.  I can only guess that Tesla was experimenting with an LC resonator for temporary energy storage but the project went nowhere.

You have to understand that Tesla's technology is something like five human generations removed from where we are now and in technological generations it's more like 50 generations.  Tesla didn't "invent" AC power, what he really did was apply existing knowledge and engineer a system based on the concept of AC induction.  That in itself is a major accomplishment and it was responsible for bringing power to the masses and changing the world.

So unless there is something remarkable that someone can bring to the discussion about the series bifilar Tesla coil, it looks to me like we are looking at a curiosity at best.

The problem Jbignes5 is that people see a patent from the 19th century and say to themselves, "I will use this patent to make an amazing pulse motor!!!"  In other words they read stuff into the patent that is simply not there.  Amateur experimenters make an incorrect connection between the 19th century patent and their pulse motors, among other things.

So you are welcome to bring something new and valuable to the table, preferably with a serious YouTube clip that is properly set up and properly explained with all of your measurements and conclusions properly documented in the clip itself.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 10, 2013, 04:14:58 AM
Jbignes5:

I looked at the gentleman's clip and it was very good.  It would be good for you to look at all of of his clips and and absorb the information.  It's a shame that his clips have so few views because he obviously put a lot of effort into producing them and he looks like a seasoned retired person with a wealth of experience in electronics to share.

As far as the Wardenclyffe tower goes, it was a viable early attempt at very long distance communications.  But the notion of using it to power ships at sea or power individual houses in cities goes, that would never have worked.  It's simply too inefficient, and most of the broadcast power would never make it to the end users, it would be lost.  Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge, Tesla did not have the time or finances or technology to broadcast thousands of megawatts of power though the air.  It would never have been a viable solution because perhaps for every kilowatt of power broadcast into the air, perhaps a few watts at best would make it to the end user.  So that would mean a lot of coal or oil would be burned for nothing which would be unacceptable.  The ridiculously low efficiency would make it too expensive.  Finally, nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air.  People simply would not accept that.   So ultimately, it was an early experimental communications tower.

I have made a valuable contribution to this thread.  Instead of a bunch of back-slapping were people post that the Tesla "series bifilar" coil is the greatest thing since sliced bread, people hopefully are using their critical thinking skills and thinking more seriously about this coil.  Your argument that TK's clip shows something special because the coupling is different (which would likely be confirmed if the clip was redone and the errors corrected) is not correct.  I can wind another coil with a different geometry and the coupling will be different again.

My argument is that right now it appears the patent may have been a stop-gap measure to make an LC resonator, and no more than that.  It appears that the coil configuration is no more than a curiosity that never saw any serious application.

So I have a challenge posed to the readership of this thread and the experimenters to demonstrate something truly out of the ordinary or especially unique and advantageous associated with this "series bifilar" Tesla coil that's based on inter-woven windings of two half-coils put together.  That rules out showing that it can act like an LC resonator.  Even an ordinary coil can act as an LC resonator, and the real-world way to make an LC resonator is to mate an ordinary coil with a capacitor.  The notion that like "magic" you can quickly pump current into the coil when you DC pulse it is false, and I have covered that several times now.  There is no logical reason for that to happen.  The notion that it can produce a stronger magnetic field as compared to a similar regular coil is also false.  All of the fantastical attributes you assigned to this coil in your original two postings are also not true.  If you disagree, please by all means make a clip demonstrating your proposition.

So the challenge is still open.  Right now this coil is only marginally different from an equivalent regular coil.  I can only guess that Tesla was experimenting with an LC resonator for temporary energy storage but the project went nowhere.

You have to understand that Tesla's technology is something like five human generations removed from where we are now and in technological generations it's more like 50 generations.  Tesla didn't "invent" AC power, what he really did was apply existing knowledge and engineer a system based on the concept of AC induction.  That in itself is a major accomplishment and it was responsible for bringing power to the masses and changing the world.

So unless there is something remarkable that someone can bring to the discussion about the series bifilar Tesla coil, it looks to me like we are looking at a curiosity at best.

The problem Jbignes5 is that people see a patent from the 19th century and say to themselves, "I will use this patent to make an amazing pulse motor!!!"  In other words they read stuff into the patent that is simply not there.  Amateur experimenters make an incorrect connection between the 19th century patent and their pulse motors, among other things.

So you are welcome to bring something new and valuable to the table, preferably with a serious YouTube clip that is properly set up and properly explained with all of your measurements and conclusions properly documented in the clip itself.

MileHigh

"I have made a valuable contribution to this thread."

I think some things you say in this post contradict that statement.

You are hammering Jbigs about him posting what you see are untruths. Well what about your statement here...."As far as the Wardenclyffe tower goes, it was a viable early attempt at very long distance communications.  But the notion of using it to power ships at sea or power individual houses in cities goes, that would never have worked.  It's simply too inefficient, and most of the broadcast power would never make it to the end users, it would be lost."

Where did 'you' get that information from other than in your head??? You now need to prove or show reference you what is in quotes above. Show me your sources for what you are saying there.

Do you know what eventually happened to Wardenclyffe tower and why??



"Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge, Tesla did not have the time or finances or technology to broadcast thousands of megawatts of power though the air. "
Didnt have the time?????  Show me your sources 'to the best of your knowledge'. ;) Oh he had the finances, and do you know why those finances were taken away????

Or maybe your knowledge, well, isnt the best. ;) So far your way off. ;D




"Finally, nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air.  People simply would not accept that.   So ultimately, it was an early experimental communications tower."

Sources please.  If you cant provide the sources then you are inventing it as you go. I dont think there is a soul in this forum that would agree with you on any of that. ;)

nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air. ?????????????  Dude you act as if people knew about that stuff back then as well as how to milk the cows. You have got to be kidding!!!!  First you say that the technology back then was so basic and crude, but nobody would want to live in a city knowing that serious amounts of lower-frequency power was being broadcast through the air. ????????????? Do you not see the irony there dude?????  lol  its just silly talk. or your bipolar, a flip flopper. YOUR story has a lot of quakes in it. Not cracks, literal quakes.



"My argument is that right now it appears the patent may have been a stop-gap measure to make an LC resonator, and no more than that. "

First off, your argument before was that the freq of operation would be too high to be useful in any way for a pulse motor and now just an LC resonator and nothing more. The title of the patent exclaims elctro-magnet. many of Teslas patents would state in the title if it was of a high freq nature. I have sources. ;) Your arguments are imaginary. They are in your head and you are the first to say them. :P




"The problem Jbignes5 is that people see a patent from the 19th century and say to themselves, "I will use this patent to make an amazing pulse motor!!!"  In other words they read stuff into the patent that is simply not there.  Amateur experimenters make an incorrect connection between the 19th century patent and their pulse motors, among other things."

Soooo what dude. Ive said it before and Ill say it again. You hammer on this bifi stuff so relentlessly that I believe there must be something to it and you are here to discourage those that post about it when ever they do, again and again and again. Why is that?? You dont spank the Kapanadze crowd and look how much time and efforts people have wasted on that in a million directions. Why this coil and always this coil when it is brought up????? And thats a fact. It can be proven here without a doubt. This site is the source. And you even bring posts from Farmhand, as you must be following in the bifi coil thread at Energetic.  ;) Yep, you have an itch about this coil and it aint pretty. ;) ;D   You give me faith in this coil more and more with every utterance from your mouth about this coil. its encouraging. ;) But that doesnt mean I will let your false statements stand undebated. ;)



"Tesla didn't "invent" AC power, what he really did was apply existing knowledge and engineer a system based on the concept of AC induction.  That in itself is a major accomplishment and it was responsible for bringing power to the masses and changing the world."

Tesla did invent 'AC power' as we know it today. It was him that fought to prove it was better than DC.  You give him no credit at all. 8) You are a suppressor.  8)   Ive said it before and Im saying it again just as others have in these last pages. You put out disinformation and distort what is written about tesla. 8)

I was trying to keep my cool but you just opened the biggest can of stink Ive heard in a while. You better get your facts straight or provide sources for your statements, because clearly you have a lot of it wrong. ;)


Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 10, 2013, 05:25:38 AM
Magluvin:

Quote
Where did 'you' get that information from other than in your head???

Are you able to apply your intelligence and what you have leaned in your life or do you just want to ask these questions for some crazy reason?  You grew up in a world with broadcast TV and radio I assume?  You are 250 km away from the tower.  How big is your slice of the total available power if you have a 10-meter diameter antenna?

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d05596b465ce04f (http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d05596b465ce04f)

Quote
Do you know what eventually happened to Wardenclyffe tower and why??

I think the legend is that JP Morgan wanted to shut it down!

Quote
Didnt have the time?

How big was the power plant next to the tower?  I can't remember, perhaps he just tapped into the local available mains power?  I watched a few documentaries a few years ago and I don't remember much.  I suppose if I was a big Tesla fan I would remember more details.

Quote
If you cant provide the sources then you are inventing it as you go.

Granted 100 years ago people probably would not be concerned to be continuously bathed in high levels of low frequency EM power.  I was thinking in a modern context.

Quote
First off, your argument before was that the freq of operation would be too high to be useful in any way for a pulse motor

You are still confusing the AC and DC pulse applications of the coil.  I explained to you twice that the AC operation does not translate into fast current increase when you apply a DC pulse to the motor.  You wouldn't acknowledge your mistake and just slinked away.  I never commented on the resonant frequency and applied it to pulse motor applications.

Quote
I believe there must be something to it and you are here to discourage those that post about it when ever they do

Is somebody watching you Magluvin?  Are the feds shining a laser on your apartment window and listening in on your conversations and detecting the RPM of your pulse motor?

Quote
Tesla did invent 'AC power' as we know it today.

He engineered the production and transmission of AC power and certainly that required the invention of tons of stuff.  I think it was Faraday that discovered AC induction and in that sense perhaps you could say that he "invented" it.  There is another school of thought that says that AC induction was always there and we just needed the critical events of discovery and application.  So in my opinion I give credit to Faraday and Tesla respectively to those milestones.

Quote
You are a suppressor.

They are shining laser beams on all your windows Magluvin, I suggest that you cover them all up with cardboard.

Quote
I was trying to keep my cool but you just opened the biggest can of stink Ive heard in a while.

You said a while back that you were even more determined to do some testing.  Bring something new and exciting to the table Magluvin and we can all have a look at it.  Or perhaps the Tesla fanboys are just fawning over a patent that really doesn't do that much when you look at it rationally.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 10, 2013, 05:55:41 AM
Magluvin:

Are you able to apply your intelligence and what you have leaned in your life or do you just want to ask these questions for some crazy reason?  You grew up in a world with broadcast TV and radio I assume?  You are 250 km away from the tower.  How big is your slice of the total available power if you have a 10-meter diameter antenna?

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d05596b465ce04f (http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d05596b465ce04f)

I think the legend is that JP Morgan wanted to shut it down!

How big was the power plant next to the tower?  I can't remember, perhaps he just tapped into the local available mains power?  I watched a few documentaries a few years ago and I don't remember much.  I suppose if I was a big Tesla fan I would remember more details.

Granted 100 years ago people probably would not be concerned to be continuously bathed in high levels of low frequency EM power.  I was thinking in a modern context.

You are still confusing the AC and DC pulse applications of the coil.  I explained to you twice that the AC operation does not translate into fast current increase when you apply a DC pulse to the motor.  You wouldn't acknowledge your mistake and just slinked away.  I never commented on the resonant frequency and applied it to pulse motor applications.

Is somebody watching you Magluvin?  Are the feds shining a laser on your apartment window and listening in on your conversations and detecting the RPM of your pulse motor?

He engineered the production and transmission of AC power and certainly that required the invention of tons of stuff.  I think it was Faraday that discovered AC induction and in that sense perhaps you could say that he "invented" it.  There is another school of thought that says that AC induction was always there and we just needed the critical events of discovery and application.  So in my opinion I give credit to Faraday and Tesla respectively to those milestones.

They are shining laser beams on all your windows Magluvin, I suggest that you cover them all up with cardboard.

You said a while back that you were even more determined to do some testing.  Bring something new and exciting to the table Magluvin and we can all have a look at it.  Or perhaps the Tesla fanboys are just fawning over a patent that really doesn't do that much when you look at it rationally.

MileHigh

"I think the legend is that JP Morgan wanted to shut it down!"

Lol the legend. You are a suppressor. You 'think' but you know nothing. Why did he 'want it shut down'???? And how was it shut down????


"Granted 100 years ago people probably would not be concerned to be continuously bathed in high levels of low frequency EM power.  I was thinking in a modern context."

But you said it as if it were back then and like everyone was aware of these things. And you try to cover your butt with that crap???   8) 8)


"I can't remember, perhaps he just tapped into the local available mains power?  I watched a few documentaries a few years ago and I don't remember much."

See?? Right there. You are so full of speculation as if it were fact, and all from a documentary of which you admittedly dont remember much of!!!  It is you that is spreading the crap around, not Jbigs.  Or you do know Teslas history and you are posting disinformation in place of the truth. Which is it??? You do know, or you dont know much???? ;)   Either way it doesnt look good for you. 8) 8)



"Is somebody watching you Magluvin?  Are the feds shining a laser on your apartment window and listening in on your conversations and detecting the RPM of your pulse motor?"

lol, youre an idiot. Little suppressor boy. 8)



"So in my opinion I give credit to Faraday and Tesla respectively to those milestones."

Just as suppressors of Tesla do. Thats you.   8) 8)




"They are shining laser beams on all your windows Magluvin, I suggest that you cover them all up with cardboard."

Is that what you guys do these days, shine lasers into windows?  Interesting. Why would you want to do that? :-*



"Or perhaps the Tesla fanboys are just fawning over a patent that really doesn't do that much when you look at it rationally."

You seem to put a lot of time into this allegedly useless patent. For what?  There are no new readers or posters here, not enough to put up the continuous slobber of lies you dribble over and over again.  8) 8)


Its your credibility that is on the table here. You falsify info and declare it as fact. Then you claim you dont remember much about it all. Idiot. ;)


Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 10, 2013, 06:06:04 AM
I have a suggestion for you Magluvin:

Go back though Jbignes5's postings and pick his top 20 fantastical claims about the Tesla series bifilar coil and ask him for references.  Also ask him for the answer to the question about the big brain teaser circuit with the single component so he can establish some credibility.

I think that you can get duct tape real cheap on eBay.  lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 10, 2013, 06:08:02 AM
What a silly ass! 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 10, 2013, 06:14:43 AM
What's your answer to the brain teaser Synchro1?  lol
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 10, 2013, 01:36:15 PM
 Mags and everyone else just stop responding to the moron. He has shown that he is not in the field of electronics. That his memory about things is not so good and that his logical fallacies are soo deep that nothing makes sense when he opens his mouth.


 Just ignore him. Thats what I am going to do. He can not disrupt this process any longer because we have the ability to just ignore him. Exercise that ability and he will go away. If it becomes a real problem then I will be talking to Stephan about this. But for now he is harmless. Nothing he says makes sense and certainly his sketchy information has zero credibility. He has stated that this is for fun only which means it's a joke to him. To me it looks like he is a very small man with nothing better to do then disrupt conversations about legitimate subjects.


 Do a google search for milehigh and you will see his track record of this bad behavior on other forums.

 Lets just recap what real history remembers of Tesla and how important his work really was to our past and current world:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC7BEStQ6kg

 Lets now dig into what powers these devices and what the difference is between these two forms of energy. I say forms because it is the same energy but used in different methods.

 Eric Dollard is the number one expert in this field. Here is an old video of Eric stating what transverse and longitudinal energy is and the proper method to analyze the two forms.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnCUBKgnnc

 My ideas on this process work with the bifilar coil and resemble what real scientists are researching today.

 http://p124374.typo3server.info/index.php?id=1591

 Are we understanding how the bifilar can be used in the above link?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 10, 2013, 04:40:33 PM
Jbignes5:

It's incredible how polarized the world is these days and this thread here is just a microcosm illustrating that fact.  You have to realize that when it comes to analyzing this coil and it's merits or lack of merits I am being serious.

Is the coil special in some extraordinary way or is that just wishful thinking?  And the state of affairs right now is that there is no logical reason to assume that the coil will do anything extraordinary.  The properties of the coil have been discussed and there is nothing special to report.  That's why I have put forth the challenge for someone to demonstrate something to make a case for the coil being special.  More than a month ago I challenged anybody to suggest a use for this coil that takes advantage of any "special properties" and not a single person has submitted a proposal.

I am going to quote myself from a few postings back from when I was debating with you and others so I know that you read this:

Quote
Here is the real point that I think sums it up nicely:  Any coil, and I mean any coil, will have its inductance and frequency response characteristics, and the associated stray capacitance characteristics, the DC pulse response characteristics, magnetic field pattern, etc.  Certainly there is room for a lot of variation when you look at those characteristics.  But the key point is that they are still all fundamentally coils and will work as per the differential and integral equations that define that two-terminal device.

Why do I say, "two-terminal device?"  Because when you strip it down to the bare bones, all that you have is two terminals and you can apply some sort of stimulus to those two terminals (pulse, AC, etc.) and then see how those two terminals respond.  You can put any kind of inductor across those two terminals hidden inside a black box and by observing how those two terminals respond you can deduce that there is an inductor connected to those two terminals.  (That's why I hate the fact that you guys call the Tesla cola a "bifilar" coil.)

So you can put any standard coil, or a Tesla series bifilar coil, or a Rodin coil across those two terminals and by making measurements you can determine that yes indeed it is a coil and then you can determine the other parameters.

And then in your posting you state, "Mags and everyone else just stop responding to the moron. He has shown that he is not in the field of electronics."  You also said, "Nothing he says makes sense and certainly his sketchy information has zero credibility."

Well Jbignes5, I don't say it very often but I am an ex electrical engineer.  Really.  I have done all of the experiments on the bench with coils to understand them and characterize them.  From reading your postings I can tell you with 100% confidence that I understand electronics way better than you will ever in your entire life.  And I am not even a hard core electronics guy.

Whether you realize it or not or like it or not, this is your Twilight Zone moment Jbignes5.  Clearly from your postings, when it comes to coils and electronics, you are the "moron" that is living in an artificial Twilight Zone belief system of your own making.  You can't give the solution for a circuit that consists of just a single solitary coil connected to a voltage source, but at the same time you can "talk the talk" about your Tesla coil fantasies and believe it.  I asked that you that question after all your bluster and chest thumping to make you think, and to try to get some juices flowing.

I am more than willing to see if someone can demonstrate something "fantastical" about the coil.  However, as I quoted myself above, the Tesla series bifilar coil is just a coil with slightly different characteristics.  You are welcome to try to prove otherwise.  And that's were the educational aspect comes in for everybody.  Let's look at this 19th century patent WITHOUT your "Twilight Zone" frame of reference and see it for what it really is, not for what you fantasize it is.

This whole thing is a quasi Rosemary Ainslie experience and just shows how the human condition is messed up in the 21st century.   How messed up is it?   You are completely convinced you know what you are talking about but at the same time you can't even answer a question about the simplest possible circuit that makes use of a coil.  That's pretty damn messed up.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 10, 2013, 05:50:20 PM
 So to continue my thoughts on this subject I will again refer to my modification of the Tesla bifilar coil.


 If we start to look at all of the links I posted we start to understand with a bias e-field we should be able to raise the output to overcome the base line resistance of the coil. Would this net more energy out.. No idea but it does allow us to impress the bias on top of the current pulses going into the bifilar directly. This should have the same effect as in the laser amplifier example I have given before.


 Here is the design again, pictured below.

 The blue circle is the e-field bias emitter and the center region is the ground or focus element for the e-field. This should bias the bifilar coil with a high voltage and raise the energy in the pulses of charges running through the bifilar coil arrangement. The very thin lines going to the center represent the Longitudinal e-field. The premise is that when the very thin lines propagate they cut the wires of the bifilar and raise the voltage level of that bifilar coil as the charges or current flow through the bifilar coil. As with a lens it should amplify the power by excitation. Longitudinal energy as we have learned flow in the inwards and outwards directions along those very thin lines. Hence the term longitudinal. Supporting circuitry will be a high voltage pulser circuit that should not cost much in current. Timing of the pulse entering the bifilar should be synchronized with the exciter circuitry. This way we should see the same effect as in current pulse laser technology.

 The source for the exciter loop can be driven from a crystal battery that I have done work on myself with Ibpointless and J Bedini. The latter having very limited input to my involvement because of me leaving EF.

 This means that we can be very green in this sense and despite the costs of the material of the device will extract energy from the environment via heat for little expense. This is just my aim in these experiments and this system was my answer to the limited current ability of the first crystal batteries. Unfortunately because of heath problems I had to postpone my work on this. I am now in better health and getting ready to do real work and not just spout gibberish about subjects I have no clue about.

 Do you not hear the sound of one hand clapping in the wind? Don't worry he will leave eventually.


 Another way to accomplish the same thing passively would be to add a high voltage flat bifilar coil as a reflector onto one side that is self terminated. This should convert the magnetic field of the bifilar low voltage coil into higher voltages that might be synchronized to the pulses going into the low voltage bifilar coil. Would this work well that is yet another experiment that is planned.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 11, 2013, 04:02:15 AM


 Here is the design again, pictured below.

 

Yes, thats the way I believe a pancake transformer should work, with the primary on the same plane. Thats the way it is illustrated in Tesla's patents. But it is a rare sighting to see others doing it this way.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 11, 2013, 07:09:24 AM
   This is an interesting read for those interested in ambient energy.   
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 11, 2013, 01:37:57 PM
Yes, thats the way I believe a pancake transformer should work, with the primary on the same plane. Thats the way it is illustrated in Tesla's patents. But it is a rare sighting to see others doing it this way.

Mags


 Well it is not quite a transformer in a true sense of the word. The loop around the bifilar coil will be used as an exciter element for the purpose of biasing the current that goes through the bifilar coil. Of course I could also use a reflector type design to receive the heavy magnetic field from the flat side of the bifilar coil and convert it to very high voltages in a passive manner and rebroadcast that high voltage via the electric field back into the bifilar coil in theory. This could be accomplished by using a different gauge wire for the regular pancake solenoid reflector when compared to the gauge of the bifilar. But distance, phase and size of the coils will be an issue an might not work the way I am thinking in the passive mode. Maybe like Lasersaber has done we might try very close reflection distances to remove some of these expected problems. The phase problem will have to be worked studied more before I comment any further on the reflector.


 Now as mentioned this has been done before to a degree. I believe lasersaber has done some work in this direction. So there is some roadwork done already. Thane Hines has done work in this direction as well with a buried high voltage coil inside of a heavy current coil and has found that it does Speed up a rotor. This speed increase is essentially free but it was never been researched beyond a certain point. We might even have to change the geometry of the bifilar coil to a tube like coil setup and use a toroid as the concentrating medium like Stivep has done before. But then we have to deal with saturation effects of the medium we choose to focus the magnetic force. One way to get around this might be to get rid of the medium of ferrite as in the example of the new device of Akula (Kapanadze style device) and make an air coil setup on a donut form that is non conductive. Well I think maybe I have gone too far and should wait for my material to come in the mail before speculating any further.


 Lets hear your guys ideas and experiences on this subject.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 11, 2013, 07:06:37 PM

@Jbigness5,

Just wire it up. I bet anything will work. All the phase problems you imagine will most likely solve themselves once it's built.


Do you have any references for Thane's twin coil? This sounds like the Mag Amp design Skycollection uses with his lenz delay effect Toroid Pancake. The series bifliar is universally acknowledged as a superior pick up coil as well as a transmitter as shown by Tinselkoala.


The PM output coil core or "coil core" coil both interfere with the overall operating efficiency of the coil retarding the pole shift, producing propulsion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1dc0DPFpOQ&feature=em-subs_digest&list=TLXp1XUU52kgE
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 12, 2013, 12:03:16 AM
Well I give up here for now.  It's obvious that it's not sinking in in the public aspect of this thread.  However, for the silent majority that are reading this thread it's another story all together.  The truth always percolates to the top in the long run.  Then the 'theatrical' aspects of this thread are just too much.  Then there is the Babel fish issue, and I am sure that the silent majority are having a chuckle or two about that one.

Jbignes5:

I look forward to seeing your tests and reports or YouTube clips, wherever your research into your claim takes you.  You have a rough sketch for a start which you posted.  Hopefully before too long you can turn that into a schematic.  It would really help to make a timing diagram that illustrates what you are talking about in your descriptions.  Then you can go to the bench and make measurements of all of your signals and also do power input and power output measurements.  I am assuming that the goal for what you are talking about is electrical over unity.

The better you document yourself and the more you relate your descriptions to your schematic and to your timing diagrams the stronger your case will be.  Then making actual bench measurements with a scope to confirm that your timing diagrams are correct, and well documented power in and power out measurements will be the icing on the cake.

I am looking forward to seeing your project develop.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 12, 2013, 04:14:01 AM
I got a PM from Milehigh and Im going to respond to it here....

"Why do you act like this Magluvin?   Do you just 'hate' me for the sake of hating me?  What is your motivation, I would really like to know?

MileHigh"


I dont hate you. But when you come in here and downplay peoples ideas and call them Tesla fan boys and all that crap, then you post half baked statements about Tesla to further your rant, and then say that you had seen it in a documentary about Tesla years ago and you dont remember much, yeah, theres some motivation. If you think that Jbigs ideas and postings are dazed and confused, well your knowledge of Tesla is far closer to being dazed and confused as compared to Jbigs trying to actually study and figure out some things.

You dont know much about Tesla. We see that now. So why dont you come back when you educate yourself a bit on the subject, so that we can all be on the same level. ;) If you make any more false statements on Tesla, I will call you on it. So either study up or dont say it if your not sure about it. It doesnt help your case any if its not factual. Or does it? 8)    :)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 12, 2013, 04:40:28 AM
  I think the coil functions just like Tesla designed it to.   Store up oscillations impressed on it by the 2 or 3 turn primary.  It acts the same way a tank is used to remove the carrier frequency from the signal to be amplified.  It offers infinite impedance to the passage of voltage when the voltage impressed on the blocking oscillator comes at the resonant frequency of the tank.  If the carrier frequency isn't blocked it creates noise in the signal.   The blocking oscillator incorporates resistance and the energy of the carrier frequency is changed into heat.  The generator in a Tesla magnifying transmitter is used as a negative resistance unit.   This insures no ringdown occurs.    So like he said he could develop hundreds of thousands of horsepower in the tank from a generator with a 100 horsepower engine.   If you watch guys with Tesla coils make big streamers.   After every big streamer you can here the tank filling up.   The voltage gets too high at the safety port and the high voltage is dumped to ground though the plasma formed at the sharp pointy thing used like a pressure unloader valve on a boiler.    If the guy is using a pole pig transformer at say 10kva rating these Tesla wannabee machines are storing 10kva input for about 10 seconds.   So they can get 1kva out for 100 seconds or billions of kva for a real brief energy dump.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 12, 2013, 05:00:10 AM
  I think the coil functions just like Tesla designed it to.   Store up oscillations impressed on it by the 2 or 3 turn primary.

Yeah, it is shown a 2 turns in the patents.  A 2 turn coil is a bifilar coil.  ;)   3 turns will have a bit less voltage difference between turns.

@Jbigs

The reason I call it a transformer, some of Teslas patents show source coils and receiver coils(pancakes with 2 separate turns on the outer perimeter) where the source or transmitter(some drawings are hardwired Tx to Rx some antenna) seems to use the 2 outer turns as a primary winding and the Rx the 2 turn is like a secondary. Its the way I see it anyways.  ;) There may be more or less to it.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 12, 2013, 05:17:48 AM
Magluvin:

Here is the full PM:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are hammering Jbigs about him posting what you see are untruths. Well what about your statement here...."As far as the Wardenclyffe tower goes, it was a viable early attempt at very long distance communications.  But the notion of using it to power ships at sea or power individual houses in cities goes, that would never have worked.  It's simply too inefficient, and most of the broadcast power would never make it to the end users, it would be lost."

Where did 'you' get that information from other than in your head??? You now need to prove or show reference you what is in quotes above. Show me your sources for what you are saying there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why do you act like this Magluvin?   Do you just 'hate' me for the sake of hating me?  What is your motivation, I would really like to know?

MileHigh

Your request for 'references' is just you hounding me like some kind of crazy person.  It's nonsensical idiocy and you make yourself look like a fool.  I made a few general comments about a clip that was linked to that discussed the tower just in passing.  It's not even directly related to the thread.  But it does come from a similar theme.  People believe that the tower could 'power the world' without examining the where the power would come from and how widely dispersed the power would be the further you are away from the transmission source.  It's similar to saying that the Tesla series bifilar coil can do all sorts of amazing things with no real serious data to back it up.

I will sometimes challenge people's ideas if they are too far out and there is nothing that you can do to stop me.  And I know you enough to know that you don't actually disagree with me here but you are afraid to say it.  Meanwhile when you make a mistake yourself, you don't have the courage to acknowledge it and thank the person that corrected you.

This is not 'about Tesla,' this is about a patent for a coil design from the 19th century that just happens to have been done by Tesla.  It's time for you to stop the Straw Man nonsense and grow up and act like a civil person.  I am not going to be hounded by you acting like a crazy person.  You are the one that needs to study up if you want to make an improved contribution around here.  You confusing the AC and DC operation of the TESLA COIL as per what is actually stated in the patent being a prime example.

It's time for you to stop acting like some kind of attention wh*re buffoon and be a real person.  Stop your immature 'bad boy' nonsensical idiocy and grow up.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 12, 2013, 06:24:27 AM
Yeah, it is shown a 2 turns in the patents.  A 2 turn coil is a bifilar coil.  ;)   3 turns will have a bit less voltage difference between turns.

@Jbigs

The reason I call it a transformer, some of Teslas patents show source coils and receiver coils(pancakes with 2 separate turns on the outer perimeter) where the source or transmitter(some drawings are hardwired Tx to Rx some antenna) seems to use the 2 outer turns as a primary winding and the Rx the 2 turn is like a secondary. Its the way I see it anyways.  ;) There may be more or less to it.

Mags


 Well that could be one way to try and I encourage you to do so. But as I have stated I have gone outside of the patents scope. I have already done prelim testing on the bifilar coils. Many different designs and my conclusion is that this would make an excellent receiver of the electric field around the outside like you have stated. If I am correct about the coils other aspects then we should be able to use the coil much like the amplifier(gain medium) in a laser setup and intensify the current packets or impulses traveling into the bifilar coil. This should excite the current impulses and greatly amplify the current.


 What Tesla was trying to do with the Tower was not broadcast anything in the air. It was via the Earth! The air was a sort of virtual ground. This is the concept he tried to make an analogy to with the elastic ball (earth). Pump the earth with huge amounts of voltage and the receivers convert this huge voltage into real current. He was litterally gonna use the earth as a high voltage anode. The tower was capped with a huge capacitive mushroom to push against. This is the reason he buried long pipes into the ground. Since the type of energy he was using was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be safe to the human in contact with it that the danger was minimal.


 Some people say things before they even know anything about someone. Without reading anything like his notes and literature some people can not know how this technology works. They try to guess with their current knowledge which is not based off of Tesla's methods and mistakenly assume it can not possibly work. There is no danger to this stuff and Tesla repeatedly shown that by passing the energy through his body and even the bodies of others as in the worlds fair where he shown his AC system in full scale. Tesla wasn't ready to release the full details at that time but was completely sure it could do no harm to any life and had even the audience do the same, passing of the current through their bodies.


 I will not defend myself any longer to some people. I have researched Tesla and his works for over a decade now and if Some people don't want to do the same then they should just leave it be and let us go about our business. I will not share with someone who isn't open minded about this process. They seem to know everything about the magnetic field and very little about the electric field.


 See these guys see the electric field as something of a transient. They spend their entire career shunting the transients to ground and just ignore what it is. But Tesla knew way more about this field. He intensively studied the effects and how to make it completely safe. IF you don't know about the linemen that died while he was working for Edison I would look into it because that is exactly what turned him onto this stuff. Blue fire they called it.


 I am very tired now. Pretty late here and I have a doctors apt. tomorrow.

 Till next time.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 12, 2013, 06:39:49 AM


This is not 'about Tesla,' this is about a patent for a coil design from the 19th century that just happens to have been done by Tesla.

The title of this thread starts with Tesla. If some of the posts veer off of the coil subject matter but still with Teslas name on it, its good. Just because you dont want to here it, well whoopty doo. Too bad. Tesla is the subject as maybe we want to understand the man, and this coil is part of that. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 12, 2013, 03:49:51 PM
The title of this thread starts with Tesla. If some of the posts veer off of the coil subject matter but still with Teslas name on it, its good. Just because you dont want to here it, well whoopty doo. Too bad. Tesla is the subject as maybe we want to understand the man, and this coil is part of that. ;)

Mags


 I agree 1000% with your comment.


 If we are to understand This coil and the patent about this coil we have to understand where Tesla was in his thinking and the proper purpose of this coil. This is the way I do all my Technician work for computers. You must do your research and this allows you to handle the device more effectively.


 I am in the process of researching the time line of the patent when looking at Tesla's other work. I believe if we look at a timeline of his investigations and subsequent patent releases we will find out how this patent came about and what is it's relevance to his research at the time.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 13, 2013, 12:48:09 AM
   Voltage is a measure of electromotive force.   As you increase voltage you are increasing the accelerating field between charged bodies of mass.  The good thing is that in a capacitor your accelerating field is free.   This is the field between two bodies of mass where one is lacking electrons and the other is filled to the brim with electrons.  So if you flash charge a capacitor and the dielectric undergoes ionization the free electrons are accelerated for free.  These are dielectric electrons not cathode or anode electrons.  Depending on how far they are from the anode will determine what degree of acceleration they will acquire.   If the capacitor has discharged into the inductor before the electrons reach the anode they will induce a bunch of secondary electrons to flow in the inductor.   This why the natural media becomes conductive when it's rarified because it allows for increased acceleration or free flight time of the electrons.  The electric field always moves the electrons.  Even if it is the electric field of an electron next to it being pushed towards it.  As a contact moves towards a circuit to be energised it's electric field precedes it.  As the gap becomes smaller the electric field is more intense.   The electric field is so intense that it will ionize atoms by acclerating the electrons out of the orbitals way down to the inner most s orbital.  You see your contacts spark blue/violet.   Where is this light coming from?  Is it coming from the mass of the medium or is it coming from a coal burner hundreds of miles away?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 13, 2013, 03:55:06 AM
 I like the thoughts there sparks.


 To answer the questions here is my take. It all depends on whether you have 1 or two elements. If there is two elements or electrodes then the light is from one mass to the other mass but if there is one element then it comes from the density of the medium towards the one element or corona. Both stimulate the free charges in the medium into motion and radiance. Free charges are the matter of the medium. Air and other gases. The medium is what is in between the air or gases matter. The same can be applied to tubes as well I think. But since the tubes contain little matter we only see a glow emitted. This glow is the medium in excitation and rarefied. When the medium has matter in it it reacts strongly with the matter and excites the matter into radiance. This is as close to the operation of medium that I have gotten.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 04:12:03 AM
Sparks mentions accelerating electrons in the dielectric.  To me that suggests that he means current flow but in fact here is none.  What you have is deformed atoms under the external stress of the electric field.  Each atom becomes a mechanical spring that stores energy, but there is no electron flow.

The glow occurs because the intense electric field starts to strip electrons off of the gas molecules as part of the onset of current flow.  It's a very energetic process where a lot of power is being dissipated and electrons are jumping up and down in energy levels.  Some energetic electrons fall back into place around a given atom and in the process have to liberate their excess energy as photons.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 13, 2013, 05:56:39 AM
Sparks mentions accelerating electrons in the dielectric.  To me that suggests that he means current flow but in fact here is none.  What you have is deformed atoms under the external stress of the electric field.  Each atom becomes a mechanical spring that stores energy, but there is no electron flow.

The glow occurs because the intense electric field starts to strip electrons off of the gas molecules as part of the onset of current flow.  It's a very energetic process where a lot of power is being dissipated and electrons are jumping up and down in energy levels.  Some energetic electrons fall back into place around a given atom and in the process have to liberate their excess energy as photons.
The electrons that fall back increase in velocity due to either gravity or electrical forces intrinsic to the nucleus.  Mass is increased at the expense of energy.  Any particle that is experiencing an accelerating or braking force will have to radiate photons.  Photons are inertial currency.   It is obvious that a car crashing into a wall will have to convert some of it's inertia into radiance.  Sound waves-friction heating-kinetic energy transfer to the wall etc.   Less intuitive is that a mass undergoing acceleration will have to rid itself of the ,older inertia, by radiating photons.  This is why a particle will never reach the speed of light.  The particle can't rid itself of the old inertia because the photons just won't move away from the particle fast enough.

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 03:57:58 PM
You are too far out for me Sparks and live in your own physics universe.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 13, 2013, 04:35:41 PM



 This is where i diverge from the mainstream.


 Lets envision the medium as a fluid and the charged body as a boat. The boat has little resistance in the medium and accelerates through the medium. As the medium is displaced by the charged body it creates wakes in the medium. These wakes are what we call light. There is no shedding of anything from the particle. The light is the wakes of the medium as the displacement of the charged body moves through the medium. Light is just an after effect of the medium in motion and the cause is the excitation of the charged body within the medium. The medium is the ultimate conductor and imparts the excitation to the matter. This in turn propels the charged body trough the medium as it is gaining potential.


 This is very evident if we understand that this process is still going on in a vacuum which is devoid of matter. The charged body in a vacuum is coming from  one electrode and going towards the other and is creating the glow in a much different method. The matter creates sort of sound waves in the medium of the vacuum. The wave are even and distributed though the whole device. The glow is the movement of the medium from one plate to another as a wave moves much like the wakes around an island. No charge is actually moved as in no charge is moved in a capacitor. Capacitors are converters of current to voltage only devices. That is why they are explosive in their discharge. I suspect that an Led device is the same. That is why they use very little real current. The only difference is that the gap between a led's atoms are much larger and the wakes around each atom amplify through interference patterns between each atom as they are being excited. Electrons do not exist and is only the misinterpretation of the wakes that are very shell like around each atom. When you amplify the potential field of excitation around the atom it amplifies the emissions of light and when the wakes are just right the heat we think comes from the atoms. The heat is the feedback of the waves to the atoms and is why the standing potential of a body in space has a set value as in my experiments in the crystal cells. We use only this potential difference or base potential to create a difference and then subsequently a current in the devices attached to the crystal cells. Removing the galvanic response is a tough problem but it has been done and shows almost a limitless supply of energy as a result of this process.


 This is where we went wrong in our logical fallacy of electrons. When all along it was the medium in between every atom that is the cause of energy or current because it passes the electric field as a superconductor.


 We need to look at this in the right approach and then design our devices to include this natural phenomena or encourage it's process. Tesla did this after having the aha moment. Light is only the interaction of the medium with matter. This is never more evident then looking into space. Without matter light would not exist and doesn't in space till matter is there to re-radiate the mediums longitudinal (polarized) energy.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 05:32:29 PM
Well how do you explain a TV tube then?

On a different matter, you posted this, "There is no danger to this stuff and Tesla repeatedly shown that by passing the energy through his body and even the bodies of others as in the worlds fair where he shown his AC system in full scale. Tesla wasn't ready to release the full details at that time but was completely sure it could do no harm to any life and had even the audience do the same, passing of the current through their bodies."

That's an illustration of how you are obsessed by Tesla and can see nothing wrong or bad about him.  The simple fact is that in Tesla's time the medical knowledge and the medical equipment simply did not exist to draw any conclusions about any possible harmful effects related to any hypothetical wireless energy transfer system.  Yet you insist that it would not be harmful purely due to your irrational form of blind faith in all things Tesla.  We have collectively learned as a society to not have blind faith in technology.  For you to make that claim makes all of your claims suspect.  i.e.; the Tesla series bifilar coil is a "perfect antenna" and a myriad of other claims you have made about what in fact is no more than an inductor in the final analysis.

In that sense Jbignes5, the "talking the Tesla talk" is just the little boy that cried wolf.  The only way your claims would have any credibility with me would be for you to show tangible real world results on the bench with real measurements.  That means timing diagrams and the whole nine yards, the real thing.

I will give you some context for that.  You know there is that 1988 clip with Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard where they demonstrate "longitudinal electricity."  It's big, it's loud, and it almost looks like they are in Frankenstein's laboratory.  There is loud buzzing and noise and you see that they make a light bulb light up.

The problem is that they never show how much input power was required to light up the light bulb.  I don't even think they make a measurement of the power being drawn by the light bulb.  You have this big one hour long presentation and for all we know the efficiency of energy transfer in their demo might have been 5%.  You have two grown men that claim that they know what they are doing yet they don't even show a basic measurement like that.  The clip is a farce.

Yes, that's tough talk from somebody technical that wants to see real results.  I had exactly the same expectations from Inteligentry and Yildiz and both of them failed spectacularly.

So the challenge for you is to bridge the gap between all of the speculative Tesla talk and actually show something tangible and real.  I hope that you have somebody technical to work with you because I am not getting the vibe from you that you know how to work on a bench or that you have the basic real-world electronics knowledge.  You might believe that you can "cast away" all of that conventional electronics and energy stuff and just focus on the Tesla angle and like magic everything will come together and you will get great results like Synchro1 says.  In the real world that's not going to happen.  You simply can't play with high frequencies and MOSFETs and coils and show your output voltage is higher than your input voltage (as an example.)  Stuff like that will not cut it.  I am willing to bet you that most people are exhausted from seeing inconclusive YouTube clips.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 13, 2013, 09:42:32 PM
Well how do you explain a TV tube then?

On a different matter, you posted this, "There is no danger to this stuff and Tesla repeatedly shown that by passing the energy through his body and even the bodies of others as in the worlds fair where he shown his AC system in full scale. Tesla wasn't ready to release the full details at that time but was completely sure it could do no harm to any life and had even the audience do the same, passing of the current through their bodies."

That's an illustration of how you are obsessed by Tesla and can see nothing wrong or bad about him.  The simple fact is that in Tesla's time the medical knowledge and the medical equipment simply did not exist to draw any conclusions about any possible harmful effects related to any hypothetical wireless energy transfer system.  Yet you insist that it would not be harmful purely due to your irrational form of blind faith in all things Tesla.  We have collectively learned as a society to not have blind faith in technology.  For you to make that claim makes all of your claims suspect.  i.e.; the Tesla series bifilar coil is a "perfect antenna" and a myriad of other claims you have made about what in fact is no more than an inductor in the final analysis.

In that sense Jbignes5, the "talking the Tesla talk" is just the little boy that cried wolf.  The only way your claims would have any credibility with me would be for you to show tangible real world results on the bench with real measurements.  That means timing diagrams and the whole nine yards, the real thing.

I will give you some context for that.  You know there is that 1988 clip with Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard where they demonstrate "longitudinal electricity."  It's big, it's loud, and it almost looks like they are in Frankenstein's laboratory.  There is loud buzzing and noise and you see that they make a light bulb light up.

The problem is that they never show how much input power was required to light up the light bulb.  I don't even think they make a measurement of the power being drawn by the light bulb.  You have this big one hour long presentation and for all we know the efficiency of energy transfer in their demo might have been 5%.  You have two grown men that claim that they know what they are doing yet they don't even show a basic measurement like that.  The clip is a farce.

Yes, that's tough talk from somebody technical that wants to see real results.  I had exactly the same expectations from Inteligentry and Yildiz and both of them failed spectacularly.

So the challenge for you is to bridge the gap between all of the speculative Tesla talk and actually show something tangible and real.  I hope that you have somebody technical to work with you because I am not getting the vibe from you that you know how to work on a bench or that you have the basic real-world electronics knowledge.  You might believe that you can "cast away" all of that conventional electronics and energy stuff and just focus on the Tesla angle and like magic everything will come together and you will get great results like Synchro1 says.  In the real world that's not going to happen.  You simply can't play with high frequencies and MOSFETs and coils and show your output voltage is higher than your input voltage (as an example.)  Stuff like that will not cut it.  I am willing to bet you that most people are exhausted from seeing inconclusive YouTube clips.


 I know what I must do. On the other hand you have done and are doing the exact same thing as the "Tesla fanboy"  you are complaining about. You idolize Einstien and the others and the only thing they did was pose theories. Nothing more.


 As for your feeling about my technical ability I will tell you again. SHUT THE HELL UP! You don't know me and to tell you the truth I will not explain my credentials again to you.


 You say you are an engineer. Well all engineers that I know are arm chair, pencil pushing, theorists. They do no actual work and design things that have little to do with practical everyday technical work. You know the real Technicians who actually do the work always complain about the engineers who lack practical implementations to the devices they design. Especially when the Technicians have to fix those devices.


 I have looked over your postings and I see you actually like the guy in the video that I showed on purpose to show what little people know of Tesla or anything for that matter. He spews false information in just about 75% of that video. He didn't even get the banker correct that said that is I can not hook a meter to it, that statement was attributed to J.P. Morgan who was Tesla's finance man at the time. Not the guy he said it was. The only thing that could be considered correct was the tube operation and only from the standpoint of your most holy theorists.


 Show me the proof of your theories like electrons. Show me the electron? Can't do that? Hmm then it is just a theory and will stay a theory until you show the proof. There is an old axiom I would like to share with you. You can not prove a theory wrong with another theory. It must be proven wrong by fact. Since your electron theory is not fact then don't bother arguing anything in this thread until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the electron is real and visible. Not with just mathematics which is no proof and can be designed to prove just about anything.


 We are here trying to prove our theories and the theories of others who have a lot more credibility then you. Tesla had over 200+ patents in the US alone based off of his theories. When he talks then he should be afforded some respect because of those credentials.


 If you want to hang around thats fine and if you disagree then prove it wrong. Otherwise shut up because your doing nothing then saying you are right with no proof at all. Not just theories and math but Real world evidence.

 In order to bring light to Tesla's ideas and devices based on those ideas we must understand the man and his ideas. How exactly are we to do that if you are here interrupting our progress and plans to do those real world experiments with disinformation and lack of understanding of the principles involved? Your suppression techniques are highly honed and use nothing more then bully tactics and degrade anyone who doesn't think like you and your most holy theories.

 It is not your job to police the masses and debase them because you "think" and you "Believe" they are wrong. Get off the high horse you are on and do the research into Tesla. Do the experiments that many have done on this forum and you will see there is something to this approach. If you would rather not then leave us be and let us waste our time. It is "our" time and not yours, we should be able to do what we wish with it and not be harassed in the process with out right lies.


 As for your questions lets give it some thought.

 The cathode ray tube (CRT) is a vacuum tube containing one or more electron guns (a source of electrons or electron emitter) and a fluorescent screen used to view images.[1] It has a means to accelerate and deflect the electron beam(s) onto the screen to create the images.

 Now if we substitute Electron for charged particle we start to understand what it really is. It is a particle accelerator and has lead mixed in with the face of the tube to block x-rays that are emitted by the charged particles from the particle gun when they slam into the phosphor laced front. The inner mask is to bring clarity and resolution to the dots of the screen.


 As for the medical nature of this current it was well known about the benefits this kind of stimulation to our bodies. MANY MANY medical devices were made of Tesla's designs and proved that at least or bare minimum it was safe. Although there were a great many that scoffed at this idea and did exactly as you are doing now. All disinformation and no facts. It was suppressed in the same method you are using now. Though intimidation and disinformation.

 As for your assertion that the bifilar coil is a normal inductor is disinformation. This is not true and the simple video shows that proof that I provided. When compared to the reception and broad casting ability there is a clear difference between the bifilar pancake coil and a normal solenoid pancake coil when used as an antenna. In order to get a spark to jump a gap there is a threshold of voltage one has to breach of the receiving coil. This is usually in the 30Kv per CM. In the example in the video the solenoid as the broadcaster and the bifilar had 1mm of space the receiver could not fire very well and in the bifilar coil as the broadcaster and the solenoid as the receiver it was 2mm and fired very well. This is not a magnetic coupling. It is an electric coupling because it was using a High voltage supply with a rotary break machine to create the impulses from the High voltage, very low current being supplied to the broadcast antenna.
 There is two reasons for this. One is the ability of the bifilar coil to charge up faster then a regular solenoid coil. This is due to the cancellation of the self inductance of the bifilar coil. Another reason is the capacitance of the coil. Since capacitors use the electric field in longitudinal mode they tend to charge up faster then the coil. The electric field allows this speed increase which has been shown to be faster then the speed of light.

 Again you are out of your field here and I respectfully ask you to stop the bullying tactics.

 The reason for the demonstration was to show the difference of each type of energy and the method to correctly analyze both. Obviously they did it to prove there is a difference and not to prove any overunity claims. That was not the scope of the video.
Again in order to investigate the two form of energy you have to devise methods to produce and analyze both types. There was even a method to do analogue computers to help with that analyzing which showed that capacitance converts current to longitudinal energy and coil convert current to the magnetic. But I don't expect the great OZ to understand anything of these analogies or methods because they did not teach you to think, only to follow what they were telling you.

 As for the input power well how much power does a 10kv machine take to operate? 200-500 ma?<-this depends on the size of the transformer or the design of the transformer. This is because it converts current into higher voltages and usually chokes the current of the source. Duh even a first grader knows that...

 Do not compare us to those scammers <-This is yet another tactic you guys apply to scare people away from investigating the claims of others. I have neither asked no one to do this work or tried to sell anything at all. I am doing this to investigate Tesla's work and that is the point of this thread. I also know the dangers of regular currents and know the non dangers of Tesla's longitudinal energy. Since there is little current in it it has no power to hurt anything if done properly. And this is the point I would like to bring up again. You have to use this in the proper methods for it to become harmless. Tesla informed us that 2k impulses a second is where it becomes harmless or even from his claims beneficial in the electric field around the device. Anything lower and it becomes dangerous, with a single impulse a second having very damaging results.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 10:58:30 PM
Jbignes5:

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my comments about the medical safety issues.  Why is that?

I have read your comments from time to time for a long time now, and I don't get any sense that you have a mastery of the basics of working on a bench.  I get the feeling that you are a theory guy and turning your esoteric theories into reality on the bench is going to be a rude awakening for you unless you do "fake pseudo" YouTube clips like we see all the time.  i.e.; the Lindemann-Dollard clip from 1988 was a fake pseudo test.  Perhaps you will pleasantly surprise me.  I can tell you that it was absolutely shocking watching Aaron working on the bench a few years ago because he was almost completely lost.  There is a huge difference between talking the talk and actually doing bench work and I am hoping that you do indeed have good bench skills.

Quote
You say you are an engineer. Well all engineers that I know are arm chair, pencil pushing, theorists. They do no actual work and design things that have little to do with practical everyday technical work. You know the real Technicians who actually do the work always complain about the engineers who lack practical implementations to the devices they design. Especially when the Technicians have to fix those devices.

It's more like this:  The front line hardware design engineers do the design work and then when they get their stuffed PCBs they debug them on the bench.  They might have to do one or two revisions to get rid of the wires and then they release it into production.  They are responsible for the design and the transfer into production and they get support from engineering technicians and production technicians.  So the front line design engineers are totally hands-on.  You are quoting an old cliche about the supposed tensions between engineers and technicians.  In reality that is almost never the case.

Quote
Show me the proof of your theories like electrons. Show me the electron? Can't do that? Hmm then it is just a theory and will stay a theory until you show the proof. There is an old axiom I would like to share with you. You can not prove a theory wrong with another theory. It must be proven wrong by fact. Since your electron theory is not fact then don't bother arguing anything in this thread until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the electron is real and visible. Not with just mathematics which is no proof and can be designed to prove just about anything.

Well I asked you to explain the cathode ray tube in terms of your theories and you have ignored the question.  Why is that?  Unless you can explain the cathode ray tube then don't bother arguing anything in this thread until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your theory can explain how a cathode ray tube works without electrons.

How does that shoe fit Jbignes5?  The message being stop your silly fake litmus tests for gaining your "approval" to post.

You can look up the early 20th century research into the nature of the atom and the electron.  Rutherford would probably be a good place to start.  I am sure that there are hundreds of megabytes of information about the discovery of the electron and the measurement of its mass, and the discovery of the electron orbitals, and how there is a direct relationship between an energy level change in the electron orbital and the wavelength of the photon emitted and so on and so on.

Quote
We are here trying to prove our theories and the theories of others who have a lot more credibility then you.

I have a lot of credibility and I have been around for a while.  There is a huge paper trail.  So you are just spinning right now and that doesn't bode well for your credibility.  Even though we might not share opinions on issues, that doesn't mean that I am not credible.  If you want to get some credibility with me you could answer my question from a week ago.  I honestly don't believe that you can but I am open to being pleasantly surprised.  Since this thread is about the Tesla coil the question is a propos.  Your claim that you "already answered it" is just more spin.  Quote your answer to back up your statement or more appropriately try to answer it for real.  If you can't answer it then why not take the plunge and admit that and we can go over it together?  I am fully familiar with the psychology of refusing to reveal if you understand something or not.  It takes a big man to open up and ask for some help.

The reality Jbignes5 is that many people play with coils on the bench without having a true grasp of how they actually work.  They can't explain where the high voltage spikes come from.  Are you in that class?  Be honest with yourself.  If you are in that class, before you do any work with some kind of coil-based project, you should task yourself with mastering the basics of how coils (and capacitors) actually work in the real world.  Or you can ask for some help.  The truth is the vast majority of experimenters don't understand how they work.  So if you educate yourself you will be ten times more effective on the bench.

I look forward to seeing your testing and reports assuming that you will post them online here or perhaps elsewhere.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 11:35:45 PM
Jbignes5:

You extended your original posting so I will comment more...

Quote
In order to bring light to Tesla's ideas and devices based on those ideas we must understand the man and his ideas. How exactly are we to do that if you are here interrupting our progress and plans to do those real world experiments with disinformation and lack of understanding of the principles involved? Your suppression techniques are highly honed and use nothing more then bully tactics and degrade anyone who doesn't think like you and your most holy theories.

It's "disinformation and lack of understanding" from your point of view.  We are back to the issue of differing points of view.  That's healthy and that's what the forum is here for.  A while back this thread was just yet another thread to idolize Tesla and the patent for the series bifilar coil.  Somebody sees "electromagnet" in the title and says, "Tesla's coil makes for a better electromagnet!!!"   Somebody else says, "It will make for a superior pulse motor!!!"  It was just near-mindless praise for the patent.  I said, "Hold on, let's look at this patent seriously."  I made tons of points and most of the time the response was either anger or listless mute silence, like when I posed the question asking for practical real-world applications for this coil.  There have been no responses to that question.

Then you parachuted into this thread which is fine.  The thread was moribund and going nowhere so if you have some ideas and want to bring something new to the table that's great.  But from my perspective your first few big postings were filled with a bunch of far-fetched ideas that would never be realizable on the bench.  And I have heard them 1000 times.  So I told you that just like you are free to tell me what you think.  We are equal and on a level playing field.  I am not suppressing or bullying you at all, and by the same token I don't want you suppressing or bullying me.

Quote
It is not your job to police the masses and debase them because you "think" and you "Believe" they are wrong. Get off the high horse you are on and do the research into Tesla. Do the experiments that many have done on this forum and you will see there is something to this approach. If you would rather not then leave us be and let us waste our time. It is "our" time and not yours, we should be able to do what we wish with it and not be harassed in the process with out right lies.

You can look in the mirror with respect to policing and debasing yourself.  We should all try to get along even if we have differing opinions.  I have done tons of experiments on the bench.  For example, with a scope and a resistor and a few other parts I have measured the inductance of a coil.  I didn't rely on an "idiot meter" to tell me the inductance.  Have you ever done that?  How many experimenters on the forums do think have done that?  Nobody is going to be harassed, and I do not lie.  That's more spinning.

Quote
Now if we substitute Electron for charged particle we start to understand what it really is. It is a particle accelerator and has lead mixed in with the face of the tube to block x-rays that are emitted by the charged particles from the particle gun when they slam into the phosphor laced front. The inner mask is to bring clarity and resolution to the dots of the screen.

Okay, you want to substitute "electron" for "charged particle" when an electron is a charged particle.  I don't see much there Jbignes5 but let's leave it alone because it is quite far off topic.

Quote
As for the medical nature of this current it was well known about the benefits this kind of stimulation to our bodies. MANY MANY medical devices were made of Tesla's designs and proved that at least or bare minimum it was safe. Although there were a great many that scoffed at this idea and did exactly as you are doing now. All disinformation and no facts. It was suppressed in the same method you are using now. Though intimidation and disinformation.

I disagree with you completely and it's pure Tesla spin zone.  There is no substance to what you are saying and all electrical medical devices are very seriously scrutinized and they have to use medical-grade components.  I view this as pure disinformation on your side.  You are basically saying, "Trust me and take it for granted that there will be no adverse effects from being continuously bathed in high-power EM waves because Tesla said so and you can trust early 20th century technology to have covered all the bases."  Your statement does not fly in the real world of today.  Now, the point has been made and I am prepared to move on.  If you want to rebut then fine.

Okay I will continue in another posting.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 14, 2013, 12:04:30 AM
 I am going to say it one more time. You are out of your field here. I did not say EM waves. I said Longitudinal waves which is a whole different beast then your lossy EM wave. The longitudinal wave only goes one way. It does not travel back an forth like an EM wave. Hence the term longitudinal. Look it up and stop saying things about what you don't understand.


 EM waves travel back and forth in the up and down method. Longitudinal waves travel out and not back you know radiance and not oscillatory.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 12:30:21 AM
Jbignes5:

Quote
As for your assertion that the bifilar coil is a normal inductor is disinformation. This is not true and the simple video shows that proof that I provided. When compared to the reception and broad casting ability there is a clear difference between the bifilar pancake coil and a normal solenoid pancake coil. In order to get a spark to jump a gap there is a threshold of voltage one has to breach. This is usually in the 30Kv per CM. In the example in the video the solenoid had 1mm of spaceand could not fire very well and in the bifilar coil it was 2mm and fired very well. This is not a magnetic coupling. It is an electric coupling because it was using a High voltage supply with a rotary break machine to create the impulses from the High voltage very low current being supplied.

It's not disinformation.  What I said is that the "bifilar" coil specific to this patent will be marginally different from a similar regularly wound coil.  For example, when you use it as the drive coil in a pulse motor you will not see any difference.  Whne you use it as an electromagnet you will not see any difference.  If you check the self-resonant frequency it will be lower than a similar regularly wound coil, but that in itself is not significant.

Quote
When compared to the reception and broad casting ability there is a clear difference between the bifilar pancake coil and a normal solenoid pancake coil.

See here is where we have a gap.  I know that you post these generalizations and believe them.  If there is a difference that's fine, but you have to have some specifics.  Do you really have data to back that up?  I would not be surprised is there are differences.  But for sure there are other coil geometries that will have their own unique differences.  "Different" is not the same as fawning over the coil patent and claiming all of these amazing attributes.  Also, I will point out to you that there is no mention of the application to radio transmission/reception in the patent at all.   There are all sorts of coil-type configurations in antennas, there is no special claim to fame for the Tesla patent in this case.

Quote
Again you are out of your field here and I respectfully ask you to stop the bullying tactics.

Honestly I feel that you are bullying me so think about that.   Sometimes if you post something outrageous I am aghast and you might get a strong comment from me, but I am not trying to bully you.  This is the real world and you can expect some push back if you state what I consider to be an outrageous statement.

Quote
There was even a method to do analogue computers to help with that analyzing which showed that capacitance converts current to longitudinal energy and coil convert current to the magnetic. But I don't expect the great OZ to understand anything of these analogies or methods because they did not teach you to think, only to follow what they were telling you.

What I can tell you is this.  If you brought a real RF engineer into the discussion about this demo then a lot of light would shed on this issue.  I am not an RF engineer, but I believe that when an EM wave propagates, the electrical and magnetic components of the wave can be on any set of axes, including the "Z" axis in the direction of propagation.  By the same token what does "longitudinal" really mean if the two components have to be at right angles to each other?  i.e.; if the electric field is along the z axis, the "longitudinal" component, then the magnetic field has to be in the x-y plane, which is definitely not longitudinal.   Same thing if you have the magnetic on z then the electric has to be in the x-y plane.  Have you ever thought about that?  You can't equate longitudinal sound waves with EM waves.  I am no EM wave propagation expert but I seriously doubt that you or the vast majority of posters extolling the virtues of longitudinal waves have ever even considered this basic fact.  The root cause of that is the idea that you can leap-frog past a science or engineering education or self-education and just read Tesla and the chat boards filled with Tesla enthusiasts were most of them are in the same situation.  It just doesn't work like that in the real world.

Quote
As for the input power well how much power does a 10kv machine take to operate? 200-500 ma?<-this depends on the size of the transformer or the design of the transformer. This is because it converts current into higher voltages and usually chokes the current of the source. Duh even a first grader knows that...

You are not making any sense here at all at all at all.  Here is were you are showing your serious limitations by trying to be dismissive of making power measurements.  It's simply ridiculous and yes you deserve the strong language here.

Quote
Do not compare us to those scammers <-This is yet another tactic you guys apply to scare people away from investigating the claims of others. I have neither asked no one to do this work or tried to sell anything at all. I am doing this to investigate Tesla's work and that is the point of this thread. I also know the dangers of regular currents and know the non dangers of Tesla's longitudinal energy. Since there is little current in it it has no power to hurt anything if done properly. And this is the point I would like to bring up again. You have to use this in the proper methods for it to become harmless. Tesla informed us that 2k impulses a second is where it becomes harmless or even from his claims beneficial in the electric field around the device. Anything lower and it becomes dangerous, with a single impulse a second having very damaging results.

I have no doubt that you are sincere and not a scammer.  But you also have to be sincere with respect to your electronics knowledge and bench experience if you intend on testing stuff on the bench.  Your comments about "regular currents and know the non dangers of Tesla's longitudinal energy" are problematic.  I am not sure but 2 KHz may be the lowest frequency for a safe skin-effect for doing the standard AC Van der Graff generator demo.  But beyond that demo, any discussion about "longitudinal energy" and practical real-world applications would have to be analyzed on a case by case basis.

Again, good luck with your testing, but please look at what your instruments are telling you and take it at face value.  There may be some interesting applications that you can demonstrate that may have practical uses.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 01:02:31 AM
Jbignes5:

Quote
I am going to say it one more time. You are out of your field here. I did not say EM waves. I said Longitudinal waves which is a whole different beast then your lossy EM wave. The longitudinal wave only goes one way. It does not travel back an forth like an EM wave. Hence the term longitudinal. Look it up and stop saying things about what you don't understand.

 EM waves travel back and forth in the up and down method. Longitudinal waves travel out and not back you know radiance and not oscillatory.

For starters I am assuming that we are talking about some kind of wave propagation in air or in space, not along a pair of wires.  is this correct?  If yes then by definition we are talking about some kind of electromagnetic wave.  Do you disagree with that statement?

"Longitudinal" means "in the same direction of the movement."  So if a wave is moving in the z direction then something is oscillating on the z axis.  Do you have a different definition?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/longitudinal+wave

Quote
longitudinal wave
n
(Physics / General Physics) a wave that is propagated in the same direction as the displacement of the transmitting medium

Can you give me some links about longitudinal waves to look at?

Quote
EM waves travel back and forth in the up and down method. Longitudinal waves travel out and not back you know radiance and not oscillatory.

Seriously Jbignes5, the quote above is you stepping into the Tesla Twilight Zone for me.  Waves travel in a medium and the components of the wave oscillate back and forth -> a wave.

So if you hit the end of a wooden 2"x4" longitudinal waves travel down the 2"x4".  But it's not the same for any kind of electromagnetic wave traveling in air or empty space.  The electric and magnetic components have to oscillate and they are at right angles to each other.

So if you want to educate me with a few of your favourite links that would be great.  But I am not feeling what you are saying at all.  It appears to me that this is an artificial construct in your mind to "make all the Tesla puzzle pieces fit together."  That's a dangerous thing.  Here is an example from real life:  The Bedini enthusiasts say that the back-EMF spike is "radiant energy" when in fact it's not.  It's a lie, it's an artificial construct to "make all of the Bedini puzzle pieces fit together."  So you get self-propagating ignorance in that particular case.

Quote
Look it up and stop saying things about what you don't understand.

Here is the issue Jbignes5:  It's possible that I don't understand and I am ignorant.  It's also possible that what I posted about the electric or magnetic component being in the z direction is considered a longitudinal wave.  But it's also possible that the whole notion of longitudinal waves like you are discussing them is just an artificial construct among Tesla enthusiasts where I am going to assume the vast majority of them are not electromagnetic propagation experts.  It's possible that it's all false with no substance.  It's a reality that may be unpleasant for you, but it is a distinct possibility.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 14, 2013, 03:30:53 AM
 There are many versions of the longitudinal waves in the main stream. But when talking about impulses and longitudinal waves within the electric field it transforms to a radiant field. The external electric field energizes the object or target and it radiates the impulses back out from the object if it is not segmented. This is the exact method that nature uses to impart energy to an object. There is not energy inside of the object because it follows static laws and not electrodynamic laws as you retort verbatim.


 In fact they are finding this out on the massive scale like in our solar system. The focus is our sun and it radiates the energy back out from that point. The solar system is considered as a body in space or as a unit. The entire value of potential is centralized at the point of our sun and the solar winds are the flow of charges radiating out from that point towards the edge of the body that is our solar system. Every body in fact takes a portion of the total value that the solar system has and radiates to a degree that value based on the amount of medium that that body displaces. This is how solar gravity works. Every body has a central point as well where great amounts of movement cause heating and even magnetic effects. The magnetic is not the genesis of anything if anything it is a great loss of the value of this potential field along with heat. But those are mere conversions of this potential. The conversion is based solely on matter and if there were no bodies in this space it would be dark and most void like.

 Look up the Thunderbolts project.

 Like I said impulses do not oscillate they go from a central point and radiate out with for a lack of a better word for it finger like extensions from the body. The field is instantly on and off and that is not an oscillation of the traditional sense. It is an exciter field. The excitement comes from having full potential to no or near no potential and travels faster then the speed of light. If it didn't then light would not know how to move or which way to go in a sense. So the field has to go before the light for it to propagate.


 Lets do an experiment here. We all know that each form of matter has a standing potential when in the medium. This is because each atom displaces the medium with a different density and is energized by that same medium. This difference will actually cause a flow of current within a piece (wire) of matter like copper between the two pieces of matter. The copper could be considered the balance conductor at that point or focal point between the two pieces of matter. This is exactly what led us to the crystal batteries experiment. And the evidence is very strong that we are converting the radiance of our planet into a flow of real current to light an led. Yes it is not strong and no there is little galvanic process with the current tests being done.


 So we have a limitless supply of energy if we only have the foresight to admit we were wrong about certain aspects of our current science.


 But there is much opposition to even look into this stuff and I suspect that two things are at the root of the problem. One is pride and the other is greed. The pride in "thinking" or "believing" you have the right position on things is a very nasty egotistical belief. If we had viewed this from the correct aspect all along then we wouldn't be in the position we are in today. If we understood the true nature of our environment we would have seen things correctly and not have to make up concepts like the electron to explain the errors in our science and the subsequent math to support those logical fallacies. In fact I truly believe that the ancient societies knew way more then our own ego's will let us believe. They knew about the real composition of matter and it's relation to it's environment. That all energy is not within the matter but external and matter is only a filter or converter and reflector (reradiator) of external energy of the medium we live in.


 The greed part is that they use it to harness our own energy and contain us in little boxes while always figuring out new ways to extract more and more as time goes on. We are taught from day one that there is no free lunch but yet our solar system has been going for a billion years without one bill. We are schooled in their ways and as we have found out this creates a pay as you go mentality. They hammer it into our heads on a daily basis and formerly teach us this slavery system.


 But as we are finding out there is a free lunch. We just have to change our views on things and get with the program nature is trying to teach us. Through experimentation we will find the answer but that means doing the experiments in a way that works and not in the same old same old mentality. Magnetic fields and EM waves will never net us anything but losses. But charge an object that is designed to hold charge and it will stay charged forever. The electric field is the answer and we need to devise ways that allow us to convert at the load this electric field without losses in the transmission. Yes the transformation will have some losses or changes from electric to heat and magnetic fields but even then we are becoming better in our designing of devices to utilize the magnetic field more efficiently like in the example of the Joule thief.


 Lasersaber has done much work in experimenting with this concept and the joule ringer is the outcome. We just need to get past this magnetic worship and move on to much better concepts. Tesla was one for increasing the voltage to a point that almost no loss was associated with his "Transmitter" The magnification came from energizing the mass of the world and increasing the resultant ability to run multiple(millions) of current converters through the capacity of the world. Each impulse would energize the space around the world through this electrode capacitance of the world itself without harm to us or anything living. Yes it will disrupt "normal" devices because they were not designed to work on the system he envisioned. If we try to do this now it will destroy a great many devices in the world but those devices are tied to a system that is based on a lossy theory (Magnetics and EM theory). It is designed as such so we have to continuously have to pay to keep it running. And this is the crux of the problem and the bane of our society.


 Since I don't condone breaking others peoples stuff we must develop different methods to obtain the same outcome and it can be based on the method I have described above. A more natural way also that is much better for us and the environment. A more passive way as well that amplifies the current systems we already have and maybe get more out then in.


 You talk about measurements and reporting correct data and that has been my aim the whole time. But we will have to change our devices to measure this kind of energy. It is not as simple as hooking up a current technology meter to our device and expecting a readout that makes sense. In most cases like has been seen that the device will fail and after a bit will break because it can not handle the capablities needed to analyze impulse and radiant effects. So both new devices have to be devised to handle this stuff. Even Tesla had to have modified static voltage measuring devices to correctly analyze the effects of longitudinal energy.


 My first move is to experiment with this coil. I have done preliminary experiments that shows me that it works well with longitudinal energy or impulses. It is the best antenna for impulses because it has almost no feedback as shown in the short video showing the differences of using either a solenoid vs Bifilar coil as the broadcaster antenna. But I suspect that geometry plays a role in how you excite the bifilar coil. From around the coil on the same plane an impulse field will effect the current flowing in the bifilar coil augmenting it's output. and not the way the guys was showing for the bifilar coil as a receiver.


 My experiments will tell the truth.

 As for you insisting I didn't answer your question well to be honest I did and you are ignoring the post. Go back and reread my posts after your question and you will see. This is the problem with you, you don't read anything you paraphrase it and then spout some sill thing like you are wrong. Like I said I don't rightly care what you "Think". To me you just regurgitate what they have taught you if you ever learned anything in your life. You don't check the facts like in the video I showed that you thought was credible and 75% of the video was BS. So go back and check the video again and then check the facts not the information in your mind that was fuzzy or you couldn't remember right.

 I mean thats why I keep telling you you are out of your field here. Your memory is bad and half of what you think you remember you make up in some kind of logical fallacy.

 As for proof by experiment lets look at this video which is similar but different.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPWVbTk5Z9Q

 There is a lot of work out there already. You just have to do the research then of course replicate it to prove it to yourself.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 09:11:28 AM
Jbignes5:

I am not going to comment too much on your unusual view of the solar system and the displacement pressure stuff and longitudinal waves and related matters.  I am just going to make select comments.

Quote
But when talking about impulses and longitudinal waves within the electric field it transforms to a radiant field.

"Radiant field" is a meaningless term unless you state exactly what you mean by that.

Quote
And the evidence is very strong that we are converting the radiance of our planet into a flow of real current to light an led. Yes it is not strong and no there is little galvanic process with the current tests being done.

I read something the other day were they sad that the "crystal batteries" are nothing more than galvanic current and the moisture was being provided by the air.

Quote
We are taught from day one that there is no free lunch but yet our solar system has been going for a billion years without one bill.

Yes I am familiar with that idea that the solar system must be powered.  I still in a way find is shocking that people that are ostensibly interested in science in one form or another make statements like this.  All of the planets are in a perpetual free fall around the sun.  Do you get that?

Quote
Lasersaber has done much work in experimenting with this concept and the joule ringer is the outcome. We just need to get past this magnetic worship and move on to much better concepts. Tesla was one for increasing the voltage to a point that almost no loss was associated with his "Transmitter" The magnification came from energizing the mass of the world and increasing the resultant ability to run multiple(millions) of current converters through the capacity of the world. Each impulse would energize the space around the world through this electrode capacitance of the world itself without harm to us or anything living. Yes it will disrupt "normal" devices because they were not designed to work on the system he envisioned. If we try to do this now it will destroy a great many devices in the world but those devices are tied to a system that is based on a lossy theory (Magnetics and EM theory). It is designed as such so we have to continuously have to pay to keep it running. And this is the crux of the problem and the bane of our society.

If only the fantasy you write about above was true.

Quote
In most cases like has been seen that the device will fail and after a bit will break because it can not handle the capablities needed to analyze impulse and radiant effects. So both new devices have to be devised to handle this stuff.

Honestly I view the statement above as a complete and total cop-out.  You guys have been talking about this stuff for years and years and saying that you can't measure it and need new measuring devices.  Well, WHERE ARE THEY?  I have a very cynical view about this.  I view it as a curtain to hide behind.  "We think we know it's thee but we can't measure it."  It's like saying I have a $400K sports car but you just can't see it.  It's too convenient and if the enthusiasts say it and believe it among themselves then you are basically giving the scammers Carte Blanche to use it too to pull off their cons.

To be continued in part 2.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 09:33:24 AM
Part 2.

Quote
My first move is to experiment with this coil. I have done preliminary experiments that shows me that it works well with longitudinal energy or impulses.

Well, I look forward to the day when you can share your data.  By the way, you don't have any kind of "monopoly" on "impulses" like you seem to imply.  Your "impulses" are really and truly nothing special.  What's a computer motherboard?  Billions and billions of impulses per second with controlled slew rates.  They are not strange and unique to what you guys play with like you seem to be suggesting.

Quote
As for you insisting I didn't answer your question well to be honest I did and you are ignoring the post.

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

Will yo do me the courtesy of copying and pasting your answer here?  Because I sure as hell don't see an answer from you and I am suspecting that you are going to say something like it is in one of your linked clips or linked references and I should go look there.  That will not cut it. I have now asked you three times for your answer.

Quote
Your memory is bad and half of what you think you remember you make up in some kind of logical fallacy.

That is not true in the least bit.  Please don't cynically take advantage of my honesty.  By the same token, you dug up the transistor story and tried to use it against me.  I gave you a full explanation in my reply and you did not even acknowledge it.  Plus in that thread I also acknowledged my mistake and apologized.  Being a real person on the forums takes character and courage and it's unfortunate we see so much weak-kneed spinning at times.  Let's not play silly pi**ing in the wind games.  Is that a deal?

Quote
As for proof by experiment lets look at this video which is similar but different.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPWVbTk5Z9Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPWVbTk5Z9Q)

Honestly, there is nothing in that clip at all.  It's just the same old pulsing coil deal a la Bedini.  Tinman has another year under his belt now and I am willing to bet you he knows what major mistake he made in that clip at this point in time.

My gut feel Jbignes5, is that if you share your bench work and make YouTube clips and are prepared to discuss them here, then you are going to be in for a shock if you are willing to engage with people like me.  I have watched a lot of pulse motor and other clips and I have never seen anything out of the ordinary.  That's often the crux of the matter when you have a beginning experimenter.  The circuit under test is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing but the experimenter mistakenly makes fragile tenuous connections with the esoteric stuff that you see on the forums.

Looking forward to seeing your answer.

Milehigh

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 14, 2013, 03:00:12 PM
Jbignes5:

I am not going to comment too much on your unusual view of the solar system and the displacement pressure stuff and longitudinal waves and related matters.  I am just going to make select comments.

"Radiant field" is a meaningless term unless you state exactly what you mean by that.

I read something the other day were they sad that the "crystal batteries" are nothing more than galvanic current and the moisture was being provided by the air.

Yes I am familiar with that idea that the solar system must be powered.  I still in a way find is shocking that people that are ostensibly interested in science in one form or another make statements like this.  All of the planets are in a perpetual free fall around the sun.  Do you get that?

If only the fantasy you write about above was true.

Honestly I view the statement above as a complete and total cop-out.  You guys have been talking about this stuff for years and years and saying that you can't measure it and need new measuring devices.  Well, WHERE ARE THEY?  I have a very cynical view about this.  I view it as a curtain to hide behind.  "We think we know it's thee but we can't measure it."  It's like saying I have a $400K sports car but you just can't see it.  It's too convenient and if the enthusiasts say it and believe it among themselves then you are basically giving the scammers Carte Blanche to use it too to pull off their cons.

To be continued in part 2.

MileHigh


 My unusual view of the Universe is from this group of scientists who are actually looking at the Universe not with theories but with their eyes and then explaining what they see with real data and results of real experiments. They are rewriting the logical fallacies that we all have been subjected to our entire lives with facts.


 http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/


 I suggest you read and listen and educate yourself to the truth.

It doesn't matter what I think about radiance. Go look it up, it is very clear what radiance is both in my usage of the term and it's meaning.

 You read counter logical fallacies posed by people who have not done the experiments. In fact the galvanic response is exactly what they were and are trying to remove from the crystal batteries. Again you only remember what lets you support your logical fallacies. In the current experiments the galvanic response has been all but removed from the experiment. A very very small percentage of the power is done through galvanic response. But you read one little blurb and wow it all about galvanic response. Then again I encourage you to actually do the experiments and see for yourself. I have done the experiments, in fact I am still doing the experiments.

 First we have to do the experiment then find out what the problems are in testing the devices. There is an order to doing experiments. First you must ask ta question. Then design the experiment that might answer that question. Then an accurate way of measurement must be designed to test it without damaging the test equipment. I have not gotten that far yet in this experiment because I have to sit here and defend my position to someone who just "for fun" Likes to poke holes in everything one says without doing one experiment themselves. Because you don't know the terminology or even the method that we are talking about then how can you state anything at all about these investigations?

 This brings me to your reasons to do as such. There is a great force behind the current views that you hold so sacred. The theories make huge sums in cash and if Tesla was right and we find a way to live without slaving our lives away it will destroy the little bubble you guys live in. You know the ones who are making huge amounts of cash from US. You state you are a professional in the engineering field. You make your stream of cash on us and will protect that stream with every last breath. That includes making logical fallacies to support your income stream. We on the other hand are here to free humanity from scumbags like you. You lie with every breath and when shown those lies close your eyes and continue on with the attacks of credentials and logical fallacies ad numb. I for one will not be answering your tripe anymore after this last batch of posts. I have better things in my life to attend to. Like my experiments. You do this for "Fun", we are doing this to free ourselves from the likes of your kind that only feed off of our hard work like the parasites you are.

 You ask all kind of questions and this is because you are outside of your field as I have said many many times. You continue to ask these questions and post after post counter with your logical fallacies without even going to this great bank of information they call the internet. Research the field before saying one more thing. If there are terminologies you don't understand then go out and find your answers. One tip don't just look at one results when looking into this field. Research is not just cherry picking the answer that falls to your "Thoughts". it should be a consensus of information or at least a majority of the information agreeing.

 You also need to stop looking at the videos we post as just in and out measurements. There is a lot being said about the comparison video of bifilar vs. solenoid style coils. Of which you did not even pick up on and which I have been trying to point you towards. But the problem is that this is what you guys do time and time again. Instead of looking at the video and seeing the interesting thing he was trying to point out you make assumptions and instantly move to the input output argument. It is starring you in the face and despite all others efforts to point you in the right direction you harp on other aspects instead of what was the point of the video.

 Again I will stop answering your posts and you can stop "challenging" my posts which the challenge is utter BS.

 As for the ideal this and the ideal that well IDEAL=MADE UP. It is not real in any sense of the word. There is no such thing as an IDEAL anything. That is only a suppression tactic put out by people who do not like transients. They remove the transient from the equation and then don't have to deal with it. IDEAL=FAKE=MADE  UP or NOT REAL. Hows this for an ideal situation. You not being here messing with our investigations and experiments. Now that would be an ideal situation. Go have "fun" somewhere else and let the big boys experiment in peace with out disruptions and delay tactics or logical fallacies. This is not a healthy debate because in order to debate you must know something about the opposing sides take on it. You are just posing counter attacks without even knowing the terminology or concepts for which we are trying to experiment on.

 Again I call out your reasoning for doing as you are doing and that is two things GREED and PRIDE.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 14, 2013, 07:25:55 PM

 My unusual view of the Universe is from this group of scientists who are actually looking at the Universe not with theories but with their eyes and then explaining what they see with real data and results of real experiments. They are rewriting the logical fallacies that we all have been subjected to our entire lives with facts.


 http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ (http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/)


 I suggest you read and listen and educate yourself to the truth.

It doesn't matter what I think about radiance. Go look it up, it is very clear what radiance is both in my usage of the term and it's meaning.

 You read counter logical fallacies posed by people who have not done the experiments. In fact the galvanic response is exactly what they were and are trying to remove from the crystal batteries. Again you only remember what lets you support your logical fallacies. In the current experiments the galvanic response has been all but removed from the experiment. A very very small percentage of the power is done through galvanic response. But you read one little blurb and wow it all about galvanic response. Then again I encourage you to actually do the experiments and see for yourself. I have done the experiments, in fact I am still doing the experiments.

 First we have to do the experiment then find out what the problems are in testing the devices. There is an order to doing experiments. First you must ask ta question. Then design the experiment that might answer that question. Then an accurate way of measurement must be designed to test it without damaging the test equipment. I have not gotten that far yet in this experiment because I have to sit here and defend my position to someone who just "for fun" Likes to poke holes in everything one says without doing one experiment themselves. Because you don't know the terminology or even the method that we are talking about then how can you state anything at all about these investigations?

 This brings me to your reasons to do as such. There is a great force behind the current views that you hold so sacred. The theories make huge sums in cash and if Tesla was right and we find a way to live without slaving our lives away it will destroy the little bubble you guys live in. You know the ones who are making huge amounts of cash from US. You state you are a professional in the engineering field. You make your stream of cash on us and will protect that stream with every last breath. That includes making logical fallacies to support your income stream. We on the other hand are here to free humanity from scumbags like you. You lie with every breath and when shown those lies close your eyes and continue on with the attacks of credentials and logical fallacies ad numb. I for one will not be answering your tripe anymore after this last batch of posts. I have better things in my life to attend to. Like my experiments. You do this for "Fun", we are doing this to free ourselves from the likes of your kind that only feed off of our hard work like the parasites you are.

 You ask all kind of questions and this is because you are outside of your field as I have said many many times. You continue to ask these questions and post after post counter with your logical fallacies without even going to this great bank of information they call the internet. Research the field before saying one more thing. If there are terminologies you don't understand then go out and find your answers. One tip don't just look at one results when looking into this field. Research is not just cherry picking the answer that falls to your "Thoughts". it should be a consensus of information or at least a majority of the information agreeing.

 You also need to stop looking at the videos we post as just in and out measurements. There is a lot being said about the comparison video of bifilar vs. solenoid style coils. Of which you did not even pick up on and which I have been trying to point you towards. But the problem is that this is what you guys do time and time again. Instead of looking at the video and seeing the interesting thing he was trying to point out you make assumptions and instantly move to the input output argument. It is starring you in the face and despite all others efforts to point you in the right direction you harp on other aspects instead of what was the point of the video.

 Again I will stop answering your posts and you can stop "challenging" my posts which the challenge is utter BS.

 As for the ideal this and the ideal that well IDEAL=MADE UP. It is not real in any sense of the word. There is no such thing as an IDEAL anything. That is only a suppression tactic put out by people who do not like transients. They remove the transient from the equation and then don't have to deal with it. IDEAL=FAKE=MADE  UP or NOT REAL. Hows this for an ideal situation. You not being here messing with our investigations and experiments. Now that would be an ideal situation. Go have "fun" somewhere else and let the big boys experiment in peace with out disruptions and delay tactics or logical fallacies. This is not a healthy debate because in order to debate you must know something about the opposing sides take on it. You are just posing counter attacks without even knowing the terminology or concepts for which we are trying to experiment on.

 Again I call out your reasoning for doing as you are doing and that is two things GREED and PRIDE.


Great post! ;)


" Again I will stop answering your posts and you can stop "challenging" my posts which the challenge is utter BS."

I agree and I will stop also. Pages are filling up with garbage because of it.

Continue on.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 14, 2013, 07:46:57 PM
   If an electronic cloud forms a medium.   And we compress this medium by moving a charged plate straight away at it.  Would a longitudinal wave move through the electron cloud like a sound wave?   If tesla was charging his ground terminal with lots and lots and lots of electrons would they create electrical sound waves in any free electrons in the earth?   In a klystron microwave tube we get a stream of electrons to move from cathode to anode that is caused to become rarified and compressed along the flow path.   A fixed observer perpendicular from the stream is alternately charged from more negative to less negative without one  electron moving from the stream to the observer.   His  hair will alternately stand on end then collapse against his skull due to the  charge of the clumps of electrons moving in the stream.  In an electroscope you can move the gold leafs by just passing a glass rod with a wire in it connected to ground near the metal at the top of the electroscope.   Electrons in the metal are pushed into the gold leafs and they move apart.  Again not one electron moves from the glass rod to the electroscope.  What does move from the grounded metal to the electroscope is the electric field of the electrons inside the rod.  This is how we couple two resonant tanks together.   We use a capacitor between two tanks.    As  the electric field in one tank changes it excites oscillations in the second tank.  The second tank is excited using electrostatic induction or capacitave coupling.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 14, 2013, 08:01:28 PM



 My question sparks is this:


 Would two bifilar pancake coils that are connected via two capacitors create an oscillator? Now that would be an experiment. As I go and perfect my technique for winding the coils this will have to be looked into. Would stacking the coils in parallel reduce the nominal resistance of the wire and allow for better oscillations? Or should we use the litz wire method to do that?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 09:16:23 PM
Jbignes5:

Quote
As for the ideal this and the ideal that well IDEAL=MADE UP. It is not real in any sense of the word. There is no such thing as an IDEAL anything. That is only a suppression tactic put out by people who do not like transients. They remove the transient from the equation and then don't have to deal with it. IDEAL=FAKE=MADE  UP or NOT REAL.

So, we have clearly established here that over the past several postings made by you were you claimed that you answered the question, you have been lying.  You are unable to answer the question on a circuit that consists of one single component.  All that you can do is rant about the term "ideal."  In your electronic technician training (if you really had any which is doubtful) that term and concept should have been taught to you.

Why all the lying?  Why can't you just be honest?

This quote from you:

Quote
Would two bifilar pancake coils that are connected via two capacitors create an oscillator?

That just shows how clueless you are with respect to electronics, you can't even pose a question that makes sense.  And yet you are going to do bench 'research.'  You should work with Rosemary Ainslie, the two of you are on the same level.

Another goodie:

Quote
It doesn't matter what I think about radiance. Go look it up, it is very clear what radiance is both in my usage of the term and it's meaning.

You said, "But when talking about impulses and longitudinal waves within the electric field it transforms to a radiant field."  You can't even define your own terms that you used in your own prose.

Quote
You make your stream of cash on us and will protect that stream with every last breath. That includes making logical fallacies to support your income stream. We on the other hand are here to free humanity from scumbags like you. You lie with every breath and when shown those lies close your eyes and continue on with the attacks of credentials and logical fallacies ad numb. I for one will not be answering your tripe anymore after this last batch of posts. I have better things in my life to attend to. Like my experiments. You do this for "Fun", we are doing this to free ourselves from the likes of your kind that only feed off of our hard work like the parasites you are.

That's comical and there is an explanation for it.  There is a natural variation in people, like a bell curve, a.k.a., a normal distribution.  You are way out there in the Five Sigma Society.  You are just a hapless victim of where you landed on the bell curve.  It's unfortunate but Mother Nature does her thing.

Quote
You ask all kind of questions and this is because you are outside of your field as I have said many many times.

I have a Great Revelation for you Jbignes5.  It's my field and you are one that's on the outside.  You just can't see that looking through your psychedelic pinhole.  The society is not healthy if we don't have people like you.

Quote
There is a lot being said about the comparison video of bifilar vs. solenoid style coils.

If you only understood how a coil actually works that would help.  But hey, don't let those chains of knowledge hold you down in your coil 'research.'

Quote
Pages are filling up with garbage because of it.

A stinky troll that is also displaying his capacity for being a morally bankrupt self-contradictory 'dude' that lacks character and courage.  Magluvin also knows that you are in the Five Sigma Society too Jbigness, but he won't admit it.  He doesn't have the courage to say that to you.  So he is just making a fool of himself as the sad thread clown.  And after years of working on the bench and winding up an innumerable number of coils and doing countless 'experiments,' he can't answer the question either.   ;) ;) ;)

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 14, 2013, 09:59:52 PM
 Don't rightly care what you think anymore. I will leave this up to a third party and that party is named Stephan. I will have him look at all your posting and see that you are the liar. If need be he will moderate you to clear up this mess you have made of this thread. You my "friend" are the one playing games here. You say that I did not answer your question but I did in post 319.

 Here is the quote if you are too lazy to go find the post. " A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current."

 So who is the liar now?

 Also lets see your experiment with the real ideal inductor? Come show us this ideal inductor?
 That ideal inductor is just a mathematical construct from your delusional mind and theory that couldn't possible explain the electric field side of electricity. Lets stop the games ok liar.

Just for giggles lets see what Tinman has realized about the coil.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=lVEVCo0wXAA&feature=endscreen

 Now lets look at the ideal vs reality situation:

 "******In circuit theory, inductors are idealized as obeying the mathematical relation precisely.****** An "ideal inductor" has inductance, but no resistance or capacitance, and does not dissipate or radiate energy. However real inductors have side effects which cause their behavior to depart from this simple model. They have resistance (due to the resistance of the wire and energy losses in core material), and parasitic capacitance (due to the electric field between the turns of wire which are at slightly different potentials). At high frequencies the capacitance begins to affect the inductor's behavior; at some frequency, real inductors behave as resonant circuits, becoming self-resonant. Above the resonant frequency the capacitive reactance becomes the dominant part of the impedance. At higher frequencies, resistive losses in the windings increase due to skin effect and proximity effect.
Inductors with ferromagnetic cores have additional energy losses due to hysteresis and eddy currents in the core, which increase with frequency. At high currents, iron core inductors also show gradual departure from ideal behavior due to nonlinearity caused by magnetic saturation of the core. An inductor may radiate electromagnetic energy into surrounding space and circuits, and may absorb electromagnetic emissions from other circuits, causing electromagnetic interference (EMI). Real-world inductor applications may consider these parasitic parameters as important as the inductance."

 So lets not post hypothetical questions as fact troll.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 10:25:31 PM
What's there to giggle about Jbignes5?  What has Tinman realized about the Tesla series bifilar coil?  Why don't you share your thoughts with us about Tinman's clip.  I did watch it so I am curious to know what you have to say.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 11:00:12 PM
Jbignes5:

Here is the full paragraph from your posting #319:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Again the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here was the question I asked you:

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

Your few sentences embedded in a paragraph does not constitute an answer to my question.  And if you wanted to consider it an answer then you would be wrong.  Your comments about the bifilar not having the same "push back" are also wrong.

This is a pearl, "Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current."

Is your brain in gear?  Can you act normally, like posting, "The answer to your question is......."

Unbelievable.

I will agree with you and I am done talking with you.  We have done a lot of good things on this thread in examining the Tesla series bifilar coil patent and possible applications.  I took off the "Tesla blinders" and tried to get people to think critically and cast away their prejudices.  You joined the thread and said a lot of nonsensical stuff that should have been challenged.  We have had a debate and you were the instigator of the name calling and you even went as low as calling me a "scumbag."  In my opinion it's hopeless just like other good people on this forum have tried to get through to Rosemary Ainslie, it's hopeless.

What freaks me out is the complete cognative dissonance.  You actually believe that you can do research on the bench into coils and damn all of that "stupid textbook stuff."

From Wikipedia:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You are safe now Jbignes5.  You can run away and live out your fantasies.  I give up on you, it's a lost cause.

MileHigh


Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 11:10:01 PM
I'll bite on your last point Jbignes5:

Quote
Now lets look at the ideal vs reality situation:

 "******In circuit theory, inductors are idealized as obeying the mathematical relation precisely.****** An "ideal inductor" has inductance, but no resistance or capacitance, and does not dissipate or radiate energy. However real inductors have side effects which cause their behavior to depart from this simple model. They have resistance (due to the resistance of the wire and energy losses in core material), and parasitic capacitance (due to the electric field between the turns of wire which are at slightly different potentials). At high frequencies the capacitance begins to affect the inductor's behavior; at some frequency, real inductors behave as resonant circuits, becoming self-resonant. Above the resonant frequency the capacitive reactance becomes the dominant part of the impedance. At higher frequencies, resistive losses in the windings increase due to skin effect and proximity effect.
Inductors with ferromagnetic cores have additional energy losses due to hysteresis and eddy currents in the core, which increase with frequency. At high currents, iron core inductors also show gradual departure from ideal behavior due to nonlinearity caused by magnetic saturation of the core. An inductor may radiate electromagnetic energy into surrounding space and circuits, and may absorb electromagnetic emissions from other circuits, causing electromagnetic interference (EMI). Real-world inductor applications may consider these parasitic parameters as important as the inductance."

 So lets not post hypothetical questions as fact troll.

So, the question is easier to answer if you use an ideal inductor instead of a real inductor because you don't have to deal with all of the other parameters - but you still can't answer it.

And you bash the concept of an ideal inductor after looking it up because you are incapable of appreciating what it really is all about.  Every single person that takes an electronics course is taught about ideal inductors and ideal capacitors before they discuss the real versions of these components.  It's your ignorance talking.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 11:48:38 PM
I sent the following email to Stefan and Jbignes5 because I am going to cover my behind and not get railroaded by Jbignes5:

Stefan,

Myself and Jbignes5 had a strong debate and he said that he was going to run to you.

Here is the quote:

<<<
Don't rightly care what you think anymore. I will leave this up to a third party and that party is named Stephan. I will have him look at all your posting and see that you are the liar. If need be he will moderate you to clear up this mess you have made of this thread. You my "friend" are the one playing games here. You say that I did not answer your question but I did in post 319.

 Here is the quote if you are too lazy to go find the post. " A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current."

 So who is the liar now?
>>>>>

I asked Jbignes5 to answer my question several times after he claimed that he answered it.   In fact, his "answer" was embedded in a paragraph and he gave no indication that he was answering my question at all.

Here is his supposed "answer," just one of several paragraphs in a longer posting.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Again the bifilar coil is not an ordinary coil. It does not operate in the same way and doesn't have the push back (false current, self inductace) that a normal solenoid coil has to any current besides they use them in wire wound resistors. If they acted like normal coils off the shelf then wire wound resistors are null and void. Obviously they are not and you argument is false. A normal coil when hooked up to a normal current like DC will resist the current flow as it charges up. This is due to the self inductance and the resistance of the wire in the normal coil. Eventually the coil will choke out the current and no current will flow until there is a change in the current. But a bifilar coil uses the capacity between the pairs of wires to cancel the self inductance. This allows the coil to convert all current into the "magnetic and electric fields" and will not resist the current flow. It also will not gain in voltage as well like a traditional coil, that process must be experimented with and data collected to figure out the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I asked him several times for the answer but he did not have the courtesy to 1) indicate that he was answering the question in the first place, and 2) simply copy/paste the answer after I asked him the first of several times.

This is gratuitous belligerence on Jbignes5's part for who knows what reason.

Yes we argued and had strong words but I was not the instigator of the strong words.  The worst was when Jbignes5 called me "scumbag."

I brought a lot of value to this thread by getting the contributors to take a serious look at the Tesla series bifilar coil patent without the just blindly believing that "everything that Tesla ever did must be amazing."  It's just a patent for a coil winding configuration and it's applications and possible advantages (or not) have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I am not going to be "railroaded" by Jbignes5.  We had a good healthy strong debate in the overall thread and when Jbignes5 joined the thread very recently, the debate continued on.  The types of things that Jbignes5 said were too far out to not be challenged.  That is part of what this forum is about.  If we don't challenge ideas and debate them from both perspectives then we all lose.  The simple truth is that many many people would disagree with Jbignes5's claims and there is the issue of technical competence also, very similar to the Rosemary Ainslie case.

With respect, I am going to take the liberty of posting this message in the thread itself.  I will not be held 'hostage' to Jbignes5's threats to go to you and complain about me.  If you do actually read the thread you will sometimes see "push back" from me but only after I have been pushed first.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your forum.  It's very seriously arguable that when Jbignes5 makes wild claims that go unchallenged that that's to the real detriment of your forum.

What I can assure you is that my debate with Jbignes5 is now over because it's hopeless.

Respectfully,

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 15, 2013, 12:22:33 AM
 ugh.. rofl...


 Here is what i think of your message.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOcoWqGg3mY


 It is very clear you were the instigator to this Debate and the name calling started from your side.


 In every case I told you I answered your question that was a loaded question. I knew you would throw the ideal case out on the floor and when faced with your outright lies you have no choice but to, how did you put it, Call mommy.


 So to be fair this was a test. A test to see if you felt threatened by the proof of your lies. When faced with that truth you thought to preemptively bring Stephan into this Before I had a chance to lay it all out. But the proof is in the thread. The video in this reply tells the tactics you are applying as well. This is an old problem and we need to weed out the ones who do not follow a modicum of civility. My name calling was a direct result of you calling me snide names and remarks and now you think that Stephan is going to rescue you with the poof still in the thread about what you have done?


 The thread Name is Tesla's "Coil for Electro-magnets" All you have been doing is trying to derail conversations over this topic and distract us from talking about such. We asked you many many times to keep it civil and at least keep the nay saying to a minimum to allow us to further this topic, of which you are quick to respond every time with more distractions and out right disinformation. Stephan knows my character and of which he had to do investigations before on my behalf to ferret out the bad element.


 My initial suspicion was that you didn't read anything and understood very little in the "Debate". This is never more evident when i replied about your question but you failed to look back and check. Then you called me a liar and a troll and before that even stronger language. I mean really how many times does someone have to tell you to look for yourself and reread the posts that you said I never wrote.


 I don't go to Stephan often because he likes to do real experiments like most of us. He is busy with his own investigations but when someone has the logical fallacies that you put forth as facts then ignore when people reply to them showing you of your Fallacies, What are we to do. I mean I actually knew you were going to do what you did. The proof is in the thread and Stephan is a very smart man. I trust that he will see the games much like he has done before when people like you try to derail any progress in a thread and tend to belittle anyone that counters your disinformation.

 And for the fact of the matter I joined the conversation at reply #9 Not later as you say. Yet more disinformation.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 15, 2013, 12:33:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 15, 2013, 12:43:58 AM
   The Tesla secondary is excited due to I guess you would call it parasitic capacitance.    The entire secondary is a tank that converts impulses from the primary into highvoltage  high frequency oscillations in the secondary.  Each impulse is saved in the tank and not radiated.  Below is a link to Tesla's pancake coil inside a 2 turn primary under experimentation back in 1988.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFa-IymyWHM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFa-IymyWHM)

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 15, 2013, 01:22:17 AM
Hey everybody,

Let's dip into the Energetic Forum for a second.  In the "The Solenoid/Electromagnt" thread a lot of posters make comments related to the Tesla bifilar coil patent.

I am going to quote some of the comments here:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've been advocating this particular "improvement" for some time for particularly efficient electric motors using magnetic attraction. If you take a coil with the same number of turns, and compare it to this configuration using the same power supply, you will find this coil design produces a much stronger field for the same applied power (about 75% gain).
 
 These coils also store much larger amounts of energy in the electric field, which causes huge current spikes (amperage = change in the electric field/time) along with huge voltage spikes (voltage = change in the magnetic field/time) when the power is "Abruptly Disrupted".
----------
Well Chain,  looking at the patent I see why it's an improvement as the coil b. acts as gears working with each other if you picture the direction of the flux spinning around the wire.  figure a. being a standard coil has every flux orbit in a state of reluctance with the ones adjacent to it.
----------
A coil will heat up if it produces a magnetic field (stator) in opposition to another magnetic field (rotor). When you smash two opposing fields together, alot of heat is produced, much akin to slamming two cars together head on.
----------
P.S. I did read the patent many, many times. I have not "deciphered" it incorrectly. Tesla doesn't really mention magnetism even though it's part of the title. The claims of a stronger field per watt are coming from me. I don't know where you gathered that I was claiming Tesla.
----------
If that happen surely it will give more power to the created magnetic field, which is in other cases consumed into resistance heating. In such case pancake bifilar coil wound be essentially close to room temperature superconductor or self-adjusted tank circuit at resonance.
----------
I have never understood the pancake coil but thought
 it was about Tesla's high voltage high frequency work,
 and a coil which generated a good magnetic field
 without the inductance that interferes with HV/HF
 circuits. Is this right?
-----------
I believe a finely tuned/designed a coil can have a tighter stronger flux if aligned properly like a north/south halbach. Or a looser general field.  These modifications would require very precise latices with magnetically resistive and conductive layering.
-----------
I notice that when the power is applied there is a huge surge of field strength that dampens out. A single wire wound coil also possesses this interesting phenomena, however the bifilar coil in either configuration (series or parallel) causes a much more pronounced effect. The currents circulating inside the coil by it's own induction could have something to do with it based on the formula (Amp = change in electrification / time). But as to why the coil produces a stronger field per watt, I don't know. All I know is it does based on the experiments of 2 others and myself.
What this means is that less power is needed to saturate a core with the lines of force.
-----------
So to properly tune a Coil for electro-magnets, the voltage to be used is also
 a consideration. A coil wound for effect at 100 Khz using 10 000 volts will not
 work the same if 10 volts is used due to the capacitor plate separation
 (thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self
 capacitance to be less.
------------
I found a page where someone also compared field strengths of bifilar coils compared to single wire coils. They also state that the magnetic field is stronger.
------------
And I have conducted the experiment myself using the same amount of wire and the same power supply and came to a very different conclusion. I did not use nails, I used a compass. Nails are another way to go but a compass is far more accurate. You will see a gain in field strength. 1 coil with 100 turns of wire is equal to 2 coils with 50 turns of wire on the same diameter core.
------------
I've noticed something about the pancake style coil, from the spin of the magnetic force in the wires it appears that the coil fields would resemble a north/south Halbach array.   The north south Halbach increases the density  restricting the flux field to a small area.  Has anyone been able to measure if the field size and shape between the two coils differ?
------------
The geometry and the advantage of pancake types coils is one of dimensional usage, the shape of the field and the compact form.
-------------
It is not the increase of field strength when you energize the coil with an AC,IC,OC input, it is the simple result of reduced reluctance in its inherent geometry, it acts in mutual inductance to the second winding reinforcing its magnetic component.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Every single one of the statements above has a mistake or an error in conceptual reasoning.

And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate.  Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people.  And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 15, 2013, 01:48:50 AM

And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate.  Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people.  And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.

MileHigh

Well we are looking into this bifilar coil no matter what you say. You want us to just believe that the bifi coil is just a coil and a cap, an LC. Well we are looking into that to see if it is true. But you dont want that.

You say you and Gyula cleared it all up and you educated people. Who did you educate? Sparks? Jbigs? ME? Farmhand?  Who?   You dont even do experiments! You push people to answer questions like you own this. You dont. You waste sooo much page space and that puts big gaps in threads that are useless. Id rather you were not here. Its all very disruptive.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 15, 2013, 01:58:37 AM
Hey everybody,

Let's dip into the Energetic Forum for a second.  In the "The Solenoid/Electromagnt" thread a lot of posters make comments related to the Tesla bifilar coil patent.

I am going to quote some of the comments here:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've been advocating this particular "improvement" for some time for particularly efficient electric motors using magnetic attraction. If you take a coil with the same number of turns, and compare it to this configuration using the same power supply, you will find this coil design produces a much stronger field for the same applied power (about 75% gain).
 
 These coils also store much larger amounts of energy in the electric field, which causes huge current spikes (amperage = change in the electric field/time) along with huge voltage spikes (voltage = change in the magnetic field/time) when the power is "Abruptly Disrupted".
----------
Well Chain,  looking at the patent I see why it's an improvement as the coil b. acts as gears working with each other if you picture the direction of the flux spinning around the wire.  figure a. being a standard coil has every flux orbit in a state of reluctance with the ones adjacent to it.
----------
A coil will heat up if it produces a magnetic field (stator) in opposition to another magnetic field (rotor). When you smash two opposing fields together, alot of heat is produced, much akin to slamming two cars together head on.
----------
P.S. I did read the patent many, many times. I have not "deciphered" it incorrectly. Tesla doesn't really mention magnetism even though it's part of the title. The claims of a stronger field per watt are coming from me. I don't know where you gathered that I was claiming Tesla.
----------
If that happen surely it will give more power to the created magnetic field, which is in other cases consumed into resistance heating. In such case pancake bifilar coil wound be essentially close to room temperature superconductor or self-adjusted tank circuit at resonance.
----------
I have never understood the pancake coil but thought
 it was about Tesla's high voltage high frequency work,
 and a coil which generated a good magnetic field
 without the inductance that interferes with HV/HF
 circuits. Is this right?
-----------
I believe a finely tuned/designed a coil can have a tighter stronger flux if aligned properly like a north/south halbach. Or a looser general field.  These modifications would require very precise latices with magnetically resistive and conductive layering.
-----------
I notice that when the power is applied there is a huge surge of field strength that dampens out. A single wire wound coil also possesses this interesting phenomena, however the bifilar coil in either configuration (series or parallel) causes a much more pronounced effect. The currents circulating inside the coil by it's own induction could have something to do with it based on the formula (Amp = change in electrification / time). But as to why the coil produces a stronger field per watt, I don't know. All I know is it does based on the experiments of 2 others and myself.
What this means is that less power is needed to saturate a core with the lines of force.
-----------
So to properly tune a Coil for electro-magnets, the voltage to be used is also
 a consideration. A coil wound for effect at 100 Khz using 10 000 volts will not
 work the same if 10 volts is used due to the capacitor plate separation
 (thickness of insulation or distance between turns) causing the secured self
 capacitance to be less.
------------
I found a page where someone also compared field strengths of bifilar coils compared to single wire coils. They also state that the magnetic field is stronger.
------------
And I have conducted the experiment myself using the same amount of wire and the same power supply and came to a very different conclusion. I did not use nails, I used a compass. Nails are another way to go but a compass is far more accurate. You will see a gain in field strength. 1 coil with 100 turns of wire is equal to 2 coils with 50 turns of wire on the same diameter core.
------------
I've noticed something about the pancake style coil, from the spin of the magnetic force in the wires it appears that the coil fields would resemble a north/south Halbach array.   The north south Halbach increases the density  restricting the flux field to a small area.  Has anyone been able to measure if the field size and shape between the two coils differ?
------------
The geometry and the advantage of pancake types coils is one of dimensional usage, the shape of the field and the compact form.
-------------
It is not the increase of field strength when you energize the coil with an AC,IC,OC input, it is the simple result of reduced reluctance in its inherent geometry, it acts in mutual inductance to the second winding reinforcing its magnetic component.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Every single one of the statements above has a mistake or an error in conceptual reasoning.

And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate.  Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people.  And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.

MileHigh


 You just can't stop choking up this thread with junk from another forum or from your own deluded posts. We are here and not other forums.


 In fact earlier on in the thread you complain about your memory and that you can not do any bench work because you don't have a bench? So how do we trust someone who a: doesn't have a bench and B: that has memory problems and lack of the ability to remember your "supposed bench work from the past"?


 I have caught you in many lies and yet you persist to continue. Why? What is so important that you must diverge this thread on OU many many times. Even after people have asked you to stop?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 15, 2013, 02:11:50 AM

 You just can't stop choking up this thread with junk from another forum or from your own deluded posts. We are here and not other forums.


 In fact earlier on in the thread you complain about your memory and that you can not do any bench work because you don't have a bench? So how do we trust someone who a: doesn't have a bench and B: that has memory problems and lack of the ability to remember your "supposed bench work from the past"?


 I have caught you in many lies and yet you persist to continue. Why? What is so important that you must diverge this thread on OU many many times. Even after people have asked you to stop?

Agree 100%.  Lies about Tesla. If what MH says about the bifi is true, then why need to disgrace Tesla's name along the way? Ill say it again, he has something against people working with these coils. He even ridicules about the hours we might put into it, while he does nothing but quote the internet and other peoples YT vids.

And yeah, its always, "I cant remember" when he is found and shown to be incorrect, then the particular subject changes, then the next day the same crap. Sick of it.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 15, 2013, 02:45:34 AM
Magluvin:

Quote
Well we are looking into this bifilar coil no matter what you say. You want us to just believe that the bifi coil is just a coil and a cap, an LC. Well we are looking into that to see if it is true. But you dont want that.

More Straw Man nonsense and crap from you.  Will you ever grow up?

About two months ago we discussed how to test the bifilar coil and I gave you some good sound technical suggestions for how to do some tests on your bench.  I encouraged you to test the coil.   You have the audacity to say, "but you don't want that?"  You talk junk and you know that you are talking junk and I know that you know that you are talking junk.  You have no integrity whatsoever and you lie, as shown below:

From post #288:

Quote
Magluvin:

Good luck in your investigations and I will make a few comments.
.
.
,
I suppose the question is is it worth the trouble?  Perhaps just an A-B comparison between two coils with the same number of turns, one regular, one series bifilar would be a good test.   Supposing you notice a tiny current inrush on the series bifilar when you energize it and you don't see that with regular coil.  Like I already said, there is no magic bypass for the energy it will take to energize either coil.

So this possible tiny current inrush, does it mean anything?  Can you do anything practical with it?   That's the real question.

The theme behind my posting is to try to recognize what's relevant and what's not relevant when you experiment.  That is an important basic fundamental skill worth learning.  Do you spend hours and hours doing some kind of special winding for a coil or do you spend 20 minutes and just wind an ordinary coil, or do you buy a spool of wire at the electronics store and have an "instant coil?"

MileHigh

Of course, like usual, you didn't have the courage or the character to thank me for my efforts to help you.  Just like it's happened many times before.

Quote
Ill say it again, he has something against people working with these coils. He even ridicules about the hours we might put into it, while he does nothing but quote the internet and other peoples YT vids.

More junk talk.  You are not that stupid to believe what you are saying above.  You're not!  Like I said above, I encouraged you to do your own tests.  Same thing when you try to imply I have ulterior motives like I am part of some group that wants to 'suppress' the investigation into these coils.  You are not that stupid, both about me and the coils themselves.

I have issued the challenge to you, and others, to demonstrate something "amazing and unique" about the coil.  Then you fall mute and you have nothing to offer.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 15, 2013, 03:45:04 AM
Magluvin:

More Straw Man nonsense and crap from you.  Will you ever grow up?

About two months ago we discussed how to test the bifilar coil and I gave you some good sound technical suggestions for how to do some tests on your bench.  I encouraged you to test the coil.   You have the audacity to say, "but you don't want that?"  You talk junk and you know that you are talking junk and I know that you know that you are talking junk.  You have no integrity whatsoever and you lie, as shown below:

From post #288:

Of course, like usual, you didn't have the courage or the character to thank me for my efforts to help you.  Just like it's happened many times before.

More junk talk.  You are not that stupid to believe what you are saying above.  You're not!  Like I said above, I encouraged you to do your own tests.  Same thing when you try to imply I have ulterior motives like I am part of some group that wants to 'suppress' the investigation into these coils.  You are not that stupid, both about me and the coils themselves.

I have issued the challenge to you, and others, to demonstrate something "amazing and unique" about the coil.  Then you fall mute and you have nothing to offer.

MileHigh


I told you where im going with this coil. Im not done yet. My motor has 24 coils and will be wound with 42awg wire. Miles of it. Im winding 24 coils normal and 24 coils bifi to test the differences. The bifi coils, each of the 2 wires A and B, all of the A wires will be in series and all of the B wires will be in series, then All the A's in series with the B's. I explained why I will wire it that way in order to have half of the input voltage between all adjacent turns. I explained it. Maybe I have a different approach to testing these things as your tests are limited, in my opinion.  The pics of what IM doing is here...

http://www.overunity.com/13523/has-anyone-seen-lasersabers-new-motor-runs-on-1000uf-cap/msg364608/#msg364608

And here...

http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=155.msg1753#msg1753

I will take my time and will not be pushed by the likes of you. You who does nothing.


"Of course, like usual, you didn't have the courage or the character to thank me for my efforts to help you.  Just like it's happened many times before."

Thats right. When have I asked for your help?  Yeah, thanks for nuthin but wasting my time. You tried to encourage me to build a fake pulse motor and that people would learn from it. There are so many out there and you want me to be involved and continue that trend, well no. I see your game. You order people to do your bidding yet wont even light an led with a battery on a bench to see if there are led's that conduct 1v forward current, as you once claimed led's do. Then you say its been 30 yrs. Then you say you are an electrical engineer. Then you say you only know as much about Tesla that you had seen in a documentary years ago, then....   Bullshit




" I have issued the challenge to you, and others, to demonstrate something "amazing and unique" about the coil.  Then you fall mute and you have nothing to offer.

Stick your challenges where you wish. Why should I have to do anything you say? I challenge you to build something. lol  Nutbag

Mags
Mags


Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 15, 2013, 04:14:26 AM
Have fun building your motor.  Looking forward to seeing your testing, no suggestions from me.  Let's see if Magsy can bring something new to the table or if it's just the same old pulse motor song and dance we have all seen before.

Oh, the motor doesn't actually _do_ anything?  Some people would call that being a nutbag.

P.S.:  I have designed several products that have gone into production.  You know, the real world.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 15, 2013, 04:23:27 AM
 Show the proof of your last claim. Show the devices then tell us your real name...

 This is the thing. He gets off on this. He touts how he is this and he is that but from my observations he is a self serving egotistical meglomaniac. He does nothing but insist he is right. He quotes textbook examples and treats those examples like they are written by god himself.


 Listen milehigh get you head out of the clouds and come back to earth. You are not the savior of anything acting the fool like you do. In fact most of your supporters have abandoned you and pulled away from the thread because even they have noticed some strange misinformation coming from you.


 Here is a tip ok. Say your peace and back out.


 We get the point.. You misquote everything including logical fallacies that permiate through that thick skull of yours. Like trying to apply ideal inductors as an example of real world applications. And for decades any real technician hates an engineer. This is why.. Because ideal situation never exist but you engineers live by them. You breath in an ideal way and your mind works in only the ideal world which only exists in your little world. Meanwhile the real world has to deal with all the ideal mistakes you have made in your designs. Thats why technicians have to rework the designs because you guys can't deal with reality, only the ideal.


 Read the quote again that I gave for the ideal vs reality example. The last line... Wait let me refresh you memory for you, I know how bad it is sometimes.. "Real-world inductor applications may consider these parasitic parameters as important as the inductance."

 Did you even look at the video that sparks linked to. It tells the problem at the end that you are having in this discussion. Did you watch the video I posted in my last link. Even though it was about archaeology it still shows the problem we are having here with you.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 15, 2013, 04:32:39 AM
v = L di/dt.   i = 1/L integral v dt   Ans: i = 7/3 t     ROTFLMAO
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 15, 2013, 04:41:53 AM
   If you have a couple of hours free in both time and mind I think you will find the below videos quite interesting if your into electrical fields.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZmFY9W4eg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZmFY9W4eg)
 

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 15, 2013, 05:10:01 AM
Have fun building your motor.  Looking forward to seeing your testing, no suggestions from me.  Let's see if Magsy can bring something new to the table or if it's just the same old pulse motor song and dance we have all seen before.

Oh, the motor doesn't actually _do_ anything?  Some people would call that being a nutbag.

P.S.:  I have designed several products that have gone into production.  You know, the real world.

"Have fun building your motor.  Looking forward to seeing your testing, no suggestions from me.  Let's see if Magsy can bring something new to the table or if it's just the same old pulse motor song and dance we have all seen before."

Yeah, we'll see. ::)

"Oh, the motor doesn't actually _do_ anything?  Some people would call that being a nutbag."

I have never met these people. ;) But with you, anything is possible. ;D


"P.S.:  I have designed several products that have gone into production.  You know, the real world."

Making claims. Any proof?   Yet we have to prove what we say.  ::)



Here is a pic of one of the 24 coils, single wire. 3300 turns till just about full. 649 ohms.  24 coils=   79200 total turns  15.5kohm all in series. All those values should be the same when I wind the bifi coils.  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 15, 2013, 05:30:29 AM
What's your preliminary test plan for comparing your regular coils vs. series bifilar coils in your pulse motor?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on July 15, 2013, 12:55:00 PM

....
And that's very similar to what was taking place on this thread before I joined it and got involved in the debate.  Between myself and Gyula and others we cleared up a lot of these issues and educated people.  And that's a good thing and the more healthy debates you have on the forum, the better off we all are.


Hi MileHigh,

My tests shown with the electromagnets built on bolts proved that the lifting forces are identical for a single and a bifilar winding coil, using the same length of wire and core for both WHEN a steady state DC current is the input to both type of electromagnets.

Tesla obviously meant to drive his bifilar coil at its self resonant frequency with AC current (or probably pulsed current) and this has not been tested. Tesla wrote the advantage of driving the bifilar coil at its resonant frequency we all read it.

The question now is how a resonantly driven bifilar coil could be utilized to have energy advantage over a non bifilar equivalent single coil?  Only further tests can give answers.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: conradelektro on July 15, 2013, 01:59:16 PM
   If you have a couple of hours free in both time and mind I think you will find the below videos quite interesting if your into electrical fields.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZmFY9W4eg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZmFY9W4eg)

Almost 4 hours of presentation by Professor Eric Dollard and not a single device which would show at least the boldest of his claims.

It would be the most effective demonstartion of any bold claim to show a device which works and to demonstrate the claimed theory step by step. But that never happens, only 4 hours of warm, not even hot air.

What amazes me is that people like Dollard can go on like this for decades. It is like self proclaimed healers who never heal but still make money.

I admit to be intrigued by "magic claims", and many must be like me, otherwise the people who make "magic claims" would be long out of business.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 15, 2013, 03:01:34 PM
   I found it interesting and more inspirational than progressive.  Entertaining?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 15, 2013, 03:42:58 PM
Hi Gyula.

Quote
My tests shown with the electromagnets built on bolts proved that the lifting forces are identical for a single and a bifilar winding coil, using the same length of wire and core for both WHEN a steady state DC current is the input to both type of electromagnets.

Tesla obviously meant to drive his bifilar coil at its self resonant frequency with AC current (or probably pulsed current) and this has not been tested. Tesla wrote the advantage of driving the bifilar coil at its resonant frequency we all read it.

The question now is how a resonantly driven bifilar coil could be utilized to have energy advantage over a non bifilar equivalent single coil?  Only further tests can give answers.

Nothing will come of this.  Chances are that Magluvin has no preliminary test plan, he is just going through the motions.  All of Jbignes5's grandiose claims about the coil are simply unfounded claims with nothing to back them up.

Sure they can get Tesla series bifilar coil to self-resonate, but so what?  There will be no energy advantage to find with this coil no matter what test they do.

It's time to let the boys play with their toys until they get fed up.  Nothing will come of this.  The whole business of "pushing forward" no matter what the rational analysis says is just belligerence for the sake of belligerence.

In a way this is just a microcosm version of the whole RomeroUK or the Mylow affair.  Lots of energy expended on the threads and in this case perhaps a few builders and testers, all for naught.  Some of them even have a decent grasp of the issues at hand, they read this thread, but they will solder on and sleepwalk through it, knowing beforehand that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Somebody might declare "victory" because they find that the coil is "different."  ho hum

The sad thing is that some people don't want to look at things rationally.  They don't want to be educated and take advantage of all that we have learned over the past 150 years.

We can sit back and watch the blinking lights and watch the builders go through the motions.  There is a decent chance that nobody will report anything.  Attempts to do a rational analysis and take a realistic look at this coil have failed at least in the public image of what has transpired on this thread.  However, I bet you that the silent majority that follows this thread in the background knows the real deal.

MileHigh

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: SeaMonkey on July 15, 2013, 09:55:50 PM
To those who are busily working to get
their "builds" going it may seem that
MileHigh is needling.

MileHigh is usually correct about the
technical misconceptions he is striving
to set straight.  He truly is attempting
to encourage fruitful thought and beneficial
research efforts since real knowledge will
ultimately lead to greater success and
the avoidance of costly mistakes.

It's an ages old phenomenon;  those who
try to help others see their error are
frequently thought to be busybodies and
irritants.  At least, until wisdom finally
takes up residence.  We have a tendency
to want to cling to "our beliefs" no matter
what.  Admitting wrong is very painful.

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 15, 2013, 10:18:36 PM
Everything I explained about "Impulse Magnetization" has been ignored. JLN demonstrates %100 energy transfer between his serial pancakes with no heat loss what so ever in his Gegene experiments. Regular coils would fry if you attempted that. Stop trying to trivialize these differences, and the way his coil for electro magnets worked had nothing what so ever to do with running D.C. current through the coil.   



             
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 15, 2013, 11:08:18 PM
SeaMonkey thank you for your kind and wise words.

Synchro1, I have always encouraged people to experiment with this coil, notwithstanding what others try to say in some kind of Orwellian nightmare.  You have to look at this coil configuration and take it at face value and then do some experiments.  This notion that there is some "secret sauce" associated with this coil stems from the fact that there is a Tesla patent and the "Cult of Tesla" comes into play.  When you actually look at the coil "on paper" you can deduce how it will operate in real life with a high degree of confidence.

Quote
JLN demonstrates %100 energy transfer between his serial pancakes with no heat loss what so ever in his Gegene experiments. Regular coils would fry if you attempted that.

Oh really?  How do you know that "regular coils would fry?"  See, you are just making it up to try to bolster your claim.  You are playing the "Cult of Tesla" game when you say that.

Let's look at the issue of two coils coupling with each other without any core material.  We are going to assume that the application is not a power coupling application since there is no core.  We will assume that it is a signal coupling application.

Well, if you wind two separate wires together on a spool then you have a bifilar coil.  And in this case I mean a true bifilar coil with two separate wires.  That should give you pretty good coupling.  However, the coil-to-coil capacitance is relatively high and may become an unwanted annoyance here.

What if you have two separate coils and you want to couple them?  Should you put two pancake coils facing each other?  The answer is no, there is a serious limitation for coupling when it comes to pancake coils.  The inner coils are small and will not cut as much flux as the outer coils.  On the other hand, two regular coils with a narrow length or "z" dimension facing each other will couple much better.  They also won't have all of that nasty flux-self cancellation that you get in a pancake coil.  Every loop in the "sender" coil will generate a nice blast of magnetic flux through the same circular aperture.  Similarly, every loop in the "receiver" coil will "catch" almost 100% of the flux being generated by the "sender" coil.  There will be no significant coil-to-coil capacitance to deal with in this case which might be highly desirable for your signal transmission application.

So what that means is for pure AC coupling applications without a magnetic core, and using two separate and distinct coils, that ordinary vanilla circular loop coils will most likely outperform pancake coils in most if not all applications.

Another point worth mentioning is that I am still being very generic in my comments, and generic comments when it comes to electronics can be dangerous.  For example, if you are doing a signal coupling application, what frequency range are you trying to couple?  That's probably the most important question and it must be answered as part of the process of either selecting or designing a coil.

So the moral of the story is to examine each case on it's own merits.

The second moral of the story is that there are literally thousands of configurations of stand-alone coils and transformers.  They are available in all sorts of shapes and sizes depending on the application.  For all I know you may be able to purchase a commercial off-the-shelf coil as per Tesla's patent assuming that there is an ultra-niche application for that configuration.  However, my gut feel is telling me that it is highly unlikely.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2013, 12:06:18 AM
You're a chronic pain and a fraud. Try to understand this and stop trying to defraud everyone with your "Cult Paranoia"!


The Tesla series bifilar has zero reluctance to change in current direction. Running A.C. through a regular coil generates heat because the single wire coil reluctance to change in current direction is greater then zero. They would smoke with JLN's input. Stop trying to pretend the coils act the same way. You're so dead and stupid wrong you should get help with your persistent delusions!    
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 16, 2013, 12:22:58 AM
Synchro1:

I am telling you like it is and it's hard to decipher what you are saying technically.

Quote
Running A.C. through a regular coil generates heat because the single wire coil reluctance to current change is greater then zero. They would smoke with JLN's input.

Can you explain that some more because I can't make head or tail of what you are saying?

I think I may have gotten it now.  You are equating inductive reluctance to resistance and assuming that will heat up the wire. That's wrong and just shows that you don't understand how a coil works.  The inductive reluctance is there because the coil is building up a magnetic field.  The energy is not heating the wire, it's building up the magnetic field.

Honestly Synchro1, with statements like that, you need to lean the basics.  Books, YouTube, surf the net, do something.

You have the delusions when it comes to this stuff, but you can get up the learning curve if you really want to.  It's all up to you.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2013, 12:45:59 AM
Look, get Gyula to run 9 volt A.C. through his iron core biflilar and test the magnetic pull and heat. Then try and run that same 9 volt A.C. current through the single wire version, then compare the heat and pull to the bifilars. I can tell you right off the bat that the single wire coil will very shortly grow too hot to touch, while the series bifilar remains cool! Why don't you try it "Hawkings"? Practicly everyone has tried to run A.C through a single wire electromagnet and caused an electicel fire. 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on July 16, 2013, 12:52:11 AM
Everything I explained about "Impulse Magnetization" has been ignored. JLN demonstrates %100 energy transfer between his serial pancakes with no heat loss what so ever in his Gegene experiments. Regular coils would fry if you attempted that. Stop trying to trivialize these differences, and the way his coil for electro magnets worked had nothing what so ever to do with running D.C. current through the coil.   
             

Hi synhcro1,

Yes I agree, Tesla's Coil for electromagnet patent had nothing whatsoever to do with running DC current through the coil. However, it was you who brought the paper clip tests with the nails into this topic as an example, remember? And in that link http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm (http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm)  it was no where mentioned that the nail should be treated first by Impulse Magnetization i.e. first you make a permanent magnet from the nail and then pick up the paper clips, right? Please show me where it is written?

PS here is a permanent copy of the content of the page in above link because sometimes the link does not work:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Bifilar_Electromagnet.pdf (http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Bifilar_Electromagnet.pdf)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 16, 2013, 12:55:21 AM
Quote
Look, get Gyula to run 9 volt A.C. through his iron core biflilar and test the magnetic pull and heat. Then try and run that same 9 volt A.C. current through the single wire version, then compare the heat and pull to the bifilars. I can tell you right off the bat that the single wire coil will very shortly grow too hot to touch, while the series bifilar remains cool! Why don't you try it "Hawkings"!

If it was only that simple.  You are not specifying the frequency.  Nor can you just compare two coils like you are stating.  You are not even discussing how much inductance each coil has.

Beyond that, Synchro1, the resistive heat produced in the wires in all honesty is not a valid way to compare the two coils.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2013, 01:00:10 AM
"Resistive heat produced in the wires in all honesty is not a valid way to compare the two coils."


This is utter rubbish! 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 16, 2013, 01:06:58 AM
If you want make a case for your statement Synchro1, by all means go ahead.

Just a few sentences will not be a strong case.  Please, do a half-page or do a full-page or more write-up to explain your reasoning.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2013, 01:11:26 AM
Gyula,


         There's a trick to it knave! The bifilar throws a bigger spark, and can Impulse Magnetize the nail core
more deeply then the single wire version when the field collapses! That's the way to get it to work. How come you haven't tried it yet?


          Get a 9 volt wall outlet transformer and try try the A.C. test while your at it.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2013, 01:47:18 AM
Two single wire Hot Plates held one one over the other would melt after you turned the heat up all the way under one, not transfer power like JLN's Gegene and receiver! Think about this.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 16, 2013, 02:13:50 AM
Quote
Two single wire Hot Plates held one one over the other would melt after you turned the heat up all the way under one, not transfer power like JLN's Gegene and receiver! Think about this.

C'mon Synchro1, really.  From your clips you sound like a grown man between 45 and 55 years old, please act like one.  Your talk about "hot plates" is absolutely and utterly ridiculous.  We have seen similar shenanigans like this from you in the past.

I will only say this once so if you make posts like that in the future I will ignore them.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2013, 06:21:26 AM
From the way you sound I would  place your age at teenage punk!
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 16, 2013, 06:36:01 AM
Synchro1:

This thread could use a video clip as a diversion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PinCg7IGqHg

Advice for you:  Grow up and act like a man.  Be honest.  Loose the "freaky electronics crazy man" routine.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2013, 07:02:51 AM
"The coil for electro-magnets patent is not about lifting magnets as such. But
it is definitely about negating reactance, which is not an issue with
uninterrupted DC. So it's about pulsed and AC magnets."[/size]


Gyula's in an exchange with a guy over at Energetic Forum who got greater compass deflection from a bifilar. [/size]
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 16, 2013, 02:33:21 PM
Tesla was slick.  In his patents he always presents a lesson.  In his patent for using cooling devices he for some reason applied for the patent then said it was useless.  To negate resistance problems in his freely oscillating transformer secondaries instead of using refrigeration  he ends up implying just increase the self-inductance of the windings.  The induced voltage will cancel out any voltage drop due to resistance.  Another thing that is confusing me is,  in his patents pertaining to the magnifying transmitter I don't see any disruption device.  No spark gap-no nothing just a capactior or a generator.    Last thing I knew a capacitor can only act as a dc current source.   Also in earlier patents he referenced the use of a dynamo feeding his primaries to start oscillations in his secondaries.  Again no reference to a switching device.  I think he alternately condenses the local electrical field into a condensor.  The local electrical field is rarified.   Mother nature abhors a vacuum and pours some more whatever it is thingies into the rarified situation.   He makes sure that the condensor is discharged after the local electrical field is back to status quo.  The electricity leaving the condensor expands in the scalar field and therefore causes a displacement wave to travel in the scalar electric field.  He is directly effecting whatever produces charge therefore is immune to losses involved moving mass about.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on July 16, 2013, 03:18:24 PM
Look, get Gyula to run 9 volt A.C. through his iron core biflilar and test the magnetic pull and heat. Then try and run that same 9 volt A.C. current through the single wire version, then compare the heat and pull to the bifilars. I can tell you right off the bat that the single wire coil will very shortly grow too hot to touch, while the series bifilar remains cool! Why don't you try it "Hawkings"? Practicly everyone has tried to run A.C through a single wire electromagnet and caused an electicel fire.

Hi synchro1,

How can I exactly go about to test the magnetic pull and heat when the 50 or 60 Hz AC current is used? Please describe the details.

(Both my single and bifilar coils have about 417 and 423 uH inductance respectively, and 1.6 Ohm DC resistance. So the AC reactance at 50 or 60 Hz is about 0.13 to 0.15 Ohm, a negligible value beside the 1.6 Ohm DC resistance, so in case of a 12V wall outlet transformer the AC current taken by any of the coils is about 12 V/1.73 Ohm = 6.9 Amper. I repeat: for both coils.)

...
Gyula's in an exchange with a guy over at Energetic Forum who got greater compass deflection from a bifilar.

In fact, the guy has disappeared for 4 days now, left unanswered questions on his setup and on the bifilar coil test setup used by two yahoo group members he had referred to. 
By the way, using a compass for comparing fields demand much higher precision to observe than using paper clips or nuts because less than a mm difference in the distances already can give high differences in compass deflection.

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: poynt99 on July 16, 2013, 03:31:12 PM
Gyula,

What about using a Hall effect sensor to detect the strength of the alternating B field? Even a DC sensor might provide adequate measurement (half-wave)? It may be worth a try.

Google the "UGN3503". It is flat to 23kHz.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Paul-R on July 16, 2013, 06:22:28 PM
Google the "UGN3503". It is flat to 23kHz.
But it may be out of production. Patrick's book suggests the A1302. Is this OK?
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on July 16, 2013, 08:32:12 PM
Hi poynt99,

I agree, using a Hall sensor is a good idea, thanks.

@Paul

The book suggestion is correct, the A1302 has a typical 20 kHz bandwidth and other parameters are also much similar or the same.

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on July 17, 2013, 12:25:24 AM
Tesla was slick.  In his patents he always presents a lesson.  In his patent for using cooling devices he for some reason applied for the patent then said it was useless.  To negate resistance problems in his freely oscillating transformer secondaries instead of using refrigeration  he ends up implying just increase the self-inductance of the windings.  The induced voltage will cancel out any voltage drop due to resistance.  Another thing that is confusing me is,  in his patents pertaining to the magnifying transmitter I don't see any disruption device.  No spark gap-no nothing just a capactior or a generator.    Last thing I knew a capacitor can only act as a dc current source.   Also in earlier patents he referenced the use of a dynamo feeding his primaries to start oscillations in his secondaries.  Again no reference to a switching device.  I think he alternately condenses the local electrical field into a condensor.  The local electrical field is rarified.   Mother nature abhors a vacuum and pours some more whatever it is thingies into the rarified situation.   He makes sure that the condensor is discharged after the local electrical field is back to status quo.  The electricity leaving the condensor expands in the scalar field and therefore causes a displacement wave to travel in the scalar electric field.  He is directly effecting whatever produces charge therefore is immune to losses involved moving mass about.

The Magnifying transmitter Patent http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false shows a capacitor on the primary to indicate that primary is tuned. THe interrupter goes further back and as he states quite clearly and I have mentioned numerous times, the primary can be excited by an alternator or by an interrupter. Many people tune their primaries with a capacitor. With my coil the primary is resonant only when the spark gap is conducting.

When we couple the high voltage transformers to the primary circuit we should also tune the HV transformer primaries for power factor correction to reduce unwanted or false currents.  ;) See attachment. See the PFC cap on the input to the MOT's.

If an alternator is used the capacitor is basically power factor correction which is basically an almost resonant or resonant condition.

Tesla states that the primary can be excited in any manner desired as long as the resonant condition is achieved with the maximum potential at the top of the oscillating circuit, or the top of the extra coil as we usually refer to it.

For the transmission of power (not signals) an alternator and a high rate of transformation would work better. For signals and producing enormous potentials with minimum input power then an interrupter would work better, still in all cases Tesla intended the primary to be excited on every cycle in my opinion. If using a high frequency alternator then it would be necessary to do so.

He states in the patent the primary can be excited in any desired manner so long as resonance is achieved. Any wave shape can be used and the oscillating circuit will produce continuous sine wave if properly tuned and excited.

The idea is to produce a continuous sine wave and with continuous sine waves the energy is less likely to "break out" from the top terminal than if radical transients are produced. As well it makes a carrier wave I guess. And if the planet was resonated it would resonate with sine waves.

Cheers 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 17, 2013, 12:27:51 AM
does anyone here see a switching device
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 17, 2013, 02:38:10 AM
Gyula,

What about using a Hall effect sensor to detect the strength of the alternating B field? Even a DC sensor might provide adequate measurement (half-wave)? It may be worth a try.

Google the "UGN3503". It is flat to 23kHz.

That would be interesting. Probably a coil of wire and a scope would do also.

Im looking at testing the difference with my rotor. Will have the rotor set in a position and arrange the coils for 1 timed pulse and see how far around it goes for either regular or bifi coils. A pendulum would be interesting also. Have a magnet as the weight of the pen, and mount the coil to the base facing the resting magnet and see how far the pen moves on impulse.

What I have to prove is that a bifilar coil can be beneficial to a pulse motor. As Milehigh says it cannot be. So im going to do solid tests where the output is physical motion. Not that I dont feel other tests are valuable, but the motor will tell me exactly the differences between coils will be in a pulse motor. Im in the belief that using the fine wire and lots of it in bifi will have substantial capacitance. over 10,000 ft 42 awg(total). 70 some thousand turns. Im not forgetting about the resistance. But its the inductance of this mass of 24 coils in series bifi(described the connections earlier) that is what I see as an impediment in getting max current during pulse times. So what if the bifi neutralizes the self inductance of this large inductance like the patent says? We end up with a field that is produced much faster than a normal coil, of which should have a meatier pulse, more impact, or even a faster field expansion to induce a secondary all because the cap 'in the coil' wants to be filled.  ;D

So the bifi coils Ill be winding will have some decent capacitance. They should get to max current flow much quicker than the normal coils Im winding now.  Will see.

If the rotor gets to speeds that pulse the bifi coils at their resonant freq, I suppose there will be some kind of effect from it in that range.  But that is a secondary goal to all this.


Mags



Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 17, 2013, 01:53:35 PM
@farmhand


   So his alternator would probably be a high frequency alternator of some type?  By varying the rpm on the alternator he could increase the rate of input exciting the tank.   The tank basically transforms and STORES the input.  The watts in are stored and show up as a huge standing wave with voltages between node and antinode of the standing wave in the millions.   You can do this with a piece of coax by increasing the standing wave ratio towards infinity.  At some point the current will cause a melt down or the voltage will compromise the dielectric.   The whole mt must have been modulated as a function of the frequency of the impulses supplied to the primary.   Not changing the frequency of the tank but changing the amplitude of the standing waves in tune with the number of impulses per second.   The field surrounding the open terminals of the tank would be alternating in intensity while overall they would be held at a very high potential.  The terminals would form  electrical monopoles whose charge state would be fluctuating minutely compared to the overall state of charge maintained there.  I sometimes wonder if he was using the coulumb force developed between the top node and the Earth to create high frequency seismic waves.   He did spend alot of time on making sure the tower was anchored well.  It is reported that he was talking about causing the whole Earth to quiver.   The pyramids have a free standing mass inside the kings chamber that is in connection with a resonate chamber and a tunnel leading to what appears to be some sort of electrolysis process.  ( liquid tank with electrodes down one end).  Could be the priests were just causing explosions and playing around with uranium in the granite they mined to keep the temple bottom line in the black.  The faithful stop adoring pharoh with their earned income the priests get the Gods pissing and moaning for more loot by causing explosions in the pyramids shooting light out the portals shockwaves rocking the town and the whole pyramid lighing up due to piezo electric effects in the crystals mixed into the gypsum.    But it could be some kind of seismic wave broadcast at high frequencies to jiggle wires by loadstones miles away from the epicenter.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 17, 2013, 02:24:28 PM
does anyone here see a switching device


 Look at point G. Lower coil. It says suitable source of current.

 In the second paragraph he tells of the source of currents.

 "In endeavoring to adapt currents or discharges of very high tension to various valuable uses, as the distribution of energy through wires from central plants to distant places of consumption, or the transmission of powerful disturbances to great distances, through the natural or non-artificial media. I have encountered difficulties in confining considerable amounts of electricity to the conductors and preventing its leakage over their supports, or its escape into the ambient air, which always takes place when the electric surface density reaches a certain value."

 Now lets look at his fix for leakage of higher voltage examples.

 http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-514,167-electrical-conductor

 Do not connects this sheath to ground directly. Always go through an inductance or capacitance or do not connect it to ground at all.

 Now back to this topic.

 "In order to attain my object and to properly increase the capacity of any given coil, I wind it in such way as to secure a greater difference of potential between its adjacent turns or convolutions, and since the energy stored in the coil—considering the latter as a condenser, is proportionate to the square of the potential difference between its adjacent convolutions, it is evident that I may in this way secure by a proper disposition of these convolutions a greatly increased capacity for a given increase in potential difference between the turns."

 This is and will be the only reason of this coil. I have never asserted that DC should be used in this coil. In fact AC and impulse currents would be the only beneficial currents to use. With Impulse currents not even looked at for this coil in the patent. I have never asserted that the proper resonance not be used in either case. Why one would be focusing on the non resonant condition to me would be so inefficient that it would be counter productive. In order to use impulse currents one needs to use the resonant condition. But as Tesla talks about in the first example "The Tower" you must bring the system slowly up to resonance and then hold it there. This increases the efficiency as it nears resonance and will stop excessive break down events.

 My further experiments have always been in the AC/impulse direction. With very high frequencies for the AC/Bifilar coil and Impulse around the Bifilar coil as an Exciter.

 This will be my direction that I am going in. If the two types of current AC/impulse is kept in synchronization it should have a Laser like amplification of the current exiting the bifilar coil.

 As for other claims I will let others experiment on those claims. There is no point in "Debating" these claims because the debaters have not done the experiments. So they can not argue the validity with no proof. They can postulate till their hearts desire but it is only guessing at this point with no real evidence to the contrary.

 As for the claims of increased magnetism it does make sense from the descriptions of the patent but this also comes with increased current and then a diminishing of that current over time. But I have not done the experiments to those claims so I can not say anything about those claims and it would bear little resemblance to reality without actually doing the experiments.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks on July 17, 2013, 04:40:08 PM
        You guys really don't have to go through all the trouble of building a T coil to understand it's operation.  Dollard's analogue computer is pretty much one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnCUBKgnnc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnCUBKgnnc)
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 17, 2013, 04:52:59 PM

 I would also like to comment about Eric's position on things. Eric has built devices on the subject of Tesla. But like in any other field those who do not understand the Technology or don't even care to build the actual devices will never understand the principles of those devices, they tend to destroy any attempt to build and show those principles. Eric has had many of labs and many many components stolen or destroyed by the ones in power. I can not refute such claims and tend to believe them because Eric has never, in all my days of investigating Tesla or the claims of Tesla and the work of eric, lied about anything in his videos.
 Lets check this video out about a strange device which does two things. A: It establishes he has been replicating Tesla devices or methods. B: That others have gone to great lengths to destroy anything showing proof of those experiments. Except for some video's that he has saved.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtM6rJxs0uM

 I am not claiming any validity to the claims yet. But again I will be looking into these claims at a later date.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: synchro1 on July 17, 2013, 09:06:30 PM
"I'm looking at testing the difference with my rotor. Will have the rotor set in a position and arrange the coils for 1 timed pulse and see how far around it goes for either regular or bifi coils. A pendulum would be interesting also. Have a magnet as the weight of the pen, and mount the coil to the base facing the resting magnet and see how far the pen moves on impulse."


This approach should pay off. "Moves on impulse"! That's the ticket. This test will vindicate everything I've been saying. The biflilar will outperform the single wire with it's stronger magnetic collapse field! 



 
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: gyulasun on July 17, 2013, 10:44:53 PM

The biflilar will outperform the single wire with it's stronger magnetic collapse field!

 

Honestly, I would be very pleased to see such result!

Gyula
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: poynt99 on July 17, 2013, 11:37:51 PM
If the bifilar pulser does outperform the conventional coil pulser, then I would recommend an input power measurement comparison to be sure there is no discrepancy. With the higher turn-to-turn capacitance it might be possible that the bifilar coil is being energized to a higher level on each pulse.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 18, 2013, 01:34:19 AM
If the bifilar pulser does outperform the conventional coil pulser, then I would recommend an input power measurement comparison to be sure there is no discrepancy. With the higher turn-to-turn capacitance it might be possible that the bifilar coil is being energized to a higher level on each pulse.

Yes, this could be the case. I imagine it so really. Once they have been tested for any difference in pulse and rotor motion, if I send one pulse to the coils, using a charged cap as the source to see how far the rotor goes, then we can calculate from what is left in the cap. Those 2 tests together would say one way or the other pretty much. To further the test, rigging a way to measure the amount of energy induced into the rotor motion. Will have the single wire coils done soon and then I have to mark and drill the rotor for magnets.


I find it fascinating that Lasersabers motor even moves with 5v  20kohm of series coils and 1ua usage. Its really one for the science books I would say. It has changed the way I envision what certain amounts of power can do in a sense. It kinda makes an LED running at 30ma seem like a huge amount of power in comparison. Like if LS's motor were made larger or stacked lets say in parallel connection, it would take a lot of stacks to get 30ma consumption. And I would have to say that at 30ma, from what I have seen, it would be pretty powerful.  ;)

Mags

edited something little that didnt make sense. :o ;D
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: 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...
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 19, 2013, 05:11:00 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...

Quiet? 8 posts since yesterday morning. ???   But I can say it was a nice break from your insulting, degrading, page filling posts. :P

Maybe its that nobody wanted to give you the time of day in answering your question. :'(

Gyula surely knows the answer. I know the answer. Im sure Syncro and Jbigs know also. So now you have answered yourself. After reading your self answer, ive gota say, what is your point? Is it that without the resistance you wanted to demonstrate infinite current climb in the inductor over time? Is that it? All those pages of repeatedly hashing out, "Answer my question!!!"    ::)    Now that was a waste of time. Big time.


You dont think I understand the relationships between an inductor and a flywheel? Well, that was a year ago or so, and we know you have memory problems that you deal with, on a daily basis at times ;) , soo, if you cannot remember the thread, let me know and I will help you out there if need be. ;)

"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."

All talky and no walky?   ;)   Yeah yeah, I know, its been 30 years.You dont have to say it again. ::)   Ill do it for you when its appropriate. ;D


"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."

Oh really?  Jow Blows? lol  Mr Perfect you are. 

Yeah. These cars today are a mess. But they are not as bad as what I am working on at my job. ;)

We received a 1965 mercedes that the customer had at another shop for 5 years and $430,000 into it thus far. The car is painted, no interior, no lights, no bumpers, no trim, piles of wire on the floor all over, some cut, stripped, some marked, some not, bare wires here there everywhere.

Open the hood and what do we see. A 5.0 10cyl twin turbo engine from a VW Touareg, all nice and neat, and tight. :o The things is a sleeper. Race suspension, Jag rear end, just sick.

The customer pulled the job from the other shop because they wanted another $50,000 to finish it. :o :o

Inside the car, wires and plugs for modules all over. No harnessing except for what goes out to the engine bay. Like the guy that did the engine bay wasnt on crack, but the other guy working on the inside was on crack. Or the engine bay guy had just started crack when he got to the interior. ;D

The first week I went through all the rats nest and fixed up some general harnesses to get things in some sort of order. They had wires going direct to other places just twisted in a mess. Located the 8 of over 20 Touareg modules, and installed them to their plug connector locations, only after careful study over the wiring diagrams from Mitchel and internet info, as some plug connectors were the same here and there. Also there are 2 ECU's, 1 for 1/2 of the motor and the other for the other half. They are not interchangeable according to info in the internet, but the part numbers are the same, go figure. They were marked 1 and 2 as were the plugs.

First issue was no power to just about everything. All the original power control modules and relays were replaced with DIY. The Touareg has some big relays and lots of them, but we dont have 4wd anymore, no traction control, airbags, electronic suspension, second fuel pump, etc etc. We only have 2 ECU, steering control module, Accessory start module, comfort module, Lighting module and the gauge cluster, which is considered a control module, and finally the transmission control module.

After checking for power at my power relays, the biggest one had no b+ to be switched on. So I traced the wires back to the batteries in the trunk. Well the power wire for the relay was taped up in the harness near the batteries, as if it were never to be used. With an eyelet connector ready to connect to the + side of the battery, where there are many other wires already. Supposedly the other shop had it running before we got it. Hmmm, well it couldnt have run with that wire all 'hidden' like that. ;)

So now we have 'some' power, for some things. Electronic ign switch did nada except allow me to remove the key by turning it to the left first. That was the only thing that worked. But I had powers to other things that didnt have it before. I hooked up the VAGCOM VW interface to the diagnostics connector to see what it might show up. I had communications to the steering module and thats it. ???

I went over all the modules to check for power, grounds. All were good except for the gauges. Once I got power going to the gauges, all I got was an initialization screen on the lcd and still no communications to it or the other modules. I physically checked all data lines between modules. All seemed to be ok where they were joined together by the other shop and all went to the plugs of the modules they were suppose to. There are 3 sets of data lines, only 2 used here.

So now I checked to see if the data lines were possibly shorted to each other or to gnd. Like maybe a module could have been bad, etc.  Well well, 1 set of data lines were shorted. So I start unplugging modules 1 by 1. Bamo, acc/start module was the problem. I checked the 2 pins according to the schematic and no short to be found. ???
I then opened the plug connector cover to see the actual wire pinouts. Hmm, the data lines were not there in the terminal holes they were suppose to be in. They were in 2 blanks according to the diagram. So I removed the retainer clip that holds all the pins in the connector and put them where they were suppose to be. Badabing, we have liftoff! ;D   We now have communications with all modules. But no start. Starter runs and runs but no ignition. Its diesel by the way.  These guys at the original shop swapped the data lines in the acc/start plug connector so that the next shop would have a real problem getting things going. ;) Well they didnt know I was in town. ;D ;)

The power wire was another slick move by them, but amateurish move in comparison. There were others also, like relays on the harness that passed through seat mounting frame works in the floor, but no relays or gnd connections. If I didnt go over 'every' wire, I might not have found those relays. The wiring in that area looked complete and tied up. These guys rigged it up for disaster for another shop.

There were many wires that were not terminated yet. Some were marked, like fuel sending unit, windshield washer fluid level, etc, all things that I did not put any time into yet, because if I cant get the engine running, all else does not matter.

So I went over the wiring between modules pin to pin. All seemed ok.
I cleared all the codes(9 of them) and the fans made a different sound. They were lower in freq. I said hmm, give it a shot. It started!!  yay!!   Actually it scared me. I wasnt expecting it. This engine isnt quiet.  But once I shut it off, I was back to square one, no restart. But if I clear the codes, she starts. After doing some programming and eliminating things like EGR, etc. which isnt on the motor any longer, and getting rid of airbag processes and other things that wont be needed(the gauge cluster was a literal christmas tree beforehand, she still didnt restart without clearing codes. I cant clear 1 code at a time to isolate code and symptom. We had a guy that knows this stuff. He and I did a lot of research and he has a lot of friends at VW. We got a lot of good info but no non-restart answers. Nobody wants to even come and look at it. They dont like this motor much and all of them said that it was idiotic to do a conversion with that engine.

After some research, Frank and I came to a conclusion. It came down to the possibility that ecu 1 and 2 could be swapped and were marked incorrectly by the other shop. Examining the schematics, each ecu had identical wiring for 'some' things, not all. All the guys at VW said if we swapped them, the 'immobilizer' would be set off and the car would have to be sent to them and they have to communicate with VW servers in Germany, bla bla bla. Lets put it this way, about $500 min.

But we did it anyways. Badabing again!!!  She runs and restarts!! 

Now we are finishing up the other wiring beyond the engine requirements and finish the rest of the car.


So Milehigh oh so high, you can take your Jow Bow and put it you know where. :o ;)

Who do you think your messing with? I can blow your mind with what I know about cars.  I dont answer your ridiculous questions because I know that it doesnt mean much in the end. I know how coils work. Yet you yap and yap and yap on about the simple things. Well Im beyond that and going further. I know you dont have the ability to go beyond the walls of your box. But Im not going to follow your lead, of which is distracting and full of balony half the time. Its a waste. It was nice here for a day. And now your back. ::)



"A wise person would want to master the basics before doing that. "

More insults. ::)



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

The only reason it 'seemed' quiet is because you were not filling 2 pages a day with your so called 30 years ago expertise, and convenient forgetfulness where you see fit. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 05:39:55 AM
You are one piece of work Magluvin....

The question was posed for a valid reason, Jbignes5 made two postings filled with nonsense and disinformation whose roots stem from the "we are into 'alternative' electronics that conventional science doesn't understand" angle.  That was the disinformation and the basic question illustrated that point.

The person that insults and degrades is you, and you make a fool of yourself when you do it.  You didn't know the answer, no chance Synchro1 or Jbignes5 did.  If they knew they would have answered.  So you are lying.  Even the fact that you would claim they knew shows how low you are willing to stoop.  Everybody with half a brain sees through you - you make these ridiculous nonsensical statements where everybody knows you are lying, including you yourself.  It's pathetic.

Quote
we know you have memory problems that you deal with

Do you have any self-respect Magluvin?  That crap is the worst of the worst, just like watching awful gratuitous spinning on a political talk show by some sleazy out-of-control political hack.  It's gross and you are demeaning and degrading yourself when you act like that.

You talk about filling up the thread and then you give us a big treatise on working on a car???  The pot calling the kettle black.

Quote
So Milehigh oh so high, you can take your Jow Bow and put it you know where.

Making a jackass out of yourself.  Taking a hypothetical example that anybody can relate to and talking about your own occupation.  That's just mindless logic that anybody can see through and you keep on digging that hole for yourself.

Mastering the basics is sound advice, not an insult.  More mindless nonsense from you.

Before I jumped back into this thread it was going nowhere and nobody even talked about the basic parameters for the coil.  Nobody dealt with what the self-resonance was all about, including you.  You had no concept and kept on confusing the AC and DC operation and I taught you.

You can take your whole sleazy and lying post and shove it up your exhaust pipe.  Be a man and not some MileHigh attack troll.  Get yourself some self respect and character.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 19, 2013, 07:28:35 AM
You are one piece of work Magluvin....

The question was posed for a valid reason, Jbignes5 made two postings filled with nonsense and disinformation whose roots stem from the "we are into 'alternative' electronics that conventional science doesn't understand" angle.  That was the disinformation and the basic question illustrated that point.

The person that insults and degrades is you, and you make a fool of yourself when you do it.  You didn't know the answer, no chance Synchro1 or Jbignes5 did.  If they knew they would have answered.  So you are lying.  Even the fact that you would claim they knew shows how low you are willing to stoop.  Everybody with half a brain sees through you - you make these ridiculous nonsensical statements where everybody knows you are lying, including you yourself.  It's pathetic.

Do you have any self-respect Magluvin?  That crap is the worst of the worst, just like watching awful gratuitous spinning on a political talk show by some sleazy out-of-control political hack.  It's gross and you are demeaning and degrading yourself when you act like that.

You talk about filling up the thread and then you give us a big treatise on working on a car???  The pot calling the kettle black.

Making a jackass out of yourself.  Taking a hypothetical example that anybody can relate to and talking about your own occupation.  That's just mindless logic that anybody can see through and you keep on digging that hole for yourself.

Mastering the basics is sound advice, not an insult.  More mindless nonsense from you.

Before I jumped back into this thread it was going nowhere and nobody even talked about the basic parameters for the coil.  Nobody dealt with what the self-resonance was all about, including you.  You had no concept and kept on confusing the AC and DC operation and I taught you.

You can take your whole sleazy and lying post and shove it up your exhaust pipe.  Be a man and not some MileHigh attack troll.  Get yourself some self respect and character.

MileHigh

"You are one piece of work Magluvin...."

Why thank you. ;D Surely you jest. ;D


"The question was posed for a valid reason, Jbignes5 made two postings filled with nonsense and disinformation whose roots stem from the "we are into 'alternative' electronics that conventional science doesn't understand" angle.  That was the disinformation and the basic question illustrated that point."

Jbigs is doing his thing. He is doing something that you cant get a grip on because most all you know about Tesla is from a documetary that you dont remember much of, like you said earlier in this thread. ;) You belittle Tesla like a book that doesnt exist. You either know nothing, or you do know and just dont want to throw any credit his way, or some newbies might get on the net and look up some of the stuff Jbigs is talking about. :P



"The person that insults and degrades is you, and you make a fool of yourself when you do it.  You didn't know the answer, no chance Synchro1 or Jbignes5 did.  If they knew they would have answered.  So you are lying.  Even the fact that you would claim they knew shows how low you are willing to stoop.  Everybody with half a brain sees through you - you make these ridiculous nonsensical statements where everybody knows you are lying, including you yourself.  It's pathetic."

Oh really. You knew they would have answered?   Do you know how many times I have seen you repeatedly insist and reinsist again and again and again for people to answer your questions, over and over, because you didnt get an answer? lol  You just dont get it do you. You just cant get it through your thick goop of a skull that people dont want to answer your questions. You act as if the thread cant go on unless someone answers you. Screw you. Your pathetic. ;)



"You didn't know the answer"

Dude Ive done a LOT of sim work on this stuff in the past year. I know that resistance must be factored into an inductor or transformer to come close to real world components. If I dont include that resistance then its just fantasy land, like Jbigs said earlier about it, and he is right, we will never experience your fantasy.  Again, what was the BIG point of your question anyways? I dont get the point other than you 'trying' to belittle the intelligence of these nice people here.

What if someone did answer you? Then what??  Would you say "ok then, carry on, this thread inspection is complete" ::)   No, you would then take it a step further with a new question, and pages of you repeating and so on and so forth.

If someone did answer, and then answered your next step question, and the next, and the next, all until a time that you finally know and or believe that we get it now, then what? What if we still continue to experiment with expectations of possibly more than what you know?  Would we have to start at square one again because we could not possibly understand anything if we continue our endeavors into the forbidden world of Tesla??  Get a grip man. Gees. ;) When does it end? Ill tell ya when it ends. When they stop posting because you drove them off. You have been banned before.  ;) Lets just say it was because you were unlikeable. :P



""Do you have any self-respect Magluvin?  That crap is the worst of the worst, just like watching awful gratuitous spinning on a political talk show by some sleazy out-of-control political hack.  It's gross and you are demeaning and degrading yourself when you act like that"

Well its true isnt it? Shall I call the pose and we go back and look for how many times you have used the bad memory shtick?  There was one just the other day on the thread about Rose Ainslie. Its not hard to find them as they are plenty. ;)


"You talk about filling up the thread and then you give us a big treatise on working on a car???  The pot calling the kettle black."

I was making a strong point.  ;) You want answers, Im giving them to you, my way. ;)


"Making a jackass out of yourself.  Taking a hypothetical example that anybody can relate to and talking about your own occupation.  That's just mindless logic that anybody can see through and you keep on digging that hole for yourself."

No. You were implying that nobody here could work on a car because they know nothing about the basics of inductors. ???   Joe Blows  Jow Blows  and Joe blow.  Jow Blow   Ok one more time,  Joe Blow..   Idiot

If it were so hypothetical, then explain the connection of ideal inductor science and todays automotive repair? You will not find a meter in the automotive repair 'industry' that measures inductance. Not one. Call up Snap-on, Matco tools, they will be like, 'umm wut?' ;) Actually, if you can give me a single example of an auto tech that needs to measure 'inductance' or is even ever concerned about 'inductance' I will give you a dollar. lol  Actually a dollar for each one.



"Before I jumped back into this thread it was going nowhere and nobody even talked about the basic parameters for the coil.  Nobody dealt with what the self-resonance was all about, including you.  You had no concept and kept on confusing the AC and DC operation and I taught you."

You still have no clue. Im not looking for self-resonance.  Im not confused about anything. Its a pulse motor. DC pulses. If there is AC resonance at a particular rpm then so beit and we will check out what happens there also. Im looking for the coil to pop out a mag field faster than a normal coil. Is this not what I have been saying here or what?  Im not talking about back with Romero or Zeropoint132, Im talking about here and now.

Basic parameters of the coil?  I tell ya what. Here are some basic parameters. You go wind 2 coils 26awg 500turns, one regs and one bifi and you go right ahead work out those parameters.  Let me know what your bifi neasures in inductance compared to the regs jimmy. Ill be waiting for your answers and I wont be patient. ::) ;) Should I hound you each day for those answers? It works for you doesnt it? :P



"You had no concept and kept on confusing the AC and DC operation and I taught you."

Show me where you taught me!!  You always want us to prove things, well here is your 15 min of fame. Show me where you taught me as you state!!!  And THIS, I will hound you about till you come clean on that one jack. Count on that. ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


"You can take your whole sleazy and lying post and shove it up your exhaust pipe.  Be a man and not some MileHigh attack troll.  Get yourself some self respect and character."

Lying? Really??  Well Ill just have to take pics tomorrow of the 'dark green metalic' Merc and show you all the lies I told. Lies in HD.   ;)    Oh dont you worry if Im a man or not, lol , just have them answers on the page tomorrow you ole slicker you.


Mags







Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 08:00:20 AM
Magluvin piece of work part 2:

Jbignes5 was saying incorrect things and he was rightly challenged.  He asked me to pose the question because he wanted to take me up on the challenge.  And then he claimed that he answered it but he didn't.  He falsely claimed that a few sentences embedded in a paragraph were the answer.  The point of the question was to show that Jbignes5 did not have a mastery of the basics so that beginners would take a second look and consider all views on the subject.  The goal was to make the thread realistic and not your typical fantasy thread.

Kiss my ass about the memory issue.  It's crap and you know it.  If you think from now on you are going to try to claim I have "memory problems" all the time then you are just making a jackass out of yourself.  So I am asking you to stop it right now.

Quote
No. You were implying that nobody here could work on a car

Pure garbage, self-degrading idiocy on your part.  Fool talk from a person that pretends he can't understand a hypothetical example.  Why are you playing stupid?  You are not scoring any points like that.  How low can you go?

Quote
Actually, if you can give me a single example of an auto tech that needs to measure 'inductance' or is even ever concerned about 'inductance' I will give you a dollar. lol  Actually a dollar for each one.

Have you been hit in the head with a 16-ton weight like in a cartoon?  I think you need to bang your head again to get back to normal.

Quote
You still have no clue. Im not looking for self-resonance.  Im not confused about anything. Its a pulse motor.

This thread is not about your pulse motor.  You only introduced that very recently.  Wake up!

Quote
Should I hound you each day for those answers?

Yeah you could hound me if I agreed to answer your question, then didn't actually answer your question, and then claimed that I did answer your question.  But I am not going to answer your question so the whole thing is moot.

Quote
Show me where you taught me!!

It happened just a few weeks ago where I corrected your mistake.  Remember I reminded you that you didn't have enough character or integrity to even thank me?

Quote
pics tomorrow of the 'dark green metalic' Merc

We are not talking about your car work Magluvin, still more nonsense from you.

You are doing a great job of digging yourself deeper into that hole.  Stop trolling me Magluvin.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh on July 19, 2013, 08:12:42 AM
Here is the example you asked for Magluvin, it's from July 4th:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Magluvin:

Quote<blockquote>The difference between the 2 voltages is 2500%.  And the parts of my post you neglected to reply on explain percent levels up to 60,000% difference. Not beating on you here but I think those are important and very significant numbers while we are having this conversation. </blockquote>

I read all of your comments I just responded in a generic way at the beginning of the posting.  If you try to measure the capacitive energy in the SBC coil it will be interesting.

Quote<blockquote>So in 'reality' , there is nothing high freq about 60hz, is there? Now replace that 100nf cap with a 1uf cap. What would our operating freq be then? Pretty much subsonic.  So maybe we can ditch the fact that we are only limited to high freq operation, as long as we have large enough bifi inductance in our motors.</blockquote>

It may be possible, but I seem to recall various testers getting their coils to self-resonate in the hundreds of kilohertz to megahertz range.  I don't know how big you want to go but it sounds to me like 60 Henries is one big mother of a coil.

If you can get low frequency resonance, what do you want to do with that coil?

Quote<blockquote>The way I see it, if we want to use high inductance coils in our pulse motors, more than likely the rise time of the coil is going to be slow, limiting the max potential of its field strength within the time allotment of on time of the switch. Depending on the speed of the motor and switching of course.</blockquote>

You are actually suggesting a good experiment.  Test different drive coil configurations where you vary the inductance.  Is there a 'sweet spot' for the drive coil inductance?

Quote<blockquote>So by 'neutralizing' the self inductance of a very high inductance coil, we eliminate rise time in the coil. The coil will produce max field much faster than a regular coil, giving a sharper pulse than a normal coil of similar inductance and be able to shorten the on time of the switch being we dont have to wait for the field to build like a normal coil.</blockquote>

Another issue worth revisiting.  You are not visualizing this properly.  The 'neutralizing of the self inductance' relates to the coil acting as a band pass filter for an AC signal.  At the resonance frequency the complex impedance will drop to zero and you will be left with just the wire resistance.  When you talk about rise time in the coil this is for the coil acting in a pulse circuit, a different animal.  You will have to wait for the field to build in an SBC coil the same as in a normal coil as a the voltage starts to overcome the inductance and gets it to move.  We know that the SBC coil and the same-sized normal coil have approximately the same inductance, and thee is no short-cut like you believe.  You are mixing apples and oranges.  Check it out for yourself on the bench.


Quote<blockquote>Having the capacitance distributed throughout the coil with much higher potential levels between turns can draw in current through the coil, especially if the capacitance is between turns that are not physically connected electrically just 1 turn away. I believe a normal coil has an inrush of current in relation to its very tiny capacitance's in series from one end of the coil to the other.</blockquote>

That sounds reasonable to me.  It's hard to know exactly what the dynamics are for the SBC coil and capacitive charge distribution in the coil and how the current might flow, etc.  It may be next to impossible to measure because any current associated with charging the inter-loop capacitance may be superimposed on the main current flow as the inductor energizes.  You sound like you want to do the investigation and it should be fun.  I think looking for differences between a standard coil and an SBC coil, same dimensions, same wire and turns, would be your best bet at detecting something of note.  I don't think you have a DSO but you might have a USB scope?  That would come in handy.

Just to look at this one more time:

Quote<blockquote>Here is something to think about. If we have an LC and we apply a voltage across its ends, what would happen immediately? The cap would charge, and fast. So if you think a bifi coil is the same as just a coil with a cap across it, then you must believe that the capacitance in the bifi would do the same, correct?  And where is that capacitor in the bifi coil?  Its in the coil!!  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) With the bifi we have just neutralized the self inductance of the coil and current would flow instantly.</blockquote>

Here is the problem in a nutshell:  Even though the capacitance is there, the current still has to corkscrew though the coil.  So on its way to charge the inter-loop capacitance the current still has to overcome the inductance and push it along.  The dynamics of it are not trivial.

Here is something that may be applicable to visualize what is going on.  You take the analogy of inductance as the massless spring and capacitance as the mass.   So an LC resonator is like a massless spring affixed to a concrete wall on one end and to the oscillating mass on the other end.  Imagine that setup about pallet-sized with a big 100-turn mechanical spring made out of thin Berryllium and a 10 kilogram mass on a very low friction surface oscillating back and forth at about 5 Hz. Let's assume that the spring is not too stiff hence the low oscillation frequency.

We know pure inductance is represented by a massless spring.  But you have a real-world spring you know it's made of a loop of wire with windings that have mass.  Mass is capacitance, and the SBC coil has inter-loop capacitance.

So, it's very possible that a real-world spring with mass would be a decent model for how an SBC coil behaves.  So imagine kicking that big spring and watching it vibrate and wiggle in a kind of random and unstable way until it rings down completely and stops moving.  Even think of doing something similar as a kid with a Slinky, where you pull the slinky tight and then pluck it to send waves bouncing back and forth through the loops.  It's possible that the SBC coil will behave like that in the electrical domain.  You never know...

MileHigh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess you forgot.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 19, 2013, 08:13:24 AM
"It happened just a few weeks ago where I corrected your mistake.  Remember I reminded you that you didn't have enough character or integrity to even thank me?"

Thats easy enough to spit out as some sort of proof. Thats why I said to provide links and quotes. But you did not include that in your quote of me above, selectively of course. ;) Thats a good example of how you work, and the good readers will learn from that. ;D

Show me the quotes and links.

Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 19, 2013, 08:14:59 AM
Prove what you say otherwise its useless.  ;) Right? :P

Mags ;D
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 19, 2013, 08:48:26 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.  ;D

Sleep tight. ;)





Mags
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Artoj 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.

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 19, 2013, 04:31:24 PM
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. :o ;)

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

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

Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: jbignes5 on July 20, 2013, 12:57:43 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 20, 2013, 01:30:24 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
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Farmhand on July 20, 2013, 06:52:58 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 ?



...
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: sparks 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 (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm)[/size]
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: Magluvin on July 20, 2013, 07:52:35 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
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh 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
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh 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
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh 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 (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
Title: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS".
Post by: MileHigh 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 marbl