Author Topic: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils (Read 55402 times)

conradelektro · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2014, 08:48:14 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on January 29, 2014, 05:05:24 AM

As far as filters go, a series LC circuit is a what's called a band-pass filter. It lets a certain range of frequencies pass power from the input to the output:

(signal source) -> (series LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

A parallel LC circuit in the same setup is called a notch filter because it prevents a certain range of frequencies from passing power from the input to the output, i.e."the notch."

(signal source) -> (parallel LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

If you know the impedances of series LC and parallel LC circuits at resonance it should all make sense.

I do not understand how to test "speed up under load" with a series LC circuit. Please see the attached drawing.

It is assumed that the coil is excited by a spinning magnet or by help of a "few turn exciter coil".

- The parallel LC circuit in the drawing can swing without a load, just the coil and the parallel cap.

- The series LC circuit in the drawing needs a load to swing, or it would be "open"? (And if the load is just a wire one is back at the parallel LC circuit? But even with a resistor as a load, one could imagine the resistor as being a big resistive component of the cap and one is again back at a parallel LC circuit?)

The only way I can imagine to test "speed up under load" with a series LC circuit is to test with different loads, e.g. a very high resistor (e.g. 10 K) and a very low resistor (e.g. 10 Ohm)?

Greetings, Conrad

Farmhand · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2014, 10:18:08 AM »

Quote from: conradelektro on January 29, 2014, 08:48:14 AM

I do not understand how to test "speed up under load" with a series LC circuit. Please see the attached drawing.

It is assumed that the coil is excited by a spinning magnet or by help of a "few turn exciter coil".

- The parallel LC circuit in the drawing can swing without a load, just the coil and the parallel cap.

- The series LC circuit in the drawing needs a load to swing, or it would be "open"? (And if the load is just a wire one is back at the parallel LC circuit? But even with a resistor as a load, one could imagine the resistor as being a big resistive component of the cap and one is again back at a parallel LC circuit?)

The only way I can imagine to test "speed up under load" with a series LC circuit is to test with different loads, e.g. a very high resistor (e.g. 10 K) and a very low resistor (e.g. 10 Ohm)?

Greetings, Conrad

You're right Conrad, but in my opinion if there is no (parallel) load then the parallel capacitor is also a series capacitor as it is the only thing in series with the coil leads just like if there was no load resistor in a series output circuit. Going by one train of thought you could use a 0.1 Ohm resistor in series with the coil and the capacitor and it is a series circuit or you could put a 0.1 Ohm resistor in parallel with the capacitor as a load and you have a parallel circuit. Blurred lines or what, Just adding a CSR in series makes a parallel tank into a series loaded tank.

To see some difference just change the CSR to a higher value and you have more of a series load.

My question would be with series resonance what is the current/voltage phase relationship as compared to the voltage/current phase relationship in a parallel resonant circuit.

Also once the output is heavily load there is no real resonance if no energy is sloshing back and forth. Technical point or Perspective point is all.

Your experiments are very interesting Conrad, congrats on a good job.

Cheers

P.S. On supply side resonance of a supply to a transformer I think it's different as series resonance is done by a capacitor in series between the supply and the transformer primary and parallel resonance is done by a capacitor in parallel to both, while the output or the secondary of the transformer can have no resonance.

..

MileHigh · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2014, 01:57:58 AM »

Conrad:

I was not clear enough, for these tests there is no motor, just your signal generator and related components:

(signal generator) -> (series LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.
(signal generator) -> (parallel LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

Supposing your LC resonance is 10 KHz. So if you connect up the two circuits above and you sweep the sine wave output frequency on the signal generator, what will you see on the load resistor at 10 KHz? What will you see above and below 10 Khz. Observe the band-pass filter characteristic and then observe the notch filter characteristic by putting your scope probe across the load resistor. Then switch from the monofilar coil to the bifilar coil and repeat the tests. Do you see any difference?

Imagine channel 1 of your scope monitoring the signal generator output and channel 2 monitoring the voltage across the load resistor. That will allow you to monitor the amplitude of the load voltage and also allow you to observe if there are any phase differences between the signal generator and the load resistor voltage.

Let's imagine that you are powering your scope from an isolation transformer so that the scope's ground is independent of the signal generator ground. We know that at for a series LC resonator at resonance the voltage across the capacitor and the voltage across the inductor cancel each other out. If you put your scope probe grounds at the junction between the capacitor and the coil, then with one channel you can monitor the voltage across the capacitor and with the other channel you can monitor the voltage across the coil. You may have to invert one of the channel polarities to make the display "make sense."

At series LC resonance, do you observe how the voltages cancel each other out? What happens when you are just below the resonance frequency? What happens when you are just above the resonance frequency?

I am just throwing some ideas at you for fun but by all means, do your own thing!

MileHigh

Magluvin · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2014, 03:00:43 AM »

Quote from: Farmhand on January 29, 2014, 10:18:08 AM

You're right Conrad, but in my opinion if there is no (parallel) load then the parallel capacitor is also a series capacitor as it is the only thing in series with the coil leads just like if there was no load resistor in a series output circuit.

I agree. They are all series, with what we are looking at here The only difference is perspective of where you apply the load, or even just a measuring device.

But once you introduce more than the load in the loop, then the difference is clear as we have to look at the circuit as a whole. Like if we have a parallel LC in the loop, and say a switch in the loop were to open, a series LC cant ring together, but the parallel LC would. So they each have their place in different circuits and are not always in a simple loop.

But here, being that the bifi can ring on its own, even open ended leads, then the comparison would be a simple parallel LC and no need to look at series, when it comes to the goal of the thread really.

Not saying a series LC using a coil and cap shouldnt be part of the testing, as that data may as well be included. All in a nice little box. But Im not sure if it will help in the distinction between a normal coil and a bifi.

Mags

conradelektro · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2014, 03:25:48 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on January 30, 2014, 01:57:58 AM

Conrad:

I was not clear enough, for these tests there is no motor, just your signal generator and related components:

(signal generator) -> (series LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.
(signal generator) -> (parallel LC) -> load resistor -> Gnd.

Supposing your LC resonance is 10 KHz. So if you connect up the two circuits above and you sweep the sine wave output frequency on the signal generator, what will you see on the load resistor at 10 KHz? What will you see above and below 10 Khz. Observe the band-pass filter characteristic and then observe the notch filter characteristic by putting your scope probe across the load resistor. Then switch from the monofilar coil to the bifilar coil and repeat the tests. Do you see any difference?

Imagine channel 1 of your scope monitoring the signal generator output and channel 2 monitoring the voltage across the load resistor. That will allow you to monitor the amplitude of the load voltage and also allow you to observe if there are any phase differences between the signal generator and the load resistor voltage.

Let's imagine that you are powering your scope from an isolation transformer so that the scope's ground is independent of the signal generator ground. We know that at for a series LC resonator at resonance the voltage across the capacitor and the voltage across the inductor cancel each other out. If you put your scope probe grounds at the junction between the capacitor and the coil, then with one channel you can monitor the voltage across the capacitor and with the other channel you can monitor the voltage across the coil. You may have to invert one of the channel polarities to make the display "make sense."

At series LC resonance, do you observe how the voltages cancel each other out? What happens when you are just below the resonance frequency? What happens when you are just above the resonance frequency?

I am just throwing some ideas at you for fun but by all means, do your own thing!

MileHigh

@MileHigh: I am grateful for ideas about how to look for differences. Thank you for giving it so much thought.

Attached please find two circuit diagrams outlining the tests you wrote about. I guess it depicts what you suggest?

Would it be useful to separate the signal generator output and the test circuit with a 1:1 transformer or coil?

Instead of powering my scope from an isolation transformer, which I do not have. Several times since I play with electronics the isolation transformer came up as a necessary item for useful measurements but it would cost around 300.-- EUR which I always put off because of other acquisitions. Sometimes I also wanted a variable transformer but it usually needs an isolation transformer in addition (to be safe). A simple variable transformer would cost around 150.--.

Talking about toys, I am having my sight on a 3D printer. My impression is that a good one still costs up to 3000.-- EUR. So I am waiting till a useful one can be bought for less than 2000.--. The ones available right now for around 1000.-- seem to still have many flaws. I am always reading the reviews.

Greetings, Conrad

conradelektro · « **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2014, 04:08:42 PM »

Quote from: Magluvin on January 30, 2014, 03:00:43 AM

But here, being that the bifi can ring on its own, even open ended leads, then the comparison would be a simple parallel LC and no need to look at series, when it comes to the goal of the thread really.

Mags

If a bifilar coil can ring on its own open ended (the meaning of which I can not understand) then every coil (also a monofilar) would be able to do it.

How do I make a coil to "ring on its own open ended"? (A parallel LC circuit, either the coil with an external cap or the coil with its internal self capacitance, is always a loop where the current is cycling back and force.)

The only difference between monofilar and bifilar I could measure till now is a difference in self capacitance. So, if a coil rings "on its own open ended", any coil would do it at its self resonance frequency (by help of its parallel self capacitance).

The difference in self capacitance includes (or implies) the difference of tension between adjacent loops of wire in the coil.

So, the big question is still: what are we looking for? (Please do not repeat the "high tension between wire loops", I got that.)

It is fine, if the answer is "we do not know yet". And I think that is the only answer available so far (besides vague insinuations or untested speculations).

I did some tests about "a bifilar is a better antenna" by moving an exciter coil closer and farer to my bifilar and monofilar pan cake coils. I saw no difference.

There is always the fact in formal logic, that "arguing from the specific to the general" does not work. So, whatever I test or show, there is the counter argument that I could have done it wrong and that there still is something. But every specific test that shows that there is nothing weakens the argument that there could be something. So, my tests give an indication about the likelihood of alleged effects. But of course never prove in the sense of formal logic that the alleged effect does not exist.

What this little excursion in formal logic teaches us: an alleged effect can only be proven by showing a test that clearly exhibits this alleged effect (I call that positive or factual proof). One can never prove that the alleged effect is not possible (I call that negative proof or the proof of non-existence).

In practice all mentally sane people demand "positive proof" if something is alleged. Only con men and deluded persons demand the impossible negative proof from others (because they can not provide positive proof).

I am going into that because the OU forums and threads provide abundant proof of what I just explained. And it is so bad, that people even tell you that they do not have to provide "positive proof". And what bothers me most is that the con men and deluded persons always find followers who go along with them. And some threads live for years only because positive proof never comes. It stays for ever mysterious and it seems to be exactly the mystery which keeps the thread or discussion alive.

Greetings, Conrad

wings · « **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2014, 05:23:39 PM »

new post of skycollection
https://www.youtube.com/user/skycollection/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32CZzeqqgzU

MileHigh · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2014, 01:27:41 AM »

Conrad:

Yes for sure on the isolation transformer for the signal generator output, that's a much better solution. I am assuming that you are in Germany. I don't know if you have those electronics surplus stores that I make reference to. I should be starting to travel to Germany on business this year through!

I will mention something that most already know. Sometimes you see bins of transformers in the surplus stores. So even if there are no 1:1 isolation transformers, you probably will find 20:1 step-down transformers. So if you connect up two isolation transformers in series 1:20:20:1 (or 20:1:1:20) you have a two-stage isolation transformer. You know that the smaller the transformer, the higher AC frequencies it can pass without attenuation. In other words, the smaller the transformer the higher the bandwidth. The core material also comes into play. Let's be optimistic and assume that with smaller transformers the bandwidth is quite high, in the hundreds of kilohertz. I don't know for sure because I never did the tests. Mind you, you can just to to DigiKey and read spec sheets.

Anyway, if you got a pair of say transformers about say 3 cm in size that could be your "medium to high frequency medium power" isolation transformer. If you got a pair of transformers that were say 10 cm in size, that would be your "low to medium frequency high power" isolation transformer. That's a back-up plan if there are no 1:1 transformers. Certainly for the experimenters around here it would be a handy pair of things to keep in your kit. And there is the 'satisfying' bench experiment: With your signal generator and your scope measure the bandwidth yourself! So you then "know" your isolation transformers just like you are supposed to "know" your scope and "know" your scope probes.

Both of your diagrams are correct with the caveat that you don't really need the isolation transformer in the lower diagram. Can your scope do math between the two traces?

Just for fun, a real-life example of a parallel LC resonator being driven by a signal generator at the resonant frequency: You see in children's playgrounds the small "ponies" that are supported on a stiff vertical spring. The mass of the pony body is the capacitor and the spring is the inductor. Voltage is equivalent to velocity and current is equivalent to force. Imagine you are sitting next to the pony and your are pushing with your finger to make the mass resonate with the spring. Imagine the resonant frequency is quite low. Instead of pushing you hold onto the mass of the pony and move your arm in near-perfect synchronicity with the oscillation. So your hand 'follows' the movement of the pony, or, it's just as valid to state that your hand 'leads' the pony. So almost no energy expended by your hand to sustain the resonant oscillation.

The above is equivalent to your signal generator across a parallel resonant LC circuit. You hand is the "AC voltage source" and it's "across" the mass/capacitor and spring/inductor of the pony. The velocity is "across" a stationary point and the moving point of your hand. The force travels _through_ the spring.

MileHigh

synchro1 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2014, 01:32:33 AM »

Quote from: conradelektro on January 30, 2014, 04:08:42 PM

If a bifilar coil can ring on its own open ended (the meaning of which I can not understand) then every coil (also a monofilar) would be able to do it.

How do I make a coil to "ring on its own open ended"? (A parallel LC circuit, either the coil with an external cap or the coil with its internal self capacitance, is always a loop where the current is cycling back and force.)

The only difference between monofilar and bifilar I could measure till now is a difference in self capacitance. So, if a coil rings "on its own open ended", any coil would do it at its self resonance frequency (by help of its parallel self capacitance).

The difference in self capacitance includes (or implies) the difference of tension between adjacent loops of wire in the coil.

So, the big question is still: what are we looking for? (Please do not repeat the "high tension between wire loops", I got that.)

It is fine, if the answer is "we do not know yet". And I think that is the only answer available so far (besides vague insinuations or untested speculations).

I did some tests about "a bifilar is a better antenna" by moving an exciter coil closer and farer to my bifilar and monofilar pan cake coils. I saw no difference.

There is always the fact in formal logic, that "arguing from the specific to the general" does not work. So, whatever I test or show, there is the counter argument that I could have done it wrong and that there still is something. But every specific test that shows that there is nothing weakens the argument that there could be something. So, my tests give an indication about the likelihood of alleged effects. But of course never prove in the sense of formal logic that the alleged effect does not exist.

What this little excursion in formal logic teaches us: an alleged effect can only be proven by showing a test that clearly exhibits this alleged effect (I call that positive or factual proof). One can never prove that the alleged effect is not possible (I call that negative proof or the proof of non-existence).

In practice all mentally sane people demand "positive proof" if something is alleged. Only con men and deluded persons demand the impossible negative proof from others (because they can not provide positive proof).

I am going into that because the OU forums and threads provide abundant proof of what I just explained. And it is so bad, that people even tell you that they do not have to provide "positive proof". And what bothers me most is that the con men and deluded persons always find followers who go along with them. And some threads live for years only because positive proof never comes. It stays for ever mysterious and it seems to be exactly the mystery which keeps the thread or discussion alive.

Greetings, Conrad

I went over this a couple of times already, but apparently it failed to sink in. The series bifilar has an increased capacitance, but the capacitance"NEEDS A CHARGE"! What difference would it make to compare two empty capacitors of 250,000 times difference in range. That's exactly what you've been doing! That's why your test results are completely meaningless.

My first shop wound solenoid series bifilar with welding rod core rang all night long after receiving a jolt from a twelve volt battery, with the coil leads open, keeping me awake through the night with the very audible shrill high pitch ring. I know you never bothered to even try and charge the coil like I told you to!

MileHigh · « **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2014, 01:37:34 AM »

Note in the pony case the parallel LC resonator is acting like an open circuit just like it is supposed to. You move your hand and that represents velocity, and you exert almost no force with your hand to sustain the resonance. So your hand is "outputting" almost zero mechanical power just like it's supposed to and the "load" is at very high impedance.

So how come we got so much drag/resistance with the pulse motor pickup coil when it was set up like a parallel LC resonator? (Back to the delayed Lenz issue.)

conradelektro · « **Reply #25 on:** January 31, 2014, 01:02:35 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on January 31, 2014, 01:37:34 AM

Note in the pony case the parallel LC resonator is acting like an open circuit just like it is supposed to. You move your hand and that represents velocity, and you exert almost no force with your hand to sustain the resonance. So your hand is "outputting" almost zero mechanical power just like it's supposed to and the "load" is at very high impedance.

So how come we got so much drag/resistance with the pulse motor pickup coil when it was set up like a parallel LC resonator? (Back to the delayed Lenz issue.)

Here a link to the user manual of my scope UNIT-T UTD2102CM 100 MHz 1GS/s (attached is an image of the math functions):

http://www.pinsonne-elektronik.de/media/daten/UTD2000M%20User%20Manual%20V1.0.pdf

The parallel LC resonator (pick up coil plus 10 µF cap) in front of the spinning magnet seems to be a real power hog in the resonance situation, consuming more than a load resistor alone (no cap) or with a load resistor connected (cap plus load resistor). "Cap plus load resistor" in the resonance situation is a bit less efficient than load resistor alone (no cap).

I have this Ferrite rods (50 mm long, diameter 8 mm) which are supposed to work from 0.1 to 3 MHz. I was thinking of winding a 1:1 transformer on one of these rods?

Greetings, Conrad

gyulasun · « **Reply #26 on:** January 31, 2014, 08:26:18 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on January 31, 2014, 01:37:34 AM

....
So how come we got so much drag/resistance with the pulse motor pickup coil when it was set up like a parallel LC resonator? (Back to the delayed Lenz issue.)

Hi MileHigh,

The explanation for your question is the loss dissipated at resonance in the DC resistance (26 + 70 Ohm) of Conrad's series bifi coils (tuned to resonance by the 10 uF cap) see results here for air core tests here:
http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg384371/#msg384371

Watch the AC current (scope CH2) through the 1 Ohm series resistor: in the lack of the 100 Ohm load, i.e. unloaded case, the AC current at resonance is about 184 mA (184 mV/1 Ohm), this dissipates 0.184 A * 0.184 A * 96 Ohm = 3.25 W power in the coils and this caused a certain drag on the prime mover motor (Conrad continuously measured the DC draw of the prime mover motor).

In the loaded case, when Conrad switched the 100 Ohm load onto the LC tank, the AC current in the resonant tank dropped to 104 mA (from 184 mA), hence the dissipation in the coils also dropped to 0.104 A* 0.104 A* 96 Ohm = 1 W. The loss in the 100 Ohm resistor was (7.6 V * 7.6 V)/100 Ohm = 0.57 W, hence total loss was 1+0.57=1.57 W, less than half of the unloaded case!
This is why the prime mover motor also had a reduced current draw when the 100 Ohm load was attached across the LC tank i.e. this less dissipation explains the speed up effect of the rotor under load.

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

These findings indicate the importance of the losses in the generator coils, in the present case mainly due to the DC resistance (and due to eddy current losses in the ferromagnetic core when there is a core) of the coils.

Conrad, you asked:

Quote

I have this Ferrite rods (50 mm long, diameter 8 mm) which are supposed to work from 0.1 to 3 MHz. I was thinking of winding a 1:1 transformer on one of these rods?

Well, yes and I assume you intend to make a bifilarly wound coil (which can also be used as a 1:1 transformer of course). Try to use thicker wire if you have got some available, to reduce losses.

Gyula

Farmhand · « **Reply #27 on:** February 01, 2014, 12:07:08 AM »

Hi Gyula, I agree with all that, also there is the associated Lenz drag caused by the generation of the higher wattage in the unloaded case, in other words the unloaded case has more Lenz drag than the "loaded" case. The artificially induced increased Lenz drag caused by the generation of more power in the unloaded case is relieved somewhat when the load is added. So we are actually seeing an increased Lenz effect, made less by load, but it is contrived. And nothing is outside of how it should be. I stated similar about the increased Lenz drag with no load over 1 year ago.

I could find the old posts over at EF.

I seen through his folly during the first viewing of the first acceleration under load video I watched. It was obviously very inefficient and yet he was claiming something special, I sensed deception. I think my intuition was correct and i think my long held opinion on how he achieves it is also correct, pretty much.

I think my solid state experiments with Tesla coils and the transformer effects back up what I say about the mechanical effect as does my mechanical demonstrations, show it with differing arrangements.

If Thane is unaware of what his setups do then he does not know much and should be ignored. That also makes me wonder what all the "trained" people who looked at it and said there is something interesting happening there were thinking, if at all.

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Magluvin · « **Reply #28 on:** February 01, 2014, 01:56:38 AM »

I never dug deep into what Thane was doing. But Gotoluc said once that Thane wound his coils in a random back and forth style. Luc said that Thane said it increased the capacitance.

There is probably fewer times that 2 wires are next to each other than when they are crossing each other. Funny, My coil that read the most capacitance was not wound as critical as the one with less capacitance.

Maybe there is a connection there. Cant say just that Thane told Luc means that the coils were really wound randomly. Unless Luc had actually seen the coils or if there is evidence of it out there. Dunno. But I believe Luc believes Thane on that.

But anyway, its an interesting 3rd party coil that could be added to the comparison being the claim is increased coil capacitance.

Mags

Magluvin · « **Reply #29 on:** February 01, 2014, 02:01:17 AM »

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils (Read 55402 times)

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

Farmhand

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

MileHigh

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

Magluvin

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

wings

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

MileHigh

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

synchro1

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

MileHigh

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

conradelektro

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

gyulasun

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

Farmhand

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

Magluvin

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils

Magluvin

Re: Some tests on mono and bifilar coils