@guidoc66

The wiring scheme you mentioned is one that switches sides from one of the Secondaries to the opposing Primary.

The standard connection is AS to CP, BS to DP, CS to AP and DS to BP.

In both cases one Primary is connected to the opposing Secondary. The connection scheme you are reffering to is the same except that one of the Primaries is connected in reverse to the opposing Secondary.

What type of build did you make. Please identify it on this thread so we can keep track of builds and results.

wattsup

@guidoc66

Very good size. Imagine 1450 turns  of the secondary. Yours hands must be totally numb and your eyes must be hurting also. It is not easy to do.

I translated your dimensions in Imperial so I could understand them better as follows;

Core Dia.: 6mm = 0.2362"
Core Length:   35cm = 13.78"
Secondary 0.2mm = 32 AWG
Primary 1.5mm = 15 AWG

My test set-up was very simple. I would put a capacitor on B and D, the voltage meter on A and C. To start it up, I would take 12 volts from my power supply and hit the B- and D+ and the voltage would increase. Removing the DC supply, the voltage would decrease until the capacitor reaches a certain level, then it would start to rise on its own. When I got to 7 or 8 vdc, I would put a small 12vdc 150 mA led on the A and C. The voltage would decrease then I would remove the led and the voltage would start rising again.

Now maybe with your build having only a .25" core, may make a difference one way or another.

The capacitors I used are either DC only or polarized. I would put the negative on B and the positive on D. Some of the values I used (over 50) are as follows;

27000uF 40vdc
330uF 200V
2200uF 35V

I had no success at all trying to repicate Brnbrades' Trial #1 and #2 as I do not know the cap value he used. I imagine it is high uF, low voltage but have not been able to find a ceramic cap of that type value.

Anyways, you have to play with the device. cap sizes, wiring, DC voltage for start up, etc., and if you have a scope you will see the effects.

Also if you have two compasses you can put them here and there around the coils while suppling DC voltage to B and D. Put them at the core end (long end) and you will notice one is North pole and other is South Pole. Now switch the DC supply polarity and you will notice the core end poles do not chage. Curious effects indeed. hit the Dc supply on A and B and see the compass turn.

Enjoy and please let us know your results.

Some info that folks don't seem to get here:

The Cook patent was filed in 1871.
Magnet wire - as we know it today - wasn't invented until 1877.

The coating was the big change. This coating was devised by an employee of Sherwin Williams and was the beginning of one of the largest wire producers in the world today.

Before that wire was often insulated with 'Empire Cloth' or some other form of treated cloth. Also, the wire used was often iron. That must be the source of the name 'magnet wire'.

The coatings used created winding to winding and winding to form spacings much larger than we see today. This made the electromagnets weak and prone to heating problems. It may have also created spacing that could be an integral part of making a Cook coil.

Because of insulation problems coils were often wound on forms that had grooves for the wire. This made a stable place for the wire. Forms we usually made of ceramic or Bakelite(sp?) or other things that were easily molded.

Ocassionally, you'll see coil forms made of 'Pot Metal' or Aluminum in old radio sets - like the Atwater-Kent radios.

@Wattsup

I'm seeing the information in a different way than I've heard here.
Since I can obtain oscillation I know there is something worth chasing so I'm providing what I see is in the data.

The patent was filed in 1871 but magnet wire isn't even close to what we think as magnet wire until 1877. So my question to myself is 'what was magnet wire in 1871?.'
After a lot of digging I find out it was usually bailing wire, uninsulated and poor grade iron. The reference to copper seems to me as a reference to the secondary (the winding powering the load). That makes good sense.
Another piece of info is "or the primary helix may be made of un-insulated wire coiled into a solid helix, being insulated only between the coils". When he talks about the coil with the small wire he calls it the primary. Insulated only between the coils? Solid helix?
What he is calling a helix is what we call a primary or secondary winding.
A solid helix would mean uninsulated wire wound tightly more or less like a sleeve than a winding with the only insulation being between it and the winding above or below it.

When he mentions the multiple currents he appears to be referring to pulses. There were no scopes back then. So what would he call them? Probably currents.

Then - "In the use of compound helices it is important that the secondary coil should be wound on in the same direction as the primary coil, and that the poles or wires should be connected to the opposite poles of the primary coil B"

I see it as both windings on a single core should be wound with the same direction BUT when a coil with two windings is made this way the primary to secondary connections must be swapped.

The size is also an issue with me. Large size means lower frequency. Adding caps means lowering the frequency. I doubled my coil size and the result freq was about 1/4. I don't use caps. There is no mention of them in the patent.

Then 'steel magnets' - if you wanted a permanent magnet back then you laid your bar out on a solid surface pointing to North and whacked it good and hard one time with a hammer. If you wanted to demagnetize it you pointed it East/West and hit it.
Whatever magnets he had they weren't strong. It is easier to perturb a weak field than a strong one.
It is easier to manipulate a field away from the source of the field than on the surface of the source.
The materials Cook had forced him to make inferior windings and constuction - at least by our standards.

I'm saying that if we want to replicate something it must be done with an understanding of what was possible then and how.

It may very well be that BrnBrade has made modifications to compensate for our modern improvements and the difference in word meanings since the original patent. English not being his primary he probably translated the patent with literal meanings. So should we.

As you see I'm not trying to replicate the BrnBrade coil. I'm trying to understand how it all works since there isn't enough information to continue. So I started digging deeper.
I'm just offering what I've found.
 

Hi All,

wires in 1871 would have been insulated with varnish or silk.
The terms "silk covered" and "double silk" covered are well known.

see:
http://www.hws.org.au/crystalset/mystery.html

Even today in modern transformers sometimes the wires are insulated with silk and glass combined.

In the past, some transformer laminations were insulated with silk.

Regards, Earl

Why do i not believe you?

oh wait you were burning the 12 v car bulb off the two tiny batteries, now i remember.
make sure you show ALL the wires this time...
i think it's kinda dumb to post something like "hey guy's i found something, bye."

M.

@all

Just received my Alu Varnish at my office today so will start on build 2.0.
Nothing else to say, same old same old with the existing builds.

Oh yeh, here's a good read on Tesla.
http://ftp.anomalies.net/ebooks/(ebooks).ALIEN303.The.Complete.Conspiracy.Archives.89.files/The%20Strange%20Life%20of%20Nikola%20Tesla.pdf

@Brnbrade

If you are in a talkative mood, please advise.
About the varnish. Do you cover all of the secondary and primary.
About the alu foil. How many turns did you use?.
Anything else you can advise on the build.

So, here is an uppdate on the CBC v2.0 build

1st picture shows a 12" alu-varnished iron rod roll-wrapped with alu-foil.

I decided to roll a 1 foot length. The foil is wrapped with the shinny side facing outwards.

So each linear inch of alu covered rod has 12 square inches of alu-foil. For the outer edge I just used some Lepage glue to make the foil edge stick tight. I then rolled the rod on a flat surface to take out any soft spot or floating layer. This should produce the tighest surface possible for the next alu-varnish and secondary winding.

Photos 2 shows the same rod but now the alu-foil is removed from each end 3/4" off the left end and 2" off the right end.

Photo 3 shows the rods after being alu-varnished over the 1st alu-foil.

I am going to give them three days to dry because the next step is winding the secondary which will be very stressful for the coating. I don't want the wire to bite into the coating and crack it.

I look forward to testing this sucker. Using the alu-varnish will eliminate 4 layers of double wrapped electrical tape as is in build 1. That's 8 layers of tape. The primary wind will be so close to the core and all layers will be skin close. The secondary wind will be embedded in a solid aluminium flake and alu-foil structure.

Meanwhile, I can do some work on the VAR.

Nice reads on some of the threads. Keep it up.

@marco - like the dancing magnets.