Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[Bob Smith]

Bob Smith,

Originally Posted by Bob Smith View Post
I am watching this topic with interest here and on a couple of other forums. I have been working with a set of three series-wound bifilar pancake (swbifip) coils for about a week. My focus is on the interaction between the swbifip coil and the local electrostatic environment.

If I am not mistaken, an inductor pulsed below resonant frequency will be dominated by resistive reactance, while pulsed above resonant frequency, capacitive reactance dominates. In simplest terms, below resonance, the inductor behaves like a resistor, and above resonance, begins to behave like a capacitor. At resonance, neither predominates.

However, given the low reactance and high capacitance of the swbifip coil due to its configuration, what actually happens to its capacitance (let alone reactance) at resonance?

I'm going to throw out a thought - if reactance in an inductor drops to zero at resonance, and we transpose this understanding to the swbifip coil, is it possible that at resonance, its extremely low reactance might drop below zero, effectively giving it negentropic characteristics of a negative resistor?

There are some decent YT videos out there showing a rise in voltage amplitude at resonance in this coil. Is it another animal entirely, for which another set of parameters has to apply?
Bob

First thing is you have a couple of things slightly confused. Capacitive reactance goes DOWN as the frequency goes UP. Inductive reactance goes UP as the frequency goes UP. So below the natural resonant frequency of a coil the reactance will be capacitive and above the resonant frequency the reactance will be inductive. And you are correct that at the resonant frequency they both cancel each other out and the result is that only the DC resistance remains.

I have not seen any evidence that the reactance can drop below zero. If you can link a video or other evidence showing that I would like to see it.

The only real difference in the bifilar series connected coil and a normally connected coil is the added capacitance of the bifilar coil. It also makes no difference if the coil is a pancake coil or a normal solenoid type coil the extra capacitance is still there if the coils are bifilar. Several tests were done on the OU.com site that confirm this.

The added capacitance of the bifilar wound coil is that it allows the coil to be resonant at a much lower frequency than a normally wound coil. As was pointed out on the OU site at the time Tesla was working with high voltages and high frequency, capacitors that met those requirements were hard to make and so Tesla was looking for a way to make a coil resonant without the need for capacitors and thus came up with the bifilar wound coil. Now high voltage capacitors are fairly easy to come by so the need for bifilar wound coils is not as great. They are still an interesting device for studying resonance and especially for learning about inductive and capacitive reactance.

I hope this helps some.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Carroll,
Thanks very much for this. I'll make the corrections this evening.
Bob

[mikrovolt]

On measuring pancake coil output on other threads we encounter
discussion about conventional methods. An example where non-conventional
entities measured have negative inductance or negative capacitance.
Some think there is a relationship but the uncertainty remains.
Such as this discussion on edaboard:

what does negative inductance mean?

In non-conventional settings there are discussions that
often avoid aether because it's general acceptance and yet
the projects goes on. Also in patents the aetheric discussion
is left out and the diagrams depicted are really misleading at best.
The engineers that review the inventions give the product
a thumbs down on credibility and the investors run away.

To make things worse there are red herring departments
that insure that for every good invention there are hundreds of
fake inventions patented and marketed that will convince
the public that all devices are scams. Keeping this in mind
the rhetoric developed becomes the accepted status quo.

Those trying to fight this rhetoric are unsuccessful in overcoming
what is generally accepted and run into a brick wall. It is common
to see individuals deny conventional science because they feel they
have a small piece of truth they cannot convey. It is only a small piece of
the puzzle and not more. There are plenty of people on the forum
that understand and are not able to help because of the conventional
understanding creates a framework that would cause them
unnecessary confrontation and detract from their goals.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Been a while.

Hello Bistander,

Yes, I know...lot of work, lot of testings...plus normal headaches.

I read your post. Nothing in the way of a fast answer today. But I will think about it.

Good luck with it,

bi

No sweat, whenever you have a chance, no hurry...

Besides I know you have been really busy lately...with Allen discussions...

Just uploaded a new scope pic at 3600 RPM's...


Take care


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

circuit question

Hi Ufo,

Been a while. I read your post. Nothing in the way of a fast answer today. But I will think about it.

Good luck with it,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Mainly to Citfta and Bistander...

Hello Citfta, Hello Bistander,

I got a question which is "indirectly' related to what is on discussion right now on the "Multifilar" (which means "not necessarily" it needs to be Two Strands) Coils patented by Tesla...

I am working right now (by the way, very good results that I would be posting soon) on "Double" Bifilar Solenoid (Cylindrical)Type Coils...made several ones based on the same spec's as far as gauge and length, but different geometries.

What am working on is a different concept...and not connected in series as Tesla Patent shows.

I have Two Bifilar Coils "Interlaced" or wound in a different config as conventional method. The result is that I have two terminals that turn on a coil in a magnetic pole order as N-S, and when the other two terminals are energized it becomes a S-N within the same core. Of course, they turn on alternatively...not simultaneously or they would cancel magnetism.

Now, if I just energize one set ON and OFF, while the other is connected as a closed loop with electrolytic caps (an LC Tank Circuit) as it would not work well with AC Caps or Non Polarized...because they would not "Echo" the opposed Magnetic Field which is what am looking for.

Concluding, the closed Tank Circuit will be energized or excited Indirectly by the Induction from the alternatively turned On-Off Coil, since they are within same core and wires are interlaced and next to each others.

The best working Electrolytic cap is at 560uf...

The result is that as I increase the frequency on the energized coil, it would reduce its Volts and Amps from source...while the opposite result takes place in the Tank Circuit Coil...meaning Amps and Volts rise above input values.

The tank circuit does a perfect "Mirror" Signal as the one from the Coil excited from source, except it is greatly amplified as frequency increases (RPM's from Rotary Switch), then it becomes a very smooth sine wave.

Now, finally the Question I mentioned in the beginning...

Is there a way to mathematically calculate, in order to achieve a greater "Echo" response at the Tank Circuit, as frequency goes up?

It is interesting that when I add a 1000uf Electrolytic Cap, the Echo signal goes as a perfect Positive Saw, which is not good for my tests since the On period is too short.

I would like to achieve a Positive Pyramid Signal as Figuera achieves with resistors(smoothly rising up to flat line On time then slowly decreasing, like a "ramp type")...but instead by regulating the capacitance/inductance at tank circuit.

Below is a shot of the Two Scope signals:

[IMG][/IMG]

Both Probes are attenuated at 10X...The Yellow (Chanel 1) is the Input Energized Coil, and the Blue (Chanel 2) is the Echo Tank Circuit reactive signal.

[IMG][/IMG]

Above IMG, RPM's were at 3600 (60Hz), note Tank Blue Circuit rounded up lower sine, as it is now almost double as input (yellow signal)


Thanks in advance


Ufopolitics


P.D: This is just the Generator Exciter System am working on now...the Output from Secondaries is even greater, but am not done with exciter config yet.

[citfta]

Bob Smith,

Originally Posted by Bob Smith View Post
I am watching this topic with interest here and on a couple of other forums. I have been working with a set of three series-wound bifilar pancake (swbifip) coils for about a week. My focus is on the interaction between the swbifip coil and the local electrostatic environment.

If I am not mistaken, an inductor pulsed below resonant frequency will be dominated by resistive reactance, while pulsed above resonant frequency, capacitive reactance dominates. In simplest terms, below resonance, the inductor behaves like a resistor, and above resonance, begins to behave like a capacitor. At resonance, neither predominates.

However, given the low reactance and high capacitance of the swbifip coil due to its configuration, what actually happens to its capacitance (let alone reactance) at resonance?

I'm going to throw out a thought - if reactance in an inductor drops to zero at resonance, and we transpose this understanding to the swbifip coil, is it possible that at resonance, its extremely low reactance might drop below zero, effectively giving it negentropic characteristics of a negative resistor?

There are some decent YT videos out there showing a rise in voltage amplitude at resonance in this coil. Is it another animal entirely, for which another set of parameters has to apply?
Bob

First thing is you have a couple of things slightly confused. Capacitive reactance goes DOWN as the frequency goes UP. Inductive reactance goes UP as the frequency goes UP. So below the natural resonant frequency of a coil the reactance will be capacitive and above the resonant frequency the reactance will be inductive. And you are correct that at the resonant frequency they both cancel each other out and the result is that only the DC resistance remains.

I have not seen any evidence that the reactance can drop below zero. If you can link a video or other evidence showing that I would like to see it.

The only real difference in the bifilar series connected coil and a normally connected coil is the added capacitance of the bifilar coil. It also makes no difference if the coil is a pancake coil or a normal solenoid type coil the extra capacitance is still there if the coils are bifilar. Several tests were done on the OU.com site that confirm this.

The added capacitance of the bifilar wound coil is that it allows the coil to be resonant at a much lower frequency than a normally wound coil. As was pointed out on the OU site at the time Tesla was working with high voltages and high frequency, capacitors that met those requirements were hard to make and so Tesla was looking for a way to make a coil resonant without the need for capacitors and thus came up with the bifilar wound coil. Now high voltage capacitors are fairly easy to come by so the need for bifilar wound coils is not as great. They are still an interesting device for studying resonance and especially for learning about inductive and capacitive reactance.

I hope this helps some.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[RAMSET]

is there any meat with the potatoes?

Is there a demonstration from Allen that has shown his path?
with good input and output measurements?

an experiment?
or is it all theory?

we can do a replication here to discuss this if there is such a test ?

and I am not talking about members replicating his work here that he has attacked and chosen to " personally destroy" [vendetta]

there are plenty of good builders with good resources that can do an honest public replication.

no math no pencils or erasers no formulas

just a build ?
with good power in power out measurements, or some method to show anomalous work performed {which should be an OU claim]

respectfully
Chet K

[citfta]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_force_law

And here is a link to the article about the magnetic strength of a coil which is called Ampere's circuital law but was actually arrived at by Maxwell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_circuital_law

I was not able to find the formula that Allen posted so I don't know where he got it.

[citfta]

Then why the effort? I mean, I understand where you coming from... Still... why?

I see bistander has answered why he tries to correct the mistaken ideas being presented on this forum. I will also answer why I try to do the same. I got really tired last year of being bashed for trying to correct a lot of the errors I kept seeing on this forum. So I did a very informal poll and asked if anyone thought I should keep trying or just forget it. By a very large majority I was told that correct information was being appreciated and would I continue to help when I could.

The other reason I try to correct bad information is because there are many that come to this forum with no electronic training or experience. It is very easy to confuse them with bad information which will only cause them a lot of problems as they try to duplicate some of the things seen on here or try to do some experimenting of their own.

I do know there are some that will never learn but I have seen some that used to ridicule my comments that now consider what I have to say and even ask for help from both bistander and myself. So there is hope that as some see we are trying to share the truth and not fantasy that more will begin to see the value in real education and experience.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[bistander]

What?

@Bi

... [I'm] here but only to
answer your charges against me that I am unfair. ...

What? What are you talking about? I never said anything like that. In fact I try hard not to interact with you. That is the reason I avoid posting on that PM energy thread of yours. BTW, university curriculum inludes testing and industry certainly does. I've done my share of tests and continue to do so when I choose.

Please leave me alone.

bi

[bistander]

Just one of those things

Then why the effort? I mean, I understand where you coming from... Still... why?

He bothers me. I try to help a member and he insults me, thinks he knows everything and seemingly derives great pleasure in rubbing my face in his pretend knowledge. That's all.

bi

[BroMikey]

@Bi

Your going to learn the answer only if you do some experiments for
yourself. Others can give you the answer but you will never be sure
unless you can do the tests. Do some video on what you find and
then it won't be so tempting to revert back to what the books say
with the real verification in hand.

This is great thread to exchange ideas about why it is impossible to leave
the standards of our current models in science. The focus should be in
the tests that you are making to prove current models right, this would
make all other input irrelative, would it not?

I don't want to give any impressions that I am welcome here but only to
answer your charges against me that I am unfair. It is fair to give your
results in test form, just like you were required to do at the college.

In fact the whole scientific reasoning taught in schools should be done
so that after the student leaves their primary training, they go on to
verify everything as they go.
Hopefully adding to the evidence as we accumulate more knowledge.
Some have received prizes for this.

Anyway I am not unfair to suggest that we keep threads separate. And we
will be watching what your evidence is, don't worry about that. Where
is it?


PS i guess this website crashed last night and was down for a number
of hours, probably hacked.

[SlickDick]

Not that I expect any answers from Allen. Whenever our discussions or arguments get to the point where he needs to provide proof, he has chosen to go hide in some flying saucer thread or such. He is big on insults and claims but short on logic and proof.

Later,

bi

Then why the effort? I mean, I understand where you coming from... Still... why?

[bistander]

Allen's grudge

Boggles my mind. No idea why I am grouped with Allen's adversaries from some other forum of which I am not nor ever been a member and seldom visit. But he has included me in this explanation. I am attempting to avoid participating on the thread where he posted it. It does seem off-topic for that thread but the OP BM doesn't appear to object. Here it is along with another of his posts of about 2 hours earlier that day.

I've been out foxing four know it all "Flat Nose Maze Mice" since Easter. Inductance is a limited area like Trigonometry. Current density is current intensity. Ampere worked his equivalency theory out with Gauss, then Maxwell refined it to include current displacement (A.C.) RMS cosine values, simplified by Heaviside; then Biot-Savart plate charge "Charge equals Flux" in capacitors, then Lorentz and the electron in a magnetic field in free space then Einstein.

I challenged these heavey weights first on he Overunity site, then back here on Energetic Forum, not as a nice guy, but to repay them for insulting me over a discharge curve comparison. None of them; bistander, Milehigh Tinselkoala nor Citfta can read or understand the algebraic expressions commonly used in our inductance formulas. They're all completely ignorant in the field of Physics. All these men were Physicists: Oersted, Ampere, Gauss, Maxwell, Heaviside, Biot-Savart, Lorentz, Joseph Henry, Nicola Tesla and Albert Einstein etc. These electronics "Scope Gadgeteers" never signed up for one Physics course between the lot. Physicists have no need for Oscilloscopes.

I set out to make that group of "Thamsanka Wizards" look like a pack of chumps. I have a Milehigh decal painted on my cowling at this time.

None of them; bistander, Milehigh Tinselkoala nor Citfta can read or understand the algebraic expressions commonly used in our inductance formulas.

I can't speak for the other three gentlemen, two of whom I don't know and have never communicated with, citfta and I have exchanged a few messages, but I do understand the math associated with inductance formulas quite well.

These electronics "Scope Gadgeteers" never signed up for one Physics course between the lot.

Not speaking for the other three, but I have done well in college level physics courses even teaching same at university senior engineering level.

"Charge equals Flux"

I wonder why Allen put this in quotes. It has occurred to me that it may be a prime source to his confusion when he continues to maintain the electric charge is magnetic flux. He needs to realize that D is not B.

but to repay them for insulting me over a discharge curve comparison

I never insulted Allen over a discharge curve. I may have told him he was mistaken, but not an insult. I don't think I have insulted him at all. Not my style. I just try to stick to the facts. This is my first contact with Allen and you can see that I was polite and tried my best to be helpful.

Hi Allen,

Your terminology is confusing. "BEMF current"? What is it? A voltage? Or a current? Can't be both.

The behavior of voltage across the inductor and current through the inductor is well established during the storing of energy (building the magnetic field) and during the decaying of the energy (collapsing magnetic field).



As you can see, IL (current through the inductor) is in the same direction for both the storage and the decay phase. VL (voltage across the inductor)is opposite polarity for the decay phase.

Hope that helps,

bi

That's right! Bistander can't understand that. That power would consolidate into high volt high amp pulse that would sustain the Tesla field for perhaps a second and need to be repeated serially to maintain it. A second look at the equations will reveal a proportion of WH/Sec.

Ampere's force law is Ampere per second to gauss

So Allen, assuming you read this, if you have a superior grasp on the subject, please identify the specific equation which you reference here:

A second look at the equations will reveal a proportion of WH/Sec.

And then clarify your units of WH/Sec. Is that watt hours per second or watt henries per second? And what do you mean by "reveal a proportion"? Is that a ratio? Of what to what?

Ampere's force law is Ampere per second to gauss

Please show me where it is stated in Ampere's force law that Ampere per second relates to gauss.

Not that I expect any answers from Allen. Whenever our discussions or arguments get to the point where he needs to provide proof, he has chosen to go hide in some flying saucer thread or such. He is big on insults and claims but short on logic and proof.

Later,

bi

[mikrovolt]

On the subject of measuring pancake coils at resonance.
My opinion after watching methods used by TinselKoala's compared to rwg video.
The method used by rwg would be preferred. The current probes could be used
in the lower frequencies such as music.

Meanwhile the analog simulation has made considerable progress.
Relax, Aaron will not remove someone unless they cause real trouble.