Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[Bob Smith]

Hmm. I'm a little confused. I made the changes as I said I would earlier today. I'll let it sit till the dust settles, and if some nuance needs to be made, I'll change them again.

My thanks to both of you for taking the time to clarify this for me, as it is an issue I'm trying to get a handle on, particularly with the series wound bifi pancake coil.

Ideally, I want to be working at the coil's self-resonant frequency, and my initial inspiration in this is the work of Doc Stiffler and his SEC. I wonder if the swbifi pancake coil can be used in a similar way.

Thanks again for the gentlemanly exchange.
Bob

[boguslaw]

Could we have high frequency current and its bemf in the same circuit ?

[gyula]

Hi Carroll,

I included my comments in blue within your post.

Gyula

Hi gyula,

Good to see you posting here. But you have me confused. I admit I didn't take time to look up everything before replying to Bob. Do you agree that inductive reactance goes up as the frequency goes up Yes I do, there is a linear proportion here, the higher the frequency the higher the inductive reactance becomes till the coils self resonance is reached.

and that capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency goes down. No, I do not agree, capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency increases, there is an inverse proportion here to frequency.

In other words if you connect a capacitor to DC as soon as the capacitor is fully charged it is not going to pass any more current so you could say the capacitive reactance is infinity. Yes. And as the frequency goes up the capacitor begins to pass more and more current. Yes and this means that its capacitive reactance goes down at the same time to a lower and lower value to pass more and more current. And of course everything is just the opposite for an inductor. Yes, till reaching self resonance for the coil, beyond that the coil starts behaving as if it were a capacitive reactance.

So I am confused as to why you said below the resonant frequency the reactance would be inductive and above would be capacitive? Can you please explain the reason for you saying that?
Well, try to think of a parallel LC circuit drawn with two rectangular blocks instead of the usual L and C symbols. The two blocks represent impedances that of course change when frequency is varied. Say the resonant frequency be at 1 MHz. Starting from DC and up in frequency, the 'coil' block is a short circuit i.e. a very low Z impedance at DC and at low frequencies while the 'capacitor' block first cannot start charging as it should when it were alone because the coil shorts it out. And as we increase frequency the shunting effect from the coil block reduces i.e. its impedance starts increasing while the capacitor block "slowly" starts charging (and discharging) i.e. its reducing impedance slowly starts take effect as getting able to "conduct" AC current more and more. Notice how this capacitor would 'pass' current at low frequencies: hardly because of its high capacitive reactance at the low frequencies. Impedance-wise we have two impedances in parallel and one of them (the coil block) always "remains" at a lower value than the other till reaching resonance. You may look at this as two paralleled 'resistors', one of them (the coil) has a lower value, hence it dominates the combined resistance value. I include two drawings (I combined into one) taken from a website AC Inductance and Inductive Reactance in an AC Circuit which shows the reactance and current curves for a coil and a capacitor in the function of the frequency. Try to mix the two drawings overlayed in your mind: the crossing point of their reactance curve defines the resonant frequency and consider the curves below and above this point.

Take care,
Carroll

PS: I do totally agree with your description of a parallel resonant circuit.

[citfta]

Thanks for your explanation gyula. I do see in my post you quoted that I made a typo. Where I said the capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency goes down I meant to say as the frequency goes up. I was pretty tired when I typed that. Sorry about that.

Ok, so you are saying in a parallel resonant circuit that below the resonant frequency the reactance is inductive and above the resonant frequency the reactance is capacitive because below the resonant frequency the inductor is carrying more of the current and above the resonant frequency the reactance is capacitive because the capacitor is carrying more of the current?

I would consider the part of the circuit that is carrying the lesser amount of current to be the one that is more reactive. So I guess it all depends on how you want to look at it.

Since Bob was asking in reference to a series connected bifilar coil the parallel circuit analysis is more the correct one.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Carroll

[gyula]

See my comments in blue within your text.

Gyula

Thanks for your explanation gyula. I do see in my post you quoted that I made a typo. Where I said the capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency goes down I meant to say as the frequency goes up. I was pretty tired when I typed that. Sorry about that.

Ok, so you are saying in a parallel resonant circuit that below the resonant frequency the reactance is inductive and above the resonant frequency the reactance is capacitive because below the resonant frequency the inductor is carrying more of the current and above the resonant frequency the reactance is capacitive because the capacitor is carrying more of the current?
Yes, that is okay.

I would consider the part of the circuit that is carrying the lesser amount of current to be the one that is more reactive. So I guess it all depends on how you want to look at it.
Well, in reactive networks I consider a component carrying the lesser current has less overall effect in phase shift than the one carrying the higher current, hence a component with lesser current is less reactive, this is how I see this.

Since Bob was asking in reference to a series connected bifilar coil the parallel circuit analysis is more the correct one.
To be fair, we need to consider a series resonant circuit too (I focused on a parallel one so far). Starting from DC and from low frequencies upwards, the capacitor surely has a huge reactance in this range so a series circuit must behave as a capacitive reactance which decreases as we increase the frequency. The coil in this scenario is a series short ( quasi a piece of wire) at DC and at the low frequency ranges i.e. has very low reactance, then its inductive reactance gradually increases as we increase frequency till we reach resonance. Beyond resonance the effect of the capacitive reactance start diminishing as we go up in frequency because Xc will be lower and lower.

To sum up: a series LC has capacitive reactance below the resonant frequency (input current leads voltage) and a parallel LC has an inductive reactance (input current lags voltage) below the resonant frequency.

Thanks for your thoughts. You are welcome.
Carroll

[bistander]

Moved post from Figuera builders thread

the standard mechanical rotating generator is a complete waste of time

the people of the Tesla time are true leaders in their field thus making our so called leaders from our time seam like school girls playing with dolls.

Hey MM,

If you like that 19th century technology over our modern version, you could join a Mennonite or other such group and avoid using those generators which you call a "waste of time".

Please excuse me for posting on your special thread but nobody else but you uses it lately.

Do you have any idea when we will see an actual demonstration or proof? It's been a long time and appears most interested parties have given up the discussion.

If you object to this post let me know and I'll move it to citfta's thread.

bi

So MM did object here:

That would be a good idea Bistander as your opinion or response is entirely not needed or wanted. thank you kindly though and have a good day.

He goes on to tell his serious builders this:

To all:
...

I hope you all understand what i have posted in the last few weeks and have a better mental picture of what is taking place. apparently aligning that up with a working model was a little more difficult then i had originally expected but i or rather we will get there. the two are finally aligning up just nicely. ...

MM

I see three serious builders left, GlenWV, Cornboy555 and Shadow119g. And two interested parties, seaad and myself. It's only been 8 months since he started his serious builders only thread. With all his guidance, preaching and theorizing I don't see anyone close to a working model, except maybe for Ufo. But it seems Ufo stopped pursuing MM's part G design. Wonder why?

I'll go back to the forbidden thread and delete my post as I said. But no answer from MM as to when we might see a demonstration or proof. Back to the sidelines.

bi

[citfta]

What was interesting to me was that a couple of months ago if I recall correctly MM admitted that maybe part G wasn't what he thought it was. This was after several people had working part Gs that didn't work like MM kept saying they would. How can that happen if he is being given information from a working device?

I have said all along that part G could not be a device that passed a lot of current, yet MM kept insisting it had to have these large copper bars to work properly. As Ufo found out you can't control anything with that design.

I still think the Figuera device might be a real working device with a properly designed part G. I just don't have any spare time right now to pursue it. What little time I have for experimenting is spent working on a device of my own design that is not for this forum. If it works it will be shared with a small group of serious builders on another forum. These guys understand how things really work and are well qualified to evaluate and approve or disprove any claims. If I am going to make any claims I want them checked by qualified people, not some people that have only gotten their education from YouTube.

[marathonman]

Get on with it

You people sound like 80 year old *****es with nothing to do. i've been Very, Very busy with life and i don't have to explain an F-in thing to you loosers. try reading the post instead of running your big fat know NOTHING mouths. better yet why don't you mouth runners leave my name or any thing about my thread out of your pathetic mouths and quite spoiling other threads with your bull **** whining gossip and rhetoric, Grow up and get a life.
How pathetic you people are.

MM

[bistander]

You people sound like 80 year old *****es with nothing to do. i've been Very, Very busy with life and i don't have to explain an F-in thing to you loosers. try reading the post instead of running your big fat know NOTHING mouths. better yet why don't you mouth runners leave my name or any thing about my thread out of your pathetic mouths and quite spoiling other threads with your bull **** whining gossip and rhetoric, Grow up and get a life.
How pathetic you people are.

MM

try reading the post instead of running your big fat know NOTHING mouths.

I read your posts. Which part do you think I misunderstood?

[citfta]

You people sound like 80 year old *****es with nothing to do. i've been Very, Very busy with life and i don't have to explain an F-in thing to you loosers. try reading the post instead of running your big fat know NOTHING mouths. better yet why don't you mouth runners leave my name or any thing about my thread out of your pathetic mouths and quite spoiling other threads with your bull **** whining gossip and rhetoric, Grow up and get a life.
How pathetic you people are.

MM

Sounds to me like we hit a sore spot. Sorry MM but this thread is for discussing the technical aspects or lack thereof of any project on this forum or anywhere else. If that bothers you then simply don't read this thread. I have been reading your thread and I do recall very clearly you making the statement that it appears the part G is not quite as you thought it was. So my statement still stands. You will never be able to control the current through the primaries with a part G that has such low resistance. And as built in the pictures I have seen it does not have the proper reactance to control the current through the primaries either.

I don't have any problem at all with it taking several months to get something going as I also have been very busy. But there is no need for your constant bad mouthing of those that disagree with your technical analysis of how the Figuera device and in particular the part G actually works.

So far as I have been able to tell from the two threads, tests done by UFO have confirmed what Bistander and myself have said about the part G.

[seaad]

Hello guys. A tip. Try to squeeze MM gently on his sweet spots. Maybe he will tell you how he made his COP-3 machine. That one he sold. You certainly heard of that on the Re...Figuera thread.

Sorry citfta I couldn't resist writing here.

Summer Regards Arne

[citfta]

Feel free to make any posts to this thread you like. It is for open discussion. I do ask that there be no bashing of a personal nature, but technical discussion is great.

If I had a machine that worked I would never sell it until I had at least a couple of more built that also worked. Then I would feel pretty sure I knew what I was doing. A single machine could be one of those times when everything feel into place by accident but can't be duplicated. After building a few more that worked then I would be more comfortable about what I thought I knew. Just seems like common sense to me to not sell the only one I had that worked.

[BroMikey]

That's what I thought was so ridiculous about
MM in the first place.

My money is on the whole thing being FAKE NEWS. Not the device
itself, but his claim that he ever built one and his ability to replicate
it. I don't think he knows a butt from a biscuit. So watch out if
you see he has some butter!

I am starting this thread for open discussion
for those people who would like to discuss projects that are going
on on this forum.

Please feel free to comment on either one of these projects
or any other project you would like to discuss. Remember this thread
is for technical discussion only, NO NAME CALLING OR FLAMING.

Respectfully,
Carroll

MM is an old guy trying to sound like a professional. He is always
almost gonna and knows how better than anyone else. Maybe we can
awaken him by asking for his hardware pictures. Mad-Mack and MM or MM
might be the same guy. Merry -Go- Round Men, oh hold it don't build
it like that, that is the old one I got a better, hold on a few.

A few what? A few years? I think I'll stick with UFO, he makes sense.

And all of these colorful power-points are worthless if you don't have
an experiment to go with it. How long has it been? Still waiting.

Please send your money to care and someday.

And I didn't even name call the lxxr.

[bistander]

Message to Turion

Here is how I look at it.
1. If I have a motor that is free wheeling and under no load, it will consume a certain number of watts per hour of operation.

2. If I place a rotor with magnets on the motor shaft, I have created a load, which will increase the watts consumed per hour. No way to get around that.

3. If I place a coil with an iron, ferrite or metglass core near the rotating magnets, an additional load is placed on the motor because of magnetic drag and more watts are consumed.

4. If the coil is connected to a load, more watts are consumed

As far as I know, there is no way to avoid the additional watts consumed in 1-2 above, so I will only address 3 and 4.

If there is a watts per hour consumption of the motor in number 3, and you can change the core material or the physical configuration of the machine to reduce the watts consumed per hour without decreasing the output of the generator coil, that is significant to me.

If you can take the coil you have in number four, remove the wire, and rewind it so that rather than increasing the watts per hour consumed when the coil is put under load, it reduces the watts consumed per hour by the motor, without decreasing the output of the generator coil, THAT is significant to me.

And always remember, there is going to be a motor speed that is MOST efficient at producing speed and torque for the specific load you have.

I know there are folks out there who DO NOT agree with this view of things, and I can honestly say I do not understand WHY. I would really like to know and understand why the believe I am off on the wrong track here. I would really LIKE to understand their thinking because they could be entirely correct and I could be completely WRONG. But I want to have an intelligent conversation about it, not be given hints and secret clues.

I can significantly reduce the magnetic drag and get the motor to speed up when the coils are under load, so I feel like I am headed in the right direction.

Hello Turion,

I read your post copied and pasted above. I am reluctant to post on a thread started by BM, so I hope you find your way here. I have followed what you post and that recent exchange on another forum which frustrated you. If you'd like to have a civil conversation here, I'll give you my opinions with regard to the underlined statements in the above.

Let me know.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Cool

I would love to hear what you have to say on this topic. And I DO have an open mind on this subject

OK. First thing which stands out is your use of:
Watts per hour,
Watts consumed per hour,
Watts are consumed,
Watts consumed,
And watts per hour consumption.

Watt is a unit of power. As such, it is the rate which energy is used or converted, or the rate which work is done. Watt is a rate. One watt is equal to one joule per second.

A watt per second or W/s is a nonsensical unit. Just like a watt per hour doesn't make sense. When you use, or misuse, terms or units like this, anybody reading your statements will form an opinion that your grasp of power and energy is lacking.

Lots of folks get it wrong. Watt is the unit for power. Watt hour is a unit for energy. Watts per hour is meaningless (for context like this). Like I said, power (watts or W) is a rate. Similar to how speed (m/s or mph) is a rate. So what would you think of a person who speaks of consuming so many mph per hour? Or how many m/s were consumed? Doesn't make sense, does it?

I mean no offense. I'm trying to help. Got to do some chores around here now. I'll check back later. I also have some suggestions but want to clear this item first so we're on the same page discussing energy and power. Please, by all means, research the subject of energy and power definitions.

Regards,

bi