Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[citfta]

Quote from Allen:

Ampere's Force law
From Ampere’s law, it can be derived that the field inside a coil of wire is described as: Formula attached below:

Basically Amperes force law; Current in Amps divided into turns per meter of wire equals magnet field strength in Gauss.

3600 Joules per second would generate 1 Tesla of field strength in an inductor of 1 Henry of inductance.

where:
• B = the magnetic field strength at the center, in Tesla (10,000 Gauss = 1 Tesla)
• µo = a constant, the magnetic permeability of free space, 4π×10−7 N·A−2
• k = a constant, the magnetic permeability of the core material. Iron = 5000, Steel = 100, Air = 1.
• N / L = number of turns per length of the core/shaft, expressed in turns per meter
• I = current flowing through the wire, expressed in Amps
Attached Thumbnails
-electromagnetequation-png
End of quote.

Another totally ludicrous post. Allen has completely mixed up the Ampere's force law with the strength of a magnetic field generated by a coil. They actually have nothing to do with one another. Ampere's force law concerns the attraction or repelling of two wires depending upon the strength and direction of the current flowing in each of them. Wikipedia makes a very clear distinction that this law is not the same as the law concerning magnetic strength of a coil. Here is a link to the article about Ampere's force law:
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..._circuital_law

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[bistander]

Allen's math

I had started using evostar's thread again as I thought Allen had chased him away but evostar is back using that thread again so I will post this here out of respect for the OP.

@bistander,

I made the point that a more tightly wound coil would generate a stronger field than a sloppily wound coil of equal wire gauge and turns for the same input. Lets say the difference in inductance was 5%. We could equal the strength of the sloppy coil with the tight coil by reducing the input by 5%, right?

Lets say we feed 10 watts into both coils: We would gain 1/2 watt in savings, right? 100 watts would result in 5 watts savings and 500 watts would result in 25 watts savings, got it?

My power input calculations result in a savings of that amount with that amount of difference in inductance between the two types of coils. You say I divided when I should have multiplied. Your approach would throw the answer off in the wrong direction by an "Astronomical Parsec".

I was asked for a simple explanation: Greater inductance results greater efficiency, got it? Your math is really stupid! Stop acting strange.

You say I divided when I should have multiplied.

Here is what Allen wrote:

16.8 mH divided by 10,000 equals 168 Gauss

Which is: 0.0168 / 10000 = 168.

I say that is wrong and that 0.0168 / 10000 = 0.00000168. So I came to the logical conclusion that Allen meant multiply instead of divide. Because:

0.0168 * 10000 = 168.

Silly me. Allen insists he is correct and I am wrong.

Then another example of Allen's math skill can be found in this recent post of his:

...

The inference you make that the tiny wire connection between the bifilar windings accounts a huge 1.9 mH difference in inductance is ludicrous. See the High Perm inductance measurements below:

Allen subtracts 15.9 from 16.8 and gets 1.9. Or "16.8 - 15.9 = 1.9"

I wonder if Allen can see his error and actually admit he is wrong. Probably not.

bi

[gyula]

Hi Bob Smith and Carroll,

I made my comments in red for both of you within your own text enviroment below. I commented only where I disagreed with you both or where I felt some additions were needed.

Gyula

Originally Posted by Bob Smith:
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?

My answer to the latter question is no. At resonance the reactances cancel and purely a resistive impedance dominates. This means there is no any phase shift between input current and voltage. However, the coil and the capacitor still maintain their original properties when we try to examine their own current vs their own voltage i.e. they maintain their own phase shifts within themselves as if they were alone. What manifests to the outside is that the input current and voltage will be in phase at resonance. IF there is any phase shift it means you are not at the resonant frequency of the L and C components yet.

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

Answer to Bob by Carroll:

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
No, it will be inductive.
and above the resonant frequency the reactance will be inductive.
No, it will be capacitive.
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.

Yes, okay but here we need to define whether we talk about a series or parallel LC circuit? Because for a series LC circuit at resonance indeed there is the coil's DC resistance which limits the input current (besides the generator and any other series components in the circuit if there is any). And for a parallel LC circuit the input current is limited by a much higher resistive impedance at resonance than the coil's DC resistance, this impedance is the loaded Q times either the inductive or the capacitive reactance (these latter two are equal in absolute magnitude value at resonance).

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

[citfta]

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 and that capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency goes down.

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. And as the frequency goes up the capacitor begins to pass more and more current. And of course everything is just the opposite for an inductor.

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?

Take care,
Carroll

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