Figuera Device, Part G Continuum.( Serious Builders Only)

[marathonman]

no page needed

Mr. CADMAN;

I don't need a 100 year old book to tell me how to wind a low ohm, low self inductance coil, no disrespect sir. part G controls the currant, you are to occupied with ohms and this and that.

primaries need to be the lowest ohms possible to get the most intense field possible. at 5 amp peak that is what i am doing. 18 awg wire can handle more than you think at 2.08 milliseconds for USA and 2.5 millisecond for all else. this amount of coils at that currant is at saturation of my core.

i will not ever dictate your build but these parameters are some things to consider. your goal should be the biggest bang for the buck and i understand you realize that.

if my primaries were zero ohms it be perfect but unfortunately we might not be able to do that, losses are going to happen.

maybe just two different winding styles achieving the same thing


PART G CONTROLLS THE CURRANT please don't forget that.

just saying.

MM

[Cadman]

I will be winding two layers with both ends connected for lowest possible ohms and inductance. (paralleled) around 120 to 130 winds.
since i am pursuing electronic timing the sparking will not be an issue for me as long as M.B.B. is observed.
as also keeping in mind about where the pressure is going to go once it is squeezed into it's own core.???

MM

Huh, I would have guessed you would be using more turns.
When you are ready to pass on more details I'm sure there will be other things that will surprise me.

Looking forward to that time!

Btw...did you remember on that book somewhere about windings type for better "Attraction Electromagnets" (which bolts down to a stronger magnetic field)...where the higher population of windings concentrate at each of the Core Ends?...While leaving much less windings at very center?

Regards

Ufopolitics

Skimming the book again I couldn't find that. I did find mention of winding the coil evenly as the best method for DC, and specific mention that this was not true for coils using AC, but nothing beyond that.

Can you point to the page?

Regards,
CM

[Ufopolitics]

CM
Edit: OK I see. Expressed poorly by me!

Is Ok,

I see it clearly now. It should work fine then...all positives together and all negatives together, so we will have three sub groups of Coils...and each subgroup will have Two(2) Layers, one from start to end, and other from end back to start...finished first coil subgroup...next..and so on..etc,etc


I believe Magnetic Field would be greater (stronger) than the typical series full wind...As Currents will travel much faster...then even faster response...excellent!!

Btw...did you remember on that book somewhere about windings type for better "Attraction Electromagnets" (which bolts down to a stronger magnetic field)...where the higher population of windings concentrate at each of the Core Ends?...While leaving much less windings at very center?

I picture that kind of coil shape like two cones joint by their upper ends ><...

This way the Magnetic Poles would concentrate more density at each extreme of core (further away) then as well having much less magnetic leakage (spatial losses) between both poles, since poles stronger concentration are even further apart than a typical uniform wind.

This reduction of copper at center plus more copper at ends do not need to be that much radical differences as I pictured before with two cones...,and still performing better I think...

Regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Coils

I will be winding two layers with both ends connected for lowest possible ohms and inductance. (paralleled) around 120 to 130 winds.
since i am pursuing electronic timing the sparking will not be an issue for me as long as M.B.B. is observed.
as also keeping in mind about where the pressure is going to go once it is squeezed into it's own core.???

MM

[Cadman]

Yes, I like it...

And if it works...according to the math...I can tell you that the Magnetic Field would be much, but I mean MUCH Stronger than the regular continuous wind (in series)

Only thing though...you wrote before they connect in parallel BUT with opposite polarities between them...can't do that...cause you will reverse the field on each layer subgroup to S---N and on top N---S...right?

I see conn. between them as pos to pos and neg to neg like a truly parallel to keep same uniform poles at each ends.


Please correct me if I am wrong.


Regards


Ufopolitics

Where did I write with opposite polarities in between them??

Let me try it this way, the three coils are connected in parallel to each other, the start of each coil segment connect to + lead, the end of each segment connect to - lead.

I don't know how much plainer to say it.

CM
Edit: OK I see. Expressed poorly by me!

[Ufopolitics]

Ufo,

4" long bobbin, start at left, wind full length toward right 96 turns, then continue right to left 96 turns, terminate the wire. Repeat 2 x. Connect these 3 coils in parallel.

Regards,
CM

Yes, I like it...

And if it works...according to the math...I can tell you that the Magnetic Field would be much, but I mean MUCH Stronger than the regular continuous wind (in series)

Only thing though...you wrote before they connect in parallel BUT with opposite polarities between them...can't do that...cause you will reverse the field on each layer subgroup to S---N and on top N---S...right?

The method was to subdivide the coil into individual layers. This is NOT a twisted multi-filar coil. Each layer(s) is wound as a single coil with it's ends connected to opposite polarities. The coil layers are connected in parallel to each other.

I see conn. between them as pos to pos and neg to neg like a truly parallel to keep same uniform poles at each ends.

If you connect sub layers between them as Pos to Neg...then they would be in series, not parallel...


Please correct me if I am wrong.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Cadman]

QUOTE; "This slightly staggers the time involved with the inductive discharge and reduces the sparking."

reduces sparking, i thought that was make before break was for and this will also reduce inductive kick to part G. ????

MM

MM,

I replied before you added this. Perhaps it would be better expressed as a reduction of amplitude over a longer time span rather than a reduction in quantity.

CM

[Cadman]

Very interesting Cadman,

I have some questions as to understand the "geometry" of your method kind of graphically in my mind...

Horizontal Layers: Are the Layers wound longitudinally, comprehending all core length?...then stacking one on top of the other?

Vertical Layers: Or are Layers wound to gain in Height, while being short in length?...then aligning next to each others from start to end of core?

Thanks


Regards


Ufopolitics

Ufo,

4" long bobbin, start at left, wind full length toward right 96 turns, then continue right to left 96 turns, terminate the wire. Repeat 2 x. Connect these 3 coils in parallel.

Regards,
CM

[Ufopolitics]

To give proper credit I must say that Doug1 at OU opened my eyes to this a couple of years ago. To date I haven't seen it presented in coherent detail.

To summarize so far:
18 AWG wire (6.384 ohms / 1000 ft), 0.006384 ohm / ft
576 turns @ 10.4167A = 6000.02 amp turns (use 10.41A)
576 turns = 575 ft
575 ft = 3.671 ohms

For a single coil of 3.671 ohm resistance
V = I * R
V = 10.41 * 3.671 = 38.2151 V
38.2151 * 10.41 = 397.819 watts
-----

A tested method to reduce sparking was presented in the book The Electromagnet and Electromagnetic Mechanism in the 19th century. Of the different methods presented this one was ranked second for effectiveness. The method was to subdivide the coil into individual layers. This is NOT a twisted multi-filar coil. Each layer(s) is wound as a single coil with it's ends connected to opposite polarities. The coil layers are connected in parallel to each other. This results in each coil segment being slightly different lengths with the shortest length in the first layer and the longest in the last layer, each layer increasing in resistance from inner to outer. This slightly staggers the time involved with the inductive discharge and reduces the sparking.

To simplify calculations I present each coil as being equal in length. I am also using two layers for each coil. If single layers were used the wattage would be even less. I chose two layers simply to bring the voltage requirement into a more practical range for myself.

The key to all of this is, the amperage per turn is only a small fraction of the total amperage required.

This coil will have 96 turns per layer, 6 layers, 576 turns total. A double layer having 192 turns.
-----------
Parallel coil windings
96 turns per layer, 192 turns in 3 double layers

10.41 A / 576 turns = .01808 A per turn

.006384 * 192 = 1.2257 ohms per double layer
.01818 * 192 = 3.4714 A per double layer
V = I * R
3.4714 * 1.2257 = 4.2549 V
Each double layer = 3.4714 amp @ 4.2549 volt, 14.7705 watts
14.7705 watts * 3 double layers = 44.31 watts

(calculate the parallel resistance)
Rtotal = 1/((1/R1)+(1/R2)+(1/R3))...
1 / 1.2257 = 0.81586
0.81586 * 3 = 2.44758
1 / 2.44758 = 0.40856 ohms parallel
I = V / R
4.2549 / 0.40856 = 10.4143 A, 44.31 watts
-----------
Each individual coil segment is now subject to only 3.47 amps at the peak maximums.
Current from the sine wave is well within the bounds of the coil wire.
Current for each turn is still 0.01808 amp and voltage has dropped to 4.25 volts.

This is presented in the hope that it will be useful and confirmed or disproved through independent testing.

Regards,
CM

Very interesting Cadman,

I have some questions as to understand the "geometry" of your method kind of graphically in my mind...

Horizontal Layers: Are the Layers wound longitudinally, comprehending all core length?...then stacking one on top of the other?

Vertical Layers: Or are Layers wound to gain in Height, while being short in length?...then aligning next to each others from start to end of core?

Thanks


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Cadman]

MM,

Yes??

Irms = 3.4714 / 1.4142 = 2.455

Amps @ 2000A per in^2 = 2.55

[marathonman]

Right

CADMAN;

18 awg chart.


QUOTE; "This slightly staggers the time involved with the inductive discharge and reduces the sparking."

reduces sparking, i thought that was make before break was for and this will also reduce inductive kick to part G. ????

MM

[Cadman]

To give proper credit I must say that Doug1 at OU opened my eyes to this a couple of years ago. To date I haven't seen it presented in coherent detail.

To summarize so far:
18 AWG wire (6.384 ohms / 1000 ft), 0.006384 ohm / ft
576 turns @ 10.4167A = 6000.02 amp turns (use 10.41A)
576 turns = 575 ft
575 ft = 3.671 ohms

For a single coil of 3.671 ohm resistance
V = I * R
V = 10.41 * 3.671 = 38.2151 V
38.2151 * 10.41 = 397.819 watts
-----

A tested method to reduce sparking was presented in the book The Electromagnet and Electromagnetic Mechanism in the 19th century. Of the different methods presented this one was ranked second for effectiveness. The method was to subdivide the coil into individual layers. This is NOT a twisted multi-filar coil. Each layer(s) is wound as a single coil with it's ends connected to opposite polarities. The coil layers are connected in parallel to each other. This results in each coil segment being slightly different lengths with the shortest length in the first layer and the longest in the last layer, each layer increasing in resistance from inner to outer. This slightly staggers the time involved with the inductive discharge and reduces the sparking.

To simplify calculations I present each coil as being equal in length. I am also using two layers for each coil. If single layers were used the wattage would be even less. I chose two layers simply to bring the voltage requirement into a more practical range for myself.

The key to all of this is, the amperage per turn is only a small fraction of the total amperage required.

This coil will have 96 turns per layer, 6 layers, 576 turns total. A double layer having 192 turns.
-----------
Parallel coil windings
96 turns per layer, 192 turns in 3 double layers

10.41 A / 576 turns = .01808 A per turn

.006384 * 192 = 1.2257 ohms per double layer
.01818 * 192 = 3.4714 A per double layer
V = I * R
3.4714 * 1.2257 = 4.2549 V
Each double layer = 3.4714 amp @ 4.2549 volt, 14.7705 watts
14.7705 watts * 3 double layers = 44.31 watts

(calculate the parallel resistance)
Rtotal = 1/((1/R1)+(1/R2)+(1/R3))...
1 / 1.2257 = 0.81586
0.81586 * 3 = 2.44758
1 / 2.44758 = 0.40856 ohms parallel
I = V / R
4.2549 / 0.40856 = 10.4143 A, 44.31 watts
-----------
Each individual coil segment is now subject to only 3.47 amps at the peak maximums.
Current from the sine wave is well within the bounds of the coil wire.
Current for each turn is still 0.01808 amp and voltage has dropped to 4.25 volts.

This is presented in the hope that it will be useful and confirmed or disproved through independent testing.

Regards,
CM

[Ufopolitics]

Winding Energy Method...

@Cadman,

I am anxious to see that Method to achieve such energy savings...however, always consider IF it will generate the same stronger magnetic field as the "expensive method" will do...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Meanwhile ...

What I would like to present is a way to wind this particular coil in such a manner that it will meet all the above material and performance parameters without difficulty. It will use the same amount and size of wire, provide the requisite amp turns, use a fraction of the voltage and consume only a little over 44 watts instead of nearly 400 watts. The inductive discharge will also be reduced.

Shall I proceed?

CM

Absolutely!!...I am all eyes...

Go for it CM!


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Cadman]

Meanwhile ...

Since we all seem to be occupied with building a switching device or waiting on parts I would like to present some research on the inducer or primary field winding itself.

To summarize the relevant parameters given by Marathonman:
1. primaries need to have low self induction as fast response time in essential.
2. lowest ohms as possible.

Additionally I would like to add:
A. Have the least inductive discharge as practical
B. Have the lowest resistance.
C. Consume the least wattage.

For the example let's assume a requirement of 6000 amp turns, 18 GA wire, 576 turns, and a 4” long coil.

The usual method of winding a generator field coil is to wire it as a single coil. A coil constructed like this would be 3.671 ohms and require a current of 10.4167 amps. Of course this is not practical as that amount of current will destroy the wire. Just for example say it could take the current. The voltage required to drive that current through the resistance would be 38.2151 volts and the watts would be 397.8 watts. Coil heating would be problematic from the wattage alone. This coil would also have a high self inductance and produce a large inductive discharge.

What I would like to present is a way to wind this particular coil in such a manner that it will meet all the above material and performance parameters without difficulty. It will use the same amount and size of wire, provide the requisite amp turns, use a fraction of the voltage and consume only a little over 44 watts instead of nearly 400 watts. The inductive discharge will also be reduced.

Shall I proceed?

CM