Maximum current in less time than the TC is the Orbo Effect!

[nilrehob]

Why not use a bifilar coil?
Energize the coils in opposite directions:
the coils have "no" inductance.
The maximum current is there instantly.
Then disconnect one coil abruptly.
Then the other coil shortly after.



/Hob

[gravityblock]

Why not use a bifilar coil?
Energize the coils in opposite directions:
the coils have "no" inductance.
The maximum current is there instantly.
Then disconnect one coil abruptly.
Then the other coil shortly after.



/Hob

Excellent idea to reach the maximum current instantly, but how can the inductance change be faster than the instant current in order to have an inductance gain? I do like the idea and will give it more thought.

One may say that we could use a slow rise time in current, which would allow the inductance to change faster than the current, but then our pulse width would be too long. The maximum RPM must change the inductance at a rate faster than the time it takes for the current to reach it's maximum value. This means when the current reaches it's maximum value, then we have reached the end of our pusle width. At the end of the pulse width, there is no longer a change in inductance and the magnet will no longer be attracted by the core and we will have a gain in inductance.

GB

[nilrehob]

Or charge the coils in parallel and discharge them in series?
PS-coil SP-cap - nilrehob
Never had the time to test it thoroughly though.

/Hob

[nilrehob]

Or the other way around,
charge the coils in series and discharge them in parallel.
If they share core and the magnetic flux is what is constant between the two phases,
there might actually be a gain in energy.
This schematic shows how:
SP-coil - nilrehob

/Hob

[Armagdn03]

Why not use a bifilar coil?
Energize the coils in opposite directions:
the coils have "no" inductance.
The maximum current is there instantly.
Then disconnect one coil abruptly.
Then the other coil shortly after.



/Hob

Careful buddy, that might be too good an idea. (Send a PM to Erfinder ask him what happens...)

[nilrehob]

Careful buddy, that might be too good an idea. (Send a PM to Erfinder ask him what happens...)

I will PM him.

Meanwhile...

If You have two equal coils on the same core,
for simplicity each with 1 H and 1 Ohm,
connect them in series and You have 4 H and 2 Ohm,
put 1 V on them and wait until they are saturated:

1 V and 2 Ohm gives 0.5 A (A=V/Ohm)
4 H and 0.5 A gives 0.5 J (J=1/2 *H*I^2)
0.5 A and 4 H gives 2 Wb (A*H=Wb)

Then disconnect the source and at the same time connect the coils in parallel.
When in parallel You have 1 H and 0.5 Ohm.

If the magnetic flux is constant during the moment of disconnect and reconfiguration:

2 Wb and 1 H gives 2 A (A=Wb/H)
1 H and 2 A gives 2 J (J=1/2 *H*I^2)

Then we have an increase in energy by 400%.
Is this possible?
Is this what Teslas impuls technology is?



/Hob

[sebosfato]

Thanks man, I'm thinking about this recently. would you explain better, including the relation with the webbers ...
Thanks again.

[nilrehob]

I'm just thinking what if the constant in "mid air" would be the magnetic flux?
Magnetic flux is Weber, and i think Wb=H*A (as in impulse when kinetic motion).
Weber (unit) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So some soft iron core, but not too soft i guess, would maybe keep its flux going while the coil is changing its parameters.
Just a thought.

/Hob

[nilrehob]

And I guess the core has to be a toroid?

/Hob

[nilrehob]

What if you take Edward Leedskalnin's Perpetual Motion Holder,
which usually have two equal coils,
start it with the coils in series
and measure the energy used for starting it,
connect the coils in parallel,
break the flux,
measure the energy coming out in the coils.

In this scenario it would be clear that it is the flux that is constant between the setups.

/Hob