All very pertinent info and well worth pondering. And I think John is quite correct about there being a "bell curve" (or "window" if you will) in which the device will operate and display the phenomena described in the EFTV #10.
And I have to remind myself that every failure teaches something--as long as I'm willing to listen. Yes, I consider the mk I to be a failure because of several design problems. So, after carefully considering the design flaws of the mk I, I'm building the mk II (sorry, still no pictures as I can't find the charger to my digital camera ).
It's similar to the mk I except I built the rotor in a cage just in case magnets decide to go flying. Also I used only 50 ft of #22 on each coil (instead of 100 ft), trifilar wound, non-twisted, and made sure of the polarity of each coil by putting the cores next to each other and energizing them to see if they attracted or repelled. The ohms of the coils this time are around 1.2 total, much better than I had hoped. I can't wait to do some testing with this setup.
And I have to remind myself that every failure teaches something--as long as I'm willing to listen. Yes, I consider the mk I to be a failure because of several design problems. So, after carefully considering the design flaws of the mk I, I'm building the mk II (sorry, still no pictures as I can't find the charger to my digital camera ).
It's similar to the mk I except I built the rotor in a cage just in case magnets decide to go flying. Also I used only 50 ft of #22 on each coil (instead of 100 ft), trifilar wound, non-twisted, and made sure of the polarity of each coil by putting the cores next to each other and energizing them to see if they attracted or repelled. The ohms of the coils this time are around 1.2 total, much better than I had hoped. I can't wait to do some testing with this setup.
Comment