Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

True Meaning of Bifilar/ 2-d Bifilar Calculations

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris <harvich@yahoo.com>
    Hi all, I just wanted to point out some common misconceptions. Teslas coil for electromagnets patent does not represent bifilar windings. Yes it does store
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 21, 2002
      Hi all, I just wanted to point out some common misconceptions.
      Teslas "coil for electromagnets" patent does not represent bifilar
      windings. Yes it does store more energy between winds, by virtue of
      adjacent layering. It is the voltage difference made by the portion
      of the wire being adjacent to another wire winding that causes
      internal capacitance as 1/2 CV^2.

      Tesla notes the following;
      Let it be assumed that the terminals of this coil show a potential
      difference of one hundred volts, and that there are one thousand
      convolutions; then considering
      any two contiguous points on adjacent convolutions let it be assumed
      that there will exist between them a potential difference of one-
      tenth of a volt. If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound
      parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it,
      and the end of A be connected with the starting pointof B, the
      aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed
      number of convolutions or turns
      is the same, viz., one thousand, then the potential difference
      between any two points in A and B will be fifty volts, and as the
      capacity effect is proportionate to the square of this difference,
      the energy stored in the coil as a whole will now be two hundred and
      fifty thousand as great.
      (If we use calculus to determine an integration for 1/2CV^2 for
      0-1000, one should see more TOTAL Voltage squared between winds for
      the TRUE Bifilar example, than the conventional adjacent layering
      method that Tesla here employs. However that calculus implies a
      smooth curve, when in actuality this would be what is known as an
      geometric progression that adds discrete quantities, so below I will
      show what that results in using the discrete squares of quantites in
      addition for a much smaller example using only 10 windings, instead
      of 1000.)

      An inspection of the drawings of this coil at
      http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/00512340.htm

      clearly shows in figure 2 that the second coil system B enters in the
      clockwise fashion identical to coil system A. Nowhere in the patent
      is mention made of the use of bifilar coils.
      A BIFILAR COIL AS AN EXAMPLE IS WOUND CLOCKWISE FROM THE
      OUTSIDE IN. AND THEN FOR THE SECOND LAYER IT IS WOUND CLOCKWISE FROM
      THE INSIDE OUT. It is essentially a zig zag layering. ANY multiturn
      layered coil will store more energy,( a misnomer), or contain more
      internal capacitance as a consequence of it having a higher voltage
      between adjacent layers. However we can enhance that effect in one
      dimension by employing bifilar layering. The added internal capacity
      will reduce the resonant frequency of the coils in comparison.

      To make an understanding here, first we must understand what a 1
      dimensional bifilar coil consists of. It does not merely consists of
      a returned wind adjacent to the first layer, as Tesla's often
      noted "Coil for Electromagnets" shows. No where in that patent is the
      word "bifilar" used. It is only the further commentators in history
      of that patent that consider that method to be a "bifilar" winding.
      No it is merely a returned layer winding. Suppose we then have 10
      winds in two spirals starting from the outside in. The returned
      layer winding method, ( which Tesla shows in that above mentioned
      patent) would have all the windings going in one direction as
      clockwise from the outside in, with the ordering appearing as
      (RETURNED LAYERED SPIRAL WINDING)
      1 2 3 4 5
      6 7 8 9 10

      Now let us compute the internal capacity by (.5) C V^2. Lets us
      just call the first portion .5C a constant determined by the
      insulation distance and width of the wire, and just be concerned with
      the addition of the squared voltages. Technically for a spiral, and
      this is where it differs from a solenoid: for the spiral case the
      outer windings will have more voltage between the outer winds, then
      they will for the inner winds, because the outer winds have a longer
      distance between adjacent spots in the layerings on the wire path
      itself: therefore with respect to the voltage being imposed on the
      spiral itself, a longer wire path between those points implies a
      larger voltage between the windings of larger circumference. What
      this further implies, is that if we are going to series resonate a
      spiral, the way we connect it in the LC series may deliver different
      results if the inside winding is in the middle of the LC series, or
      if the outside winding is in the middle of the LC , since it is at
      the midpoint of the LC resonance that the high voltage rise point
      occurs. We might want to make the outside winding connection as the
      middle of the LC, since it already has the highest voltage reference
      point as voltage between winds, and then suspect that this method
      might give a slightly higher resonant rise of voltage, or perhaps
      maybe it might actually be lower, only further experimentation will
      tell if there is a relationship there. This is only mentioned in
      passing, since it is not relevant to what is being discussed here.
      Here we will just assume 10 volts imposed on these 10 winds in two
      layers of spirals, and also assume no differences in voltage between
      layers, which could be approximated to be true if the spiral was a
      large diameter with respect to the inner diameter.

      For the horizontal voltage differences between winds, each of
      these layers would then be 1^2 *4, which for two layers becomes 8.
      The vertical layer voltage differences are also constant values of 5
      in five repetitons, making the calculation 5^2* 5= 125. Thus we have
      a voltage squared internal value of (125 + 8) = 133 for the method
      mentioned in Tesla's adjacent layered winding method.

      Now let us compare what the bifilar wind method will deliver.
      Also realize that bifilar does not imply magnetic cancellation, that
      would be a definition of scalar, as it is bandied about. So on the
      zig zag layering inherent in a bifilar, the magnetic field from each
      layer is in unison, meaning as an example, the first layer might be
      wound clockwise from the outside in, and the second layer would also
      be wound clockwise, but instead from the inside out.
      01 2 3 4 5
      10 9 8 7 6
      Again we have 8 for the two horizontal layers.
      For the vertical now we have (10-1)^2+ (9-2)^2+ (8-3)^2+ (7-4)^2+ (6-
      5)^2 =
      9^2 + 7^2 + 5^2 + 3^2 + 1^2 = 81 + 49 + 25 + 9 + 1 = 165, and adding
      this to the horizontally derived 8, this gives a total of 173
      internal squared volts for the bifilar method, compared to 133 for
      the adjacent wind method Tesla mentions. 30 % more internal capacity
      was made by the bifilar method in this case example.

      Now let us look at a real case example of bifilar vs standard
      adjacent winds of spirals being stimulated to their resonant
      frequencies and being scoped out. The method here was to energize a
      unmagnetized ferrite cylinder via series neon discharge from
      alternator resonant sources. This causes the ferrite to emit
      longitudinal EM, similar to a radio signal, but no specific frequency
      itself is being emmited, the process rather causes those adjacent
      spirals to ring at their own natural resonant frequencies. The EM
      should also be polarized in three dimensions, and in fact, although
      this was never tested yet for this specific example, if we turned the
      spirals in the direction facing the emmitor, they should also
      register a different frequency again as a conventional EM reception!
      This was not realized back about a year ago, when these things were
      done, because normally we just accept the fact that frequency is just
      frequency, but of course here we can see that this is not true for
      this emmision case, as both of these recievers are also "recieving"
      different frequencies from the same source. Both of these 4 layer
      spirals have equal lengths of 50 ft in the 4 layers. However the
      effect of "voltage between vertical layers" is very minimized
      compared to the voltage between horizontal winds, because the wire
      itself is flat braided wire, therefore most of the internal capacity
      is between the layers on each spiral , and not between the edges of
      the wire on that vertical relationship, which causes these
      differences of resonant frequency to be registered in equal lengths
      of wire: where the bifilar staggered windings have slightly more
      internal capacity, thus a slight reduction in resonant frequency.
      (Additionally here is the fact that only one layer between the dual
      identically wound speaker wire cables are in the true bifilar
      relationship, that is the layer BETWEEN the two dual spirals when one
      spiral is placed in an opposite winding relationship to the other.
      The windings as no.s connected to numbers was also STAGGERED so that
      additionally a higher voltage between all the winding layers was
      attained to, but of three of these interlayer winding voltage
      differences, only one layer difference was truly bifilar. The purpose
      here however was to only note that MORE interwinding voltage
      difference COULD reduce the resonant frequency behing measured on
      identical wire lengths of spirals. The particular routing method for
      the reduced resonant frequency spiral wiould have been noted in that
      post. This is when I first got the camera, and the sizing of the
      first pictures came out too large, so one may have to scroll things
      around to see the entire picture. The scope is set on dual channel
      with both spiral sets hooked to separate probes; so that both
      resonant frequencies can be seen simultaneously.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/Outer%20DSR/Dsc00010.jpg
      shows the two 4 layered spiral sets placed on either side of the
      ferrite rod. Since we now have a neon in series with the ferrite as
      an interphasal pathway, it is easier to understand how the ferrite
      can emit EM, since the hf actions of excited plasma are connected in
      series. In any case the neon seems to make reading the amperage
      consistantly an easier job, which for either component alone becomes
      difficult, if not impossible. ( This is now not so certain of a fact,
      but it was noted then a year ago). The scope in the background is set
      for 50 mv voltage deflection at 1 us/div, or 10 us per screen sweep.
      The ordinary return wound coil spiral set has a cycle in ~3 us or
      333,000 hz. The bifilar set having a reverse wound dual set spiral,
      and employing more interwinding voltage difference by staggered
      windings has a reduced frequency of 4 us/cycle or 250,000 hz.

      A closer shot of the scoping;
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/Outer%20DSR/Dsc00011.jpg
      The above was from the posting;
      Sony Camera trials/ Dual channel scopings of bifilar spirals.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/149

      Now let us take the example given here where the dual spiral
      sets consisted of a total 200 ft of wire and see what the natural
      resonant frequency would be by the 1/4 wave calculation. To do this
      we consider the 200 ft to be one quarter of the wavelength that the
      inductor would resonate to. Again that only strictly applies to a
      straight length antenna, what happens is that soon as that length is
      put into a coiled form, that changes the resonant frequency to some
      degree. Here however the great amount of internal capacitance,
      relatively speaking changes it to a great degree... Thus the
      wavelength of the frequency would be 800 ft or 800/5280=.1515 mile.
      Dividing the quantity by c, the speed of light at 186,000 miles per
      second yeilds the time of one cycle or 8.14 * 10^-7 seconds. The
      reciprocal of this yeilds the frequency at 1,227,600 hz. Thus this
      shows how the wide variance of introduced inductance and internal
      capacitance can change the resonant frequency an assembly will
      resonate to. The bifilar spiral scopings showed values ~ 5 times
      less this frequency, thus we can essentially say that the electrical
      impulse was reduced ~5 fold down from that of the speed of light.
      It also becomes important in modern days to note that in tesla
      coils, the reverse effect also takes place, and we can instead arrive
      at a frequency HIGHER than what the quarter wavelength calculation
      gives, which may have not been a widely noted fact in Tesla's time.
      Answer to the quarterwavelength riddle
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/250
      http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/misc.html
      ( This 2nd URL IS A MUST READ FOR RESONANT FREQUENCY CALCULATIONS OF
      SINGLE LAYER SOLENOIDS
      Now most importantly here, I want to extend the concept of a
      bifilar winding made into two dimensions, instead of just one
      dimension, and we can use the same cited example to show even another
      increase in internal squared voltage by doing this second dimensional
      bifilar example :and some further comments on the three separate
      methods to be employed for achieving such a thing. Now resonance
      itself implies "equalization", we use equal capacitive and inductive
      reactances in series to achieve it. For a 2 dimensional bifilar
      coil, we want to make an additional voltage increase on the
      horizontal winding numberings, where formerly only 1 volt existed
      between those winds. To achieve this we will now use a larger square
      coil, also with 5 windings to an edge, or 25 winds total, with 25
      volts instead across the entire set of windings, so that the same
      circmstance holds, if there were 25 winds in a single layer, we could
      still approximate 1 volt between each wind, because now we are using
      25 volts in the new case example. The reader might initially be
      stumped on how we are going to wind such a creature, where here we
      are assuming now that square circumference windings will be employed
      to maximize both the differences of voltage in both horizontal and
      vertical dimensions: if we wind it horizontally that leaves low
      voltages for the spaces between vertical winds, and vice versa, if we
      wind it vertically that leaves low voltages between the horizontal
      layerings, so what must be done? You guessed it, it will be wound in
      a diagonal manner! However there is a little more to this picture
      than initially gets realized, we must also make the wind
      numberings "resonant" or equalized, and to do this, every numbered
      wind must add in a horizontal row to the same total number, and also
      every number wind must sum to that same number in all of the vertical
      rows! It is what they call a "magic square". This subject gets very
      involved, as there are three different types of magic squares, but
      here we will be dealing with the first type. Other types may not
      employ this diagonal progression as will be seen. One may think this
      problem is very simple, for example, taking just the first magic
      square of 9 numbers we can draw it out in layered orderings
      1 2 3 = 6
      4 5 6 = 15
      7 8 9 = 24
      Transposed vertically in layers we have;
      1 4 7 = 12
      2 5 8 = 15
      3 6 9 = 18
      And also with magic squares the additional requirement can be
      added that the diagonals also sum to this same number, so here the
      diagonals are already correct, and so are the two middle
      transpositions above adding to 15, but the diagonals here add to
      1 +5 + 9 = 15 : 7 + 5 + 3 = 15,
      So out of 8 possible ways to make this 15, four of them are
      already in place, but there is a subconscious assumption here that
      will prevent you from ever finding that magic square solution, until
      you overcome the assumption! Just TRY moving things around to make
      everything 15! You may be sorely pressed to find that answer, because
      there are 45,360 different unique combinations that can be had for
      that array, and only one of them is correct!
      So now I will show you "how" that solution is made. We will go
      to the next "group 1" magic square of 25 numbers, draw it out, and
      then see if you can fathom the three laws of diagonal progression
      that are involved. When you recognize those laws that make the
      pattern, you can quickly solve the above problem of the first magic
      square.
      17+24+01+08+15 = 65
      23+05+07+14+16 = 65
      04+06+13+20+22 = 65
      10+12+19+21+03 = 65
      11+18+25+02+09 = 65
      ----------------------
      65 65 65 65 65 65
      Now let us recall that for the adjacent layer internal voltage
      square summation we arrived at 133, for the 1 dimensional bifilar
      layering the result was 30% higher at 173.
      Let us do the same procedure for the first two layers of the 2-d
      bifilar and find the percentage of increase from the one dimensional
      bifilar value. This entails making two horizontal calculations, and
      one vertical, and then adding these three results. Actually this
      would not be a complete analysis for comparisons, since to do that we
      should analyse the complete set of 25 winds, both vertically and
      horizontally, and here for analysing just the first two layers, for
      the purpose of showing this percentage comparison we should revise
      things for three layers instead of just two to make that comparison,
      so that we have two sets of data for BOTH vertical AND horizontal
      voltage measuring differences.
      So for the first case then we have
      01*02*03*04*05
      06*07*08*09*10
      11*12*13*14*15
      We have formerly obtained 133 in adding two horizontal voltage
      squared differences between winds, but only used one vertical voltage
      squared differences between layers, so now we will add the extra
      vertical squared difference of 5^2*5 =125 to that figure so that we
      have equal amounts now of calculated squared voltage differences, two
      for the horizontal, and two for the vertical differences, thus they
      are equalized as a representation and the new no. of voltage squared
      values becomes 258.
      For the one dimensional bifilar case;
      01*02*03*04*05
      10*09*08*07*06
      11*12*13*14*15
      formerly we had 173 for adding the two horizontal and one vertical
      summation, so we need to add one more vertical summation to that case
      also, where we find that is also
      1^2 +...+ 9^2 = 165: adding this to the former 173 giving a new
      value of 338 for the 1-d bifilar made with equalized horizontal and
      vertical no samplings. 338/258 =1.31, so in this better
      representation for comparisons we can say the first bifilar has 31%
      more internal capacity than the adjacent layering method. Now
      reposting the 25 magic square for easy recognition to the
      calculations;
      17+24+01+08+15 = 65
      23+05+07+14+16 = 65
      04+06+13+20+22 = 65
      10+12+19+21+03 = 65
      11+18+25+02+09 = 65
      1st horiz; (24-17)^2 +(24-1)^2 +(8-1)^2 +(15-8)^2
      = 7^2 + 23^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 = 49 + 529 + 49 + 49 = {676}
      2nd horiz; (23-5)^2 +(7-5)^2 +(14-7)^2 +(16-14)^2
      = 18^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 + 2^2 = 324 + 4 + 49 + 4 = {381}
      1st vert across horiz values; (23-17)^2 +(24-5)^2 + (7-1)^2 +(14-8)^2
      + (16-15)^2
      = 6^2 + 19^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 +1^2 = 36 + 361 + 36 + 36 + 1 = {470}
      {666, my favorite equal numerological combo of three fold nines! =
      18, 1+8 =9}
      2nd vert across horiz values; (23-4)^2 +(6-5)^2 +(13-7)^2 +(20-14)^2 +
      (22-16)^2
      = 19^2 + 1^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 = {470}
      Also just for the heck of it lets also take a horiz. sampling that is
      actually vertical
      (24-17)^2 +(23-5)^2 +(6-4)^2 +(12-10)^2 +(18-11)^2
      = 7^2 + 18^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 = 49 + 324 + 4 + 4 + 49 = {430}, heh
      lets try that again for the next column!
      (24-1)^2 +(7-5)^2 +(13-6)^2 +(19-12)^2 +(25-18)^2
      = 23^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 = {680}, oh well, I thought we might
      find some kind of pattern here, but evidently nothing is there, just
      wondering why we got two 470's above....
      Huh pretty interesting! Sometimes we find out things about
      assumptions that might later be prooved to be false! This is the
      first time I have made these calculations, because of all the work of
      math involved, but when I began "I assumed" that the vert. and
      horizontal samplings should be vitually the same procedure, and then
      in this writing I noticed: "Why does the horiz. voltage difference
      samplings only contain 4 terms, but the vert.difference samplings
      contain 5 of them? Well there are only 4 sets of vert samplings to
      be made that way, but there are also 5 sets of horiz. samplings
      containing the 4 terms, and in each case THEN they both would add to
      20 total samplings of voltage differences if we continued the process
      for the whole square. Actually the vert. samplings were made across
      the horiz row, but if we started out with the intention of doing the
      whole square, we would logically take the vertical samplings across
      the vetical column, instead of across the horiz, as was done in this
      case. To stick to the original intention here anyways, we can note
      then that 676 + 381 + 470 +470 = 1997
      1997/338 = 5.908...
      Thus by this data then the 1-d bifilar has 31% more internal
      capacity as measured by these samplings then does its adjacent
      layering method, and further then the 2-d bifilar then has 590% more
      internal capacity than its 1-d method!
      To make things even more interesting here, I have already scoped out
      some time ago the resonant frequency of a bifilar inductor of some 20
      by 30 zig zag windings,~ 600 ft of wire length and found that it
      slows down the speed of light electrical impulse down to about 13
      fold of what a normal solenoidal resonator of the same length of wire
      would be. It is ~ 1ft/wind.

      Bifilar spiral coil/ longitudinal reception for rf ringdown/ 1 x
      probe/ .2 volt/div: 10 us /div
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/BRS/Dsc00355.jpg

      This shows about 2.8 cycles in 100 us, or 1 cycle in 35.7 us, or
      28,000 hz. Now lets assume that instead I actually had a 2-d bifilar
      coil, with 5.9 times more internal capacity, and then its resonant
      frequency might even be further reduced 5.9 times, to about 4745 hz.
      Alternators can easily produce 500 hz, so here we might also assume
      that this hypothesised 2-d coil would only need to be 10 times as
      large, or 10 times the length of wire for us to create the condition
      where the generator will send out an electrical impulse that
      technically never reaches the end of its wire path, before the
      electrical source changes polarity. We would essentially be trapping
      electrons in the coil, and it is the electron movement itself that
      creates a magnetic field. The generator might act as if it were
      driving an open ended coil, and no return current from the coil load
      means no lenz law, and no lenz law means minimal work to turn the
      field rotor! Then if we wished to make this coil the primary of an
      air core transformer, the secondaries could output energy also with
      no lenz law effect on the primary, which typically makes a primary
      draw more amperage the moment we load down the secondary. IN FACT, we
      might even also make this into a longitudinal embodiment on the air
      core transformer itself, just as I have done in the jpeg with huge
      induction coils as the air core primary, where the secondary coil
      being scoped out, is in the wrong angle to recieve flux change from
      the magnetic field source. That additionally implies that the primary
      would not get "loaded down" from the secondaries amperage draw, and
      then the secondaries could be wound orthogonally at right angles over
      that special 2-d bifilar primary coil. But to accomplish that we
      would need a resonant bifilar arc gapped resonance that puts out high
      frequency, and we have negotiated any high frequency out of the
      picture here, so that does sound a little unfeasible, so conventional
      air core transformation sounds more resonable.
      Now lets even go a bit further out there with these things, and
      propose how Tesla's propagation of electricity through the earth
      itself might occur using these principles.
      This takes a little more knowledge about magic squares, because
      industry still demands that the consumers pay for their electricity,
      and we dont want people just sticking antennaes in the earth and
      getting their juice for free. Someone has to pay for the cost of the
      coils and generation station, after all! There are three types of
      magic squares, the even numbered side squares are probably more
      advantageous to use in the first place anyways. So what we do next
      is instead of the generation coil having a return path to the
      generator, we make that return path the ground of the earth. It aint
      gonna get to the generator as a return path anyways, so why not just
      use that earth ground instead to pump the free electrons of the earth
      ground. Now it aint that hard to explain and show how a magic square
      winding of merely 100 winds can have over 10 trillion possible
      combinations for it to still be a magic square. The even magic
      squares divisible by 4, such as 12, having 144 winds, have a special
      option, only half of the pathways need to be switched for it to
      convert from an ordinary winding of adjacent layerings, to that of a
      magic square winding. This is the advantage of even magic squares,
      they can be put together in vastly different ways and still be magic
      squares. Now the power company gives the customer a magic square
      coil device which is also grounded at one ending. At every switching
      junction where the next wind meets its next winding path in the coil
      are switching devices like diodes, and where it will go in its next
      winding pathway on the coil can be determined by a master
      controller. That master controller is the radio signal containing
      coded information the power Co sends out, that tells those diodes to
      switch on or off on the recieving magic square, to perfectly mimic
      how the power station itself is altering those pathways on its own
      sending coils into the earth. In one AC cycle, one of those random 10
      trillion magic square possible combinations are chosen, and that
      information of the correct switching to make on the pathways that
      switch to convert it to a magic square on the recieving coil is
      transmitted via wireless! How do I think up these science fiction
      stories? Maybe I was Tesla in a past life! When this picture was
      taken, apparently both us accidently cut ourselves shaving that day
      mirror image on the photographs. One has to have an original
      photograph of Tesla to see where he did it. I was wondering about all
      of this later on, and then I discovered our birthdays were also
      mirror image, and we were both 37 when those pics were made. Tesla
      was born near midnight, but I was born 55 minutes afternoon. I was
      born exactly 12 2/3 years after Tesla died. Numerologically, there
      are also seven nines in my name, Harvey D Norris, which is also
      Teslas birthday, 7/9/1856, and mine at 9/7/1955, 99 some years
      later. I have always thought these things were bizarre, but the
      picture takes the cake!
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/ALT/DSC00062.jpg
      Sincerely Harvey D Norris

      "I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation
      between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of
      given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other
      opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as
      though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual
      relations existing between the special character of the current and
      the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity
      being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that
      frequency. It is well-known that the higher the frequency or
      potential difference of the current the smaller the capacity required
      to counteract the self-induction; hence, in any coil, however small
      the capacity, it may be sufficient for the purpose stated if the
      proper conditions in other respects be secured. In the ordinary coils
      the difference of potential between adjacent turns or spires is very
      small, so that while they are in a sense condensers, they possess but
      very small capacity and the relations between the two quantities,
      self-induction and capacity, are not such as under any ordinary
      conditions satisfy the requirements herein contemplated, because the
      capacity relatively to the self-induction is very small. "
      "In order to attain my object and to properly increase the
      capacity of any given coil, I wind it in such way as to secure a
      greater difference of potential between its adjacent turns or
      convolutions, and since the energy stored in the coil considering -
      the latter as a condenser, is proportionate to the square of the
      potential difference between its adjacent convolutions, it is evident
      that I may in this way secure by a proper disposition of these
      convolutions a greatly increased capacity for a given increase in
      potential difference between the turns."
      Nikola Tesla on his 1894 patent for internal capacity, COIL FOR
      ELECTROMAGNETS
    • David Thomson
      Hi Harvey, Technically, you are correct. I have seen others point out that Tesla s coil for electromagnets is not a true bifilar over on the pupman list. But
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 21, 2002
        Hi Harvey,

        Technically, you are correct. I have seen others point out that Tesla's
        coil for electromagnets is not a true bifilar over on the pupman list. But
        over the years people who studied this patent have come to call it a bifilar
        wound coil, and it pretty much has stuck. So perhaps bifilar now has two
        meanings? Either that, or someone needs to convince the Tesla community to
        use another name.

        No matter what we call it, the coil is Tesla's invention and it works quite
        well.

        Dave

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Harvey D Norris <harvich@...> [mailto:harvich@...]
        Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:17 PM
        To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [teslafy] True Meaning of Bifilar/ 2-d Bifilar Calculations


        Hi all, I just wanted to point out some common misconceptions.
        Teslas "coil for electromagnets" patent does not represent bifilar
        windings. Yes it does store more energy between winds, by virtue of
        adjacent layering. It is the voltage difference made by the portion
        of the wire being adjacent to another wire winding that causes
        internal capacitance as 1/2 CV^2.

        Tesla notes the following;
        Let it be assumed that the terminals of this coil show a potential
        difference of one hundred volts, and that there are one thousand
        convolutions; then considering
        any two contiguous points on adjacent convolutions let it be assumed
        that there will exist between them a potential difference of one-
        tenth of a volt. If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound
        parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it,
        and the end of A be connected with the starting pointof B, the
        aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed
        number of convolutions or turns
        is the same, viz., one thousand, then the potential difference
        between any two points in A and B will be fifty volts, and as the
        capacity effect is proportionate to the square of this difference,
        the energy stored in the coil as a whole will now be two hundred and
        fifty thousand as great.
        (If we use calculus to determine an integration for 1/2CV^2 for
        0-1000, one should see more TOTAL Voltage squared between winds for
        the TRUE Bifilar example, than the conventional adjacent layering
        method that Tesla here employs. However that calculus implies a
        smooth curve, when in actuality this would be what is known as an
        geometric progression that adds discrete quantities, so below I will
        show what that results in using the discrete squares of quantites in
        addition for a much smaller example using only 10 windings, instead
        of 1000.)

        An inspection of the drawings of this coil at
        http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/00512340.htm

        clearly shows in figure 2 that the second coil system B enters in the
        clockwise fashion identical to coil system A. Nowhere in the patent
        is mention made of the use of bifilar coils.
        A BIFILAR COIL AS AN EXAMPLE IS WOUND CLOCKWISE FROM THE
        OUTSIDE IN. AND THEN FOR THE SECOND LAYER IT IS WOUND CLOCKWISE FROM
        THE INSIDE OUT. It is essentially a zig zag layering. ANY multiturn
        layered coil will store more energy,( a misnomer), or contain more
        internal capacitance as a consequence of it having a higher voltage
        between adjacent layers. However we can enhance that effect in one
        dimension by employing bifilar layering. The added internal capacity
        will reduce the resonant frequency of the coils in comparison.

        To make an understanding here, first we must understand what a 1
        dimensional bifilar coil consists of. It does not merely consists of
        a returned wind adjacent to the first layer, as Tesla's often
        noted "Coil for Electromagnets" shows. No where in that patent is the
        word "bifilar" used. It is only the further commentators in history
        of that patent that consider that method to be a "bifilar" winding.
        No it is merely a returned layer winding. Suppose we then have 10
        winds in two spirals starting from the outside in. The returned
        layer winding method, ( which Tesla shows in that above mentioned
        patent) would have all the windings going in one direction as
        clockwise from the outside in, with the ordering appearing as
        (RETURNED LAYERED SPIRAL WINDING)
        1 2 3 4 5
        6 7 8 9 10

        Now let us compute the internal capacity by (.5) C V^2. Lets us
        just call the first portion .5C a constant determined by the
        insulation distance and width of the wire, and just be concerned with
        the addition of the squared voltages. Technically for a spiral, and
        this is where it differs from a solenoid: for the spiral case the
        outer windings will have more voltage between the outer winds, then
        they will for the inner winds, because the outer winds have a longer
        distance between adjacent spots in the layerings on the wire path
        itself: therefore with respect to the voltage being imposed on the
        spiral itself, a longer wire path between those points implies a
        larger voltage between the windings of larger circumference. What
        this further implies, is that if we are going to series resonate a
        spiral, the way we connect it in the LC series may deliver different
        results if the inside winding is in the middle of the LC series, or
        if the outside winding is in the middle of the LC , since it is at
        the midpoint of the LC resonance that the high voltage rise point
        occurs. We might want to make the outside winding connection as the
        middle of the LC, since it already has the highest voltage reference
        point as voltage between winds, and then suspect that this method
        might give a slightly higher resonant rise of voltage, or perhaps
        maybe it might actually be lower, only further experimentation will
        tell if there is a relationship there. This is only mentioned in
        passing, since it is not relevant to what is being discussed here.
        Here we will just assume 10 volts imposed on these 10 winds in two
        layers of spirals, and also assume no differences in voltage between
        layers, which could be approximated to be true if the spiral was a
        large diameter with respect to the inner diameter.

        For the horizontal voltage differences between winds, each of
        these layers would then be 1^2 *4, which for two layers becomes 8.
        The vertical layer voltage differences are also constant values of 5
        in five repetitons, making the calculation 5^2* 5= 125. Thus we have
        a voltage squared internal value of (125 + 8) = 133 for the method
        mentioned in Tesla's adjacent layered winding method.

        Now let us compare what the bifilar wind method will deliver.
        Also realize that bifilar does not imply magnetic cancellation, that
        would be a definition of scalar, as it is bandied about. So on the
        zig zag layering inherent in a bifilar, the magnetic field from each
        layer is in unison, meaning as an example, the first layer might be
        wound clockwise from the outside in, and the second layer would also
        be wound clockwise, but instead from the inside out.
        01 2 3 4 5
        10 9 8 7 6
        Again we have 8 for the two horizontal layers.
        For the vertical now we have (10-1)^2+ (9-2)^2+ (8-3)^2+ (7-4)^2+ (6-
        5)^2 =
        9^2 + 7^2 + 5^2 + 3^2 + 1^2 = 81 + 49 + 25 + 9 + 1 = 165, and adding
        this to the horizontally derived 8, this gives a total of 173
        internal squared volts for the bifilar method, compared to 133 for
        the adjacent wind method Tesla mentions. 30 % more internal capacity
        was made by the bifilar method in this case example.

        Now let us look at a real case example of bifilar vs standard
        adjacent winds of spirals being stimulated to their resonant
        frequencies and being scoped out. The method here was to energize a
        unmagnetized ferrite cylinder via series neon discharge from
        alternator resonant sources. This causes the ferrite to emit
        longitudinal EM, similar to a radio signal, but no specific frequency
        itself is being emmited, the process rather causes those adjacent
        spirals to ring at their own natural resonant frequencies. The EM
        should also be polarized in three dimensions, and in fact, although
        this was never tested yet for this specific example, if we turned the
        spirals in the direction facing the emmitor, they should also
        register a different frequency again as a conventional EM reception!
        This was not realized back about a year ago, when these things were
        done, because normally we just accept the fact that frequency is just
        frequency, but of course here we can see that this is not true for
        this emmision case, as both of these recievers are also "recieving"
        different frequencies from the same source. Both of these 4 layer
        spirals have equal lengths of 50 ft in the 4 layers. However the
        effect of "voltage between vertical layers" is very minimized
        compared to the voltage between horizontal winds, because the wire
        itself is flat braided wire, therefore most of the internal capacity
        is between the layers on each spiral , and not between the edges of
        the wire on that vertical relationship, which causes these
        differences of resonant frequency to be registered in equal lengths
        of wire: where the bifilar staggered windings have slightly more
        internal capacity, thus a slight reduction in resonant frequency.
        (Additionally here is the fact that only one layer between the dual
        identically wound speaker wire cables are in the true bifilar
        relationship, that is the layer BETWEEN the two dual spirals when one
        spiral is placed in an opposite winding relationship to the other.
        The windings as no.s connected to numbers was also STAGGERED so that
        additionally a higher voltage between all the winding layers was
        attained to, but of three of these interlayer winding voltage
        differences, only one layer difference was truly bifilar. The purpose
        here however was to only note that MORE interwinding voltage
        difference COULD reduce the resonant frequency behing measured on
        identical wire lengths of spirals. The particular routing method for
        the reduced resonant frequency spiral wiould have been noted in that
        post. This is when I first got the camera, and the sizing of the
        first pictures came out too large, so one may have to scroll things
        around to see the entire picture. The scope is set on dual channel
        with both spiral sets hooked to separate probes; so that both
        resonant frequencies can be seen simultaneously.

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/Outer%20DSR/Dsc00010.jpg
        shows the two 4 layered spiral sets placed on either side of the
        ferrite rod. Since we now have a neon in series with the ferrite as
        an interphasal pathway, it is easier to understand how the ferrite
        can emit EM, since the hf actions of excited plasma are connected in
        series. In any case the neon seems to make reading the amperage
        consistantly an easier job, which for either component alone becomes
        difficult, if not impossible. ( This is now not so certain of a fact,
        but it was noted then a year ago). The scope in the background is set
        for 50 mv voltage deflection at 1 us/div, or 10 us per screen sweep.
        The ordinary return wound coil spiral set has a cycle in ~3 us or
        333,000 hz. The bifilar set having a reverse wound dual set spiral,
        and employing more interwinding voltage difference by staggered
        windings has a reduced frequency of 4 us/cycle or 250,000 hz.

        A closer shot of the scoping;
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/Outer%20DSR/Dsc00011.jpg
        The above was from the posting;
        Sony Camera trials/ Dual channel scopings of bifilar spirals.
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/149

        Now let us take the example given here where the dual spiral
        sets consisted of a total 200 ft of wire and see what the natural
        resonant frequency would be by the 1/4 wave calculation. To do this
        we consider the 200 ft to be one quarter of the wavelength that the
        inductor would resonate to. Again that only strictly applies to a
        straight length antenna, what happens is that soon as that length is
        put into a coiled form, that changes the resonant frequency to some
        degree. Here however the great amount of internal capacitance,
        relatively speaking changes it to a great degree... Thus the
        wavelength of the frequency would be 800 ft or 800/5280=.1515 mile.
        Dividing the quantity by c, the speed of light at 186,000 miles per
        second yeilds the time of one cycle or 8.14 * 10^-7 seconds. The
        reciprocal of this yeilds the frequency at 1,227,600 hz. Thus this
        shows how the wide variance of introduced inductance and internal
        capacitance can change the resonant frequency an assembly will
        resonate to. The bifilar spiral scopings showed values ~ 5 times
        less this frequency, thus we can essentially say that the electrical
        impulse was reduced ~5 fold down from that of the speed of light.
        It also becomes important in modern days to note that in tesla
        coils, the reverse effect also takes place, and we can instead arrive
        at a frequency HIGHER than what the quarter wavelength calculation
        gives, which may have not been a widely noted fact in Tesla's time.
        Answer to the quarterwavelength riddle
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/250
        http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/misc.html
        ( This 2nd URL IS A MUST READ FOR RESONANT FREQUENCY CALCULATIONS OF
        SINGLE LAYER SOLENOIDS
        Now most importantly here, I want to extend the concept of a
        bifilar winding made into two dimensions, instead of just one
        dimension, and we can use the same cited example to show even another
        increase in internal squared voltage by doing this second dimensional
        bifilar example :and some further comments on the three separate
        methods to be employed for achieving such a thing. Now resonance
        itself implies "equalization", we use equal capacitive and inductive
        reactances in series to achieve it. For a 2 dimensional bifilar
        coil, we want to make an additional voltage increase on the
        horizontal winding numberings, where formerly only 1 volt existed
        between those winds. To achieve this we will now use a larger square
        coil, also with 5 windings to an edge, or 25 winds total, with 25
        volts instead across the entire set of windings, so that the same
        circmstance holds, if there were 25 winds in a single layer, we could
        still approximate 1 volt between each wind, because now we are using
        25 volts in the new case example. The reader might initially be
        stumped on how we are going to wind such a creature, where here we
        are assuming now that square circumference windings will be employed
        to maximize both the differences of voltage in both horizontal and
        vertical dimensions: if we wind it horizontally that leaves low
        voltages for the spaces between vertical winds, and vice versa, if we
        wind it vertically that leaves low voltages between the horizontal
        layerings, so what must be done? You guessed it, it will be wound in
        a diagonal manner! However there is a little more to this picture
        than initially gets realized, we must also make the wind
        numberings "resonant" or equalized, and to do this, every numbered
        wind must add in a horizontal row to the same total number, and also
        every number wind must sum to that same number in all of the vertical
        rows! It is what they call a "magic square". This subject gets very
        involved, as there are three different types of magic squares, but
        here we will be dealing with the first type. Other types may not
        employ this diagonal progression as will be seen. One may think this
        problem is very simple, for example, taking just the first magic
        square of 9 numbers we can draw it out in layered orderings
        1 2 3 = 6
        4 5 6 = 15
        7 8 9 = 24
        Transposed vertically in layers we have;
        1 4 7 = 12
        2 5 8 = 15
        3 6 9 = 18
        And also with magic squares the additional requirement can be
        added that the diagonals also sum to this same number, so here the
        diagonals are already correct, and so are the two middle
        transpositions above adding to 15, but the diagonals here add to
        1 +5 + 9 = 15 : 7 + 5 + 3 = 15,
        So out of 8 possible ways to make this 15, four of them are
        already in place, but there is a subconscious assumption here that
        will prevent you from ever finding that magic square solution, until
        you overcome the assumption! Just TRY moving things around to make
        everything 15! You may be sorely pressed to find that answer, because
        there are 45,360 different unique combinations that can be had for
        that array, and only one of them is correct!
        So now I will show you "how" that solution is made. We will go
        to the next "group 1" magic square of 25 numbers, draw it out, and
        then see if you can fathom the three laws of diagonal progression
        that are involved. When you recognize those laws that make the
        pattern, you can quickly solve the above problem of the first magic
        square.
        17+24+01+08+15 = 65
        23+05+07+14+16 = 65
        04+06+13+20+22 = 65
        10+12+19+21+03 = 65
        11+18+25+02+09 = 65
        ----------------------
        65 65 65 65 65 65
        Now let us recall that for the adjacent layer internal voltage
        square summation we arrived at 133, for the 1 dimensional bifilar
        layering the result was 30% higher at 173.
        Let us do the same procedure for the first two layers of the 2-d
        bifilar and find the percentage of increase from the one dimensional
        bifilar value. This entails making two horizontal calculations, and
        one vertical, and then adding these three results. Actually this
        would not be a complete analysis for comparisons, since to do that we
        should analyse the complete set of 25 winds, both vertically and
        horizontally, and here for analysing just the first two layers, for
        the purpose of showing this percentage comparison we should revise
        things for three layers instead of just two to make that comparison,
        so that we have two sets of data for BOTH vertical AND horizontal
        voltage measuring differences.
        So for the first case then we have
        01*02*03*04*05
        06*07*08*09*10
        11*12*13*14*15
        We have formerly obtained 133 in adding two horizontal voltage
        squared differences between winds, but only used one vertical voltage
        squared differences between layers, so now we will add the extra
        vertical squared difference of 5^2*5 =125 to that figure so that we
        have equal amounts now of calculated squared voltage differences, two
        for the horizontal, and two for the vertical differences, thus they
        are equalized as a representation and the new no. of voltage squared
        values becomes 258.
        For the one dimensional bifilar case;
        01*02*03*04*05
        10*09*08*07*06
        11*12*13*14*15
        formerly we had 173 for adding the two horizontal and one vertical
        summation, so we need to add one more vertical summation to that case
        also, where we find that is also
        1^2 +...+ 9^2 = 165: adding this to the former 173 giving a new
        value of 338 for the 1-d bifilar made with equalized horizontal and
        vertical no samplings. 338/258 =1.31, so in this better
        representation for comparisons we can say the first bifilar has 31%
        more internal capacity than the adjacent layering method. Now
        reposting the 25 magic square for easy recognition to the
        calculations;
        17+24+01+08+15 = 65
        23+05+07+14+16 = 65
        04+06+13+20+22 = 65
        10+12+19+21+03 = 65
        11+18+25+02+09 = 65
        1st horiz; (24-17)^2 +(24-1)^2 +(8-1)^2 +(15-8)^2
        = 7^2 + 23^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 = 49 + 529 + 49 + 49 = {676}
        2nd horiz; (23-5)^2 +(7-5)^2 +(14-7)^2 +(16-14)^2
        = 18^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 + 2^2 = 324 + 4 + 49 + 4 = {381}
        1st vert across horiz values; (23-17)^2 +(24-5)^2 + (7-1)^2 +(14-8)^2
        + (16-15)^2
        = 6^2 + 19^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 +1^2 = 36 + 361 + 36 + 36 + 1 = {470}
        {666, my favorite equal numerological combo of three fold nines! =
        18, 1+8 =9}
        2nd vert across horiz values; (23-4)^2 +(6-5)^2 +(13-7)^2 +(20-14)^2 +
        (22-16)^2
        = 19^2 + 1^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 = {470}
        Also just for the heck of it lets also take a horiz. sampling that is
        actually vertical
        (24-17)^2 +(23-5)^2 +(6-4)^2 +(12-10)^2 +(18-11)^2
        = 7^2 + 18^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 = 49 + 324 + 4 + 4 + 49 = {430}, heh
        lets try that again for the next column!
        (24-1)^2 +(7-5)^2 +(13-6)^2 +(19-12)^2 +(25-18)^2
        = 23^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 = {680}, oh well, I thought we might
        find some kind of pattern here, but evidently nothing is there, just
        wondering why we got two 470's above....
        Huh pretty interesting! Sometimes we find out things about
        assumptions that might later be prooved to be false! This is the
        first time I have made these calculations, because of all the work of
        math involved, but when I began "I assumed" that the vert. and
        horizontal samplings should be vitually the same procedure, and then
        in this writing I noticed: "Why does the horiz. voltage difference
        samplings only contain 4 terms, but the vert.difference samplings
        contain 5 of them? Well there are only 4 sets of vert samplings to
        be made that way, but there are also 5 sets of horiz. samplings
        containing the 4 terms, and in each case THEN they both would add to
        20 total samplings of voltage differences if we continued the process
        for the whole square. Actually the vert. samplings were made across
        the horiz row, but if we started out with the intention of doing the
        whole square, we would logically take the vertical samplings across
        the vetical column, instead of across the horiz, as was done in this
        case. To stick to the original intention here anyways, we can note
        then that 676 + 381 + 470 +470 = 1997
        1997/338 = 5.908...
        Thus by this data then the 1-d bifilar has 31% more internal
        capacity as measured by these samplings then does its adjacent
        layering method, and further then the 2-d bifilar then has 590% more
        internal capacity than its 1-d method!
        To make things even more interesting here, I have already scoped out
        some time ago the resonant frequency of a bifilar inductor of some 20
        by 30 zig zag windings,~ 600 ft of wire length and found that it
        slows down the speed of light electrical impulse down to about 13
        fold of what a normal solenoidal resonator of the same length of wire
        would be. It is ~ 1ft/wind.

        Bifilar spiral coil/ longitudinal reception for rf ringdown/ 1 x
        probe/ .2 volt/div: 10 us /div
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/BRS/Dsc00355.jpg

        This shows about 2.8 cycles in 100 us, or 1 cycle in 35.7 us, or
        28,000 hz. Now lets assume that instead I actually had a 2-d bifilar
        coil, with 5.9 times more internal capacity, and then its resonant
        frequency might even be further reduced 5.9 times, to about 4745 hz.
        Alternators can easily produce 500 hz, so here we might also assume
        that this hypothesised 2-d coil would only need to be 10 times as
        large, or 10 times the length of wire for us to create the condition
        where the generator will send out an electrical impulse that
        technically never reaches the end of its wire path, before the
        electrical source changes polarity. We would essentially be trapping
        electrons in the coil, and it is the electron movement itself that
        creates a magnetic field. The generator might act as if it were
        driving an open ended coil, and no return current from the coil load
        means no lenz law, and no lenz law means minimal work to turn the
        field rotor! Then if we wished to make this coil the primary of an
        air core transformer, the secondaries could output energy also with
        no lenz law effect on the primary, which typically makes a primary
        draw more amperage the moment we load down the secondary. IN FACT, we
        might even also make this into a longitudinal embodiment on the air
        core transformer itself, just as I have done in the jpeg with huge
        induction coils as the air core primary, where the secondary coil
        being scoped out, is in the wrong angle to recieve flux change from
        the magnetic field source. That additionally implies that the primary
        would not get "loaded down" from the secondaries amperage draw, and
        then the secondaries could be wound orthogonally at right angles over
        that special 2-d bifilar primary coil. But to accomplish that we
        would need a resonant bifilar arc gapped resonance that puts out high
        frequency, and we have negotiated any high frequency out of the
        picture here, so that does sound a little unfeasible, so conventional
        air core transformation sounds more resonable.
        Now lets even go a bit further out there with these things, and
        propose how Tesla's propagation of electricity through the earth
        itself might occur using these principles.
        This takes a little more knowledge about magic squares, because
        industry still demands that the consumers pay for their electricity,
        and we dont want people just sticking antennaes in the earth and
        getting their juice for free. Someone has to pay for the cost of the
        coils and generation station, after all! There are three types of
        magic squares, the even numbered side squares are probably more
        advantageous to use in the first place anyways. So what we do next
        is instead of the generation coil having a return path to the
        generator, we make that return path the ground of the earth. It aint
        gonna get to the generator as a return path anyways, so why not just
        use that earth ground instead to pump the free electrons of the earth
        ground. Now it aint that hard to explain and show how a magic square
        winding of merely 100 winds can have over 10 trillion possible
        combinations for it to still be a magic square. The even magic
        squares divisible by 4, such as 12, having 144 winds, have a special
        option, only half of the pathways need to be switched for it to
        convert from an ordinary winding of adjacent layerings, to that of a
        magic square winding. This is the advantage of even magic squares,
        they can be put together in vastly different ways and still be magic
        squares. Now the power company gives the customer a magic square
        coil device which is also grounded at one ending. At every switching
        junction where the next wind meets its next winding path in the coil
        are switching devices like diodes, and where it will go in its next
        winding pathway on the coil can be determined by a master
        controller. That master controller is the radio signal containing
        coded information the power Co sends out, that tells those diodes to
        switch on or off on the recieving magic square, to perfectly mimic
        how the power station itself is altering those pathways on its own
        sending coils into the earth. In one AC cycle, one of those random 10
        trillion magic square possible combinations are chosen, and that
        information of the correct switching to make on the pathways that
        switch to convert it to a magic square on the recieving coil is
        transmitted via wireless! How do I think up these science fiction
        stories? Maybe I was Tesla in a past life! When this picture was
        taken, apparently both us accidently cut ourselves shaving that day
        mirror image on the photographs. One has to have an original
        photograph of Tesla to see where he did it. I was wondering about all
        of this later on, and then I discovered our birthdays were also
        mirror image, and we were both 37 when those pics were made. Tesla
        was born near midnight, but I was born 55 minutes afternoon. I was
        born exactly 12 2/3 years after Tesla died. Numerologically, there
        are also seven nines in my name, Harvey D Norris, which is also
        Teslas birthday, 7/9/1856, and mine at 9/7/1955, 99 some years
        later. I have always thought these things were bizarre, but the
        picture takes the cake!
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/ALT/DSC00062.jpg
        Sincerely Harvey D Norris

        "I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation
        between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of
        given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other
        opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as
        though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual
        relations existing between the special character of the current and
        the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity
        being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that
        frequency. It is well-known that the higher the frequency or
        potential difference of the current the smaller the capacity required
        to counteract the self-induction; hence, in any coil, however small
        the capacity, it may be sufficient for the purpose stated if the
        proper conditions in other respects be secured. In the ordinary coils
        the difference of potential between adjacent turns or spires is very
        small, so that while they are in a sense condensers, they possess but
        very small capacity and the relations between the two quantities,
        self-induction and capacity, are not such as under any ordinary
        conditions satisfy the requirements herein contemplated, because the
        capacity relatively to the self-induction is very small. "
        "In order to attain my object and to properly increase the
        capacity of any given coil, I wind it in such way as to secure a
        greater difference of potential between its adjacent turns or
        convolutions, and since the energy stored in the coil considering -
        the latter as a condenser, is proportionate to the square of the
        potential difference between its adjacent convolutions, it is evident
        that I may in this way secure by a proper disposition of these
        convolutions a greatly increased capacity for a given increase in
        potential difference between the turns."
        Nikola Tesla on his 1894 patent for internal capacity, COIL FOR
        ELECTROMAGNETS


        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        teslafy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Chuck Farrar
        Hi Harvey, Good mornin . I ve been reading and re-reading your post regarding the coils/magic square (for almost a week now) and I must admit I m terribly
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 22, 2002
          Hi Harvey,
             Good mornin'. I've been reading and re-reading your post regarding the coils/magic square (for almost a week now) and I must admit I'm terribly confused. I believe I understand what you are proposing as an ability to obtain more volts/amps from an identical length, but by utilizing geometry, gain more in one or both directions above what would be normally available. I feel I begin to lose the picture when we assume that Tesla's flat coil with adjacent winding is not bifilar. I realize that Webster didn't build any coils and has little or no knowledge of the topic but in the dictionary it clearly states that "....two filaments wound together..." , now because of this we could say his pancake coil(s) is wound bifilar or simply return path wound. My understanding is that it would be bifilar if it wound the length of the core before continuing on to the next layer, while being wound side-by-side. This implies 2 wires wound side by side over a series of wraps of layers. I make this distinction only because I have another understanding of the pancake coils and their inherant gain. As a builder I know that when two circles are compared and one is twice the diameter of the other, the area of the smaller circle is not half of one of twice its diameter but the square root of the larger circle. When Tesla used the pancake series coil I felt he meant that it obtained its exponential gain from the geometry of the circle alone. When engaging bifilar winds there is a variety of means to attach the ends for voltage /amperage gains ie ... parallel ...pp-nn, series..p-n,p-n, anti-parallel p-n,n-p (magnetic-self-cancelling). I agree that clockwise from in to out is right-hand-rule and from inside out counterclockwise is no different. It is merely a regular coil with winds down to one end (of a core) and winds back to return (no break just keep winding). I have been working with Doug Konzen on his motors for a couple years now and am always interested in what you have to say and due to my confusion I felt the need to write in hopes of clarity? I have read some of Bearden's work and although I can't understand half the sh*t he rambles about (no insult to Mr. Bearden) I can make sense of laymans terms of relaxation times and parallel paths (both key in the motors of Doug's to get a higher volt AND amp return. I have just returned to a spark gap for switching instead of mosfets and find the anomalous readings are back again. Another question I have is how do you re-arrange your coil to get the magic square you have to get your numbers in proper order ? I understand the need to balance the square numerically but how is this accomplished in the coil when you only have a limited number of possibilities to consider when wrapping the coil ? I again agree that the numbers you present appear to be accurate (ya right,...like I could tell...*smile* no insult intended it's just I couldn't keep you honest if I had to ) but I don't seem to be grasping how you arrive at the return-wind, vs. bifilar, vs anti-parallel, vs regular continuous wrap in down the shaft to end-back up again. There is after all only so many ways to wrap and almost as few ways to connect. ( I did share your fascination with the radioshak speaker coils tho, and when I saw them, had to run out and buy a half dozen myself, just to play with ). Don't feel badly if you presume me to be just a bit ignorant ...I am, but I'm working to understand and with a bit of help ..... well, we'll see.  I was terribly caught-up with your mention of a signal being trapped in the wire along its path and have the input signal change polarities before the original signal reached its destination as this seems to be along Tesla's idea in his patent for method of producing currents of high voltage and high pontential...(several patents, 568176, 568178,568179, 568180 ) which I believe to be key in his search for scalar (or as described by that infuriating Webster as scalar-  a quantity such as mass, length, or speed that is completely measured by its magnitude as it has no direction). Tesla mentioned that he trapped the electricity in the circuit building a potential... your idea to have the source change polarities before it actually arrived is along those lines, at least in my mind..
              Thanks for addressing this. If you'd rather save bandwidth in your group you may reply personally if you prefer.                         thanks, Chuck Farrar
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 5:16 PM
          Subject: [teslafy] True Meaning of Bifilar/ 2-d Bifilar Calculations

          Hi all, I just wanted to point out some common misconceptions. 
          Teslas "coil for electromagnets" patent does not represent bifilar
          windings. Yes it does store more energy between winds, by virtue of
          adjacent layering. It is the voltage difference made by the portion
          of the wire being adjacent to another wire winding that causes
          internal capacitance as 1/2 CV^2.

          Tesla notes the following;
          Let it be assumed that the terminals of this coil show a potential
          difference of one hundred volts, and that there are one thousand
          convolutions; then considering
          any two contiguous points on adjacent convolutions let it be assumed
          that there will exist between them a potential difference of one-
          tenth of a volt. If now, as shown in Figure 2, a conductor B be wound
          parallel with the conductor A and insulated from it,
          and the end of A be connected with the starting pointof B, the
          aggregate length of the two conductors being such that the assumed
          number of convolutions or turns
          is the same, viz., one thousand, then the potential difference
          between any two points in A and B will be fifty volts, and as the
          capacity effect is proportionate to the square of this difference,
          the energy stored in the coil as a whole will now be two hundred and
          fifty thousand as great.
               (If we use calculus to determine an integration for 1/2CV^2 for
          0-1000, one should see more TOTAL Voltage squared between winds for
          the TRUE Bifilar example, than the conventional adjacent layering
          method that Tesla here employs. However that calculus implies a
          smooth curve, when in actuality this would be what is known as an
          geometric progression that adds discrete quantities, so below I will
          show what that results in using the discrete squares of quantites in
          addition for a much smaller example using only 10 windings, instead
          of 1000.)

          An inspection of the drawings of this coil at
          http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/00512340.htm

          clearly shows in figure 2 that the second coil system B enters in the
          clockwise fashion identical to coil system A. Nowhere in the patent
          is mention made of the use of bifilar coils.
               A BIFILAR COIL  AS AN EXAMPLE IS WOUND CLOCKWISE FROM THE
          OUTSIDE IN. AND THEN FOR THE SECOND LAYER IT IS WOUND CLOCKWISE FROM
          THE INSIDE OUT.  It is essentially a zig zag layering.  ANY multiturn
          layered coil will store more energy,( a misnomer), or contain more
          internal capacitance as a consequence of it having a higher voltage
          between adjacent layers. However we can enhance that effect in one
          dimension by employing bifilar layering. The added internal capacity
          will reduce the resonant frequency of the coils in comparison.

               To make an understanding here, first we must understand what a 1
          dimensional bifilar coil consists of. It does not merely consists of
          a returned wind adjacent to the first layer, as Tesla's often
          noted "Coil for Electromagnets" shows. No where in that patent is the
          word "bifilar" used.  It is only the further commentators in history
          of that patent that consider that method to be a "bifilar" winding. 
          No it is merely a returned layer winding.  Suppose we then have 10
          winds  in two spirals starting from the outside in.  The returned
          layer winding method, ( which Tesla shows in that above mentioned
          patent) would have all the windings going in one direction as
          clockwise from the outside in, with the ordering appearing as
          (RETURNED LAYERED SPIRAL WINDING)
          1 2 3 4 5
          6 7 8 9 10

               Now let us compute the internal capacity by (.5) C V^2. Lets us
          just call the first portion .5C a constant determined by the
          insulation distance and width of the wire, and just be concerned with
          the addition of the squared voltages. Technically for a spiral, and
          this is where it differs from a solenoid: for the spiral case the
          outer windings will have more voltage between the outer winds, then
          they will for the inner winds, because the outer winds have a longer
          distance between adjacent spots in the layerings on the wire path
          itself: therefore with respect to the voltage being imposed on the
          spiral itself, a longer wire path between those points implies a
          larger voltage between  the windings of larger circumference. What
          this further implies, is that if we are going to series resonate a
          spiral, the way we connect it in the LC series may deliver different
          results if the inside winding is in the middle of the LC series, or
          if the outside winding is in the middle of the LC , since it is at
          the midpoint of the LC resonance that the high voltage rise point
          occurs.  We might want to make the outside winding connection as the
          middle of the LC, since it already has the highest voltage reference
          point as voltage between winds, and then suspect that this method
          might give a slightly higher resonant rise of voltage, or perhaps
          maybe it might actually be lower, only further experimentation will
          tell if there is a relationship there.  This is only mentioned in
          passing, since it is not relevant to what is being discussed here.
          Here we will just assume 10 volts imposed on these 10 winds in two
          layers of spirals, and also assume no differences in voltage between
          layers, which could be approximated to be true if the spiral was a
          large diameter with respect to the inner diameter.

               For the horizontal voltage differences between winds, each of
          these layers would then be 1^2 *4, which for two layers becomes 8. 
          The vertical layer voltage differences are also constant values of 5
          in five repetitons, making the calculation 5^2* 5= 125. Thus we have
          a voltage squared internal value of (125 + 8) = 133 for the method
          mentioned in Tesla's adjacent layered winding method.

               Now let us compare what the bifilar wind method will deliver. 
          Also realize that bifilar does not imply magnetic cancellation, that
          would be a definition of scalar, as it is bandied about. So on the
          zig zag layering inherent in a bifilar, the magnetic field from each
          layer is in unison, meaning as an example, the first layer might be
          wound clockwise from the outside in, and the second layer would also
          be wound clockwise, but instead from the inside out.
          01 2 3 4 5
          10 9 8 7 6
          Again we have 8 for the two horizontal layers.
          For the vertical now we have (10-1)^2+ (9-2)^2+ (8-3)^2+ (7-4)^2+ (6-
          5)^2 =
          9^2 + 7^2 + 5^2 + 3^2 + 1^2 = 81 + 49 + 25 + 9 + 1 = 165, and adding
          this to the horizontally derived 8, this gives a total of 173
          internal squared volts for the bifilar method, compared to 133 for
          the adjacent wind method Tesla mentions.  30 % more internal capacity
          was made by the bifilar method in this case example.

               Now let us look at a real case example of bifilar vs standard
          adjacent winds of spirals being stimulated to their resonant
          frequencies and being scoped out. The method here was to energize a
          unmagnetized ferrite cylinder via series neon discharge from
          alternator  resonant sources. This causes the ferrite to emit 
          longitudinal EM, similar to a radio signal, but no specific frequency
          itself is being emmited, the process rather causes those adjacent
          spirals to ring at their own natural resonant frequencies. The EM
          should also be polarized in three dimensions, and in fact, although
          this was never tested yet for this specific example, if we turned the
          spirals in the direction facing the emmitor, they should also
          register a different frequency again as a conventional EM reception!
          This was not realized back about a year ago, when these things were
          done, because normally we just accept the fact that frequency is just
          frequency, but of course here we can see that this is not true for
          this emmision case, as both of these recievers are also "recieving"
          different frequencies from the same source.  Both of these 4 layer
          spirals have equal lengths of 50 ft in the 4 layers. However the
          effect of "voltage between vertical layers" is very minimized
          compared to the voltage between horizontal winds, because the wire
          itself is flat braided wire, therefore most of the internal capacity
          is between the layers on each spiral , and not between the edges of
          the wire on that vertical relationship, which causes these
          differences of resonant frequency to be registered in equal lengths
          of wire: where the bifilar staggered windings have slightly more
          internal capacity, thus a slight reduction in resonant frequency. 
          (Additionally here is the fact that only one layer between the dual
          identically wound speaker wire cables are in the true bifilar
          relationship, that is the layer BETWEEN the two dual spirals when one
          spiral is placed in an opposite winding relationship to the other.
          The windings as no.s connected to numbers was also STAGGERED so that
          additionally a higher voltage between all the winding layers was
          attained to, but of three of these interlayer winding voltage
          differences, only one layer difference was truly bifilar. The purpose
          here however was to only note that MORE interwinding voltage
          difference COULD reduce the resonant frequency behing measured on
          identical wire lengths of spirals. The particular routing method for
          the reduced resonant frequency spiral wiould have been noted in that
          post. This is when I first got the camera, and the sizing of the
          first pictures came out too large, so one may have to scroll things
          around to see the entire picture.  The scope is set on dual channel
          with both spiral sets hooked to separate probes; so that both
          resonant frequencies can be seen simultaneously.

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/Outer%20DSR/Dsc00010.jpg
          shows the two 4 layered spiral sets placed on either side of the
          ferrite rod. Since we now have a neon in series with the ferrite as
          an interphasal pathway, it is easier to understand how the ferrite
          can emit EM, since the hf actions of excited plasma are connected in
          series. In any case the neon seems to make reading the amperage
          consistantly an easier job, which for either component alone becomes
          difficult, if not impossible. ( This is now not so certain of a fact,
          but it was noted then a year ago). The scope in the background is set
          for 50 mv voltage deflection at 1 us/div, or 10 us per screen sweep.
          The ordinary return wound coil spiral set has a cycle in ~3 us or
          333,000 hz. The bifilar set having a reverse wound dual set spiral,
          and employing more interwinding voltage difference by staggered
          windings has a reduced frequency of 4 us/cycle or 250,000 hz.

               A closer shot of the scoping;
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/Outer%20DSR/Dsc00011.jpg
               The above was from the posting;
          Sony Camera trials/ Dual channel scopings of bifilar spirals.
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/149

               Now let us take the example given here where the dual spiral
          sets consisted of a total 200 ft of wire and see what the natural
          resonant frequency would be by the 1/4 wave calculation. To do this
          we consider the 200 ft to be one quarter of the wavelength that the
          inductor would resonate to. Again that only strictly applies to a
          straight length antenna, what happens is that soon as that length is
          put into a coiled form, that changes the resonant frequency to some
          degree. Here however the great amount of internal capacitance,
          relatively speaking changes it to a great degree... Thus the
          wavelength of the frequency would be 800 ft or 800/5280=.1515 mile.
          Dividing the quantity by c, the speed of light at 186,000 miles per
          second yeilds the time of one cycle or 8.14 * 10^-7 seconds. The
          reciprocal of this yeilds the frequency at 1,227,600 hz. Thus this
          shows how the wide variance of introduced inductance and internal
          capacitance can change the resonant frequency an assembly will
          resonate to. The  bifilar spiral scopings showed values ~ 5 times
          less this frequency, thus we can essentially say that the electrical
          impulse was reduced ~5 fold down from that of the speed of light.
               It also becomes important in modern days to note that in tesla
          coils, the reverse effect also takes place, and we can instead arrive
          at a frequency HIGHER than what the quarter wavelength calculation
          gives, which may have not been a widely noted fact in Tesla's time.
          Answer to the quarterwavelength riddle
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/250
          http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/misc.html
          ( This 2nd URL IS A MUST READ FOR RESONANT FREQUENCY CALCULATIONS OF
          SINGLE LAYER SOLENOIDS
               Now most importantly here, I want to extend the concept of a
          bifilar winding made into two dimensions, instead of just one
          dimension, and we can use the same cited example to show even another
          increase in internal squared voltage by doing this second dimensional
          bifilar example :and some further comments on the three separate
          methods to be employed for achieving such a thing. Now resonance
          itself implies "equalization", we use equal capacitive and inductive
          reactances in series to achieve it.  For a 2 dimensional bifilar
          coil, we want to make an additional voltage increase on the
          horizontal winding numberings, where formerly only 1 volt existed
          between those winds.  To achieve this we will now use a larger square
          coil, also with 5 windings to an edge, or 25 winds total, with 25
          volts instead across the entire set of windings, so that the same
          circmstance holds, if there were 25 winds in a single layer, we could
          still approximate 1 volt between each wind, because now we are using
          25 volts in the new case example. The reader might initially be
          stumped on how we are going to wind such a creature, where here we
          are assuming now that square circumference windings will be employed
          to maximize both the differences of voltage in both horizontal and
          vertical dimensions: if we wind it horizontally that leaves low
          voltages for the spaces between vertical winds, and vice versa, if we
          wind it vertically that leaves low voltages between the horizontal
          layerings, so what must be done?  You guessed it, it will be wound in
          a diagonal manner!  However there is a little more to this picture
          than initially gets realized, we must also make the wind
          numberings "resonant" or equalized, and to do this, every numbered
          wind must add in a horizontal row to the same total number, and also
          every number wind must sum to that same number in all of the vertical
          rows!  It is what they call a "magic square".  This subject gets very
          involved, as there are three different types of magic squares, but
          here we will be dealing with the first type. Other types may not
          employ this diagonal progression as will be seen. One may think this
          problem is very simple, for example, taking just the first magic
          square of 9 numbers we can draw it out in layered orderings
          1 2 3 = 6
          4 5 6 = 15
          7 8 9 = 24
          Transposed vertically in layers we have;
          1 4 7 = 12
          2 5 8 = 15
          3 6 9 = 18
               And also with magic squares the additional requirement can be
          added that the diagonals also sum to this same number, so here the
          diagonals are already correct, and so are the two middle
          transpositions above adding to 15, but the diagonals here add to
          1 +5 + 9 = 15 :  7 + 5 + 3 = 15,
                So out of 8 possible ways to make this 15, four of them are
          already in place, but there is a subconscious assumption here that
          will prevent you from ever finding that magic square solution, until
          you overcome the assumption!  Just TRY moving things around to make 
          everything 15! You may be sorely pressed to find that answer, because
          there are  45,360 different unique combinations that can be had for
          that array, and only one of them is correct!
               So now I will show you "how" that solution is made.  We will go
          to the next "group 1" magic square of 25 numbers, draw it out, and
          then see if you can fathom the three laws of diagonal progression
          that are involved.  When you recognize those laws that make the
          pattern, you can quickly solve the above problem of the first magic
          square.
          17+24+01+08+15 = 65
          23+05+07+14+16 = 65
          04+06+13+20+22 = 65
          10+12+19+21+03 = 65
          11+18+25+02+09 = 65
          ----------------------
          65 65 65 65 65 65
               Now let us recall that for the adjacent layer internal voltage
          square summation we arrived at 133, for the 1 dimensional bifilar
          layering the result was 30% higher at 173.
               Let us do the same procedure for the first two layers of the 2-d
          bifilar and find the percentage of increase from the one dimensional
          bifilar value.  This entails making two horizontal calculations, and
          one vertical, and then adding these three results. Actually this
          would not be a complete analysis for comparisons, since to do that we
          should analyse the complete set of 25 winds, both vertically and
          horizontally, and here for analysing just the first two layers, for
          the purpose of showing this percentage comparison we should revise
          things for three layers instead of just two to make that comparison,
          so that we have two sets of data for BOTH vertical AND horizontal
          voltage measuring differences.
          So for the first case then we have
          01*02*03*04*05
          06*07*08*09*10
          11*12*13*14*15
                We have formerly obtained 133 in adding two horizontal voltage
          squared differences between winds, but only used one vertical voltage
          squared differences between layers, so now we will add the extra
          vertical squared difference of 5^2*5 =125 to that figure so that we
          have equal amounts now of calculated squared voltage differences, two
          for the horizontal, and two for the vertical differences, thus they
          are equalized as a representation and the new no. of voltage squared
          values becomes 258.
          For the one dimensional bifilar case;
          01*02*03*04*05
          10*09*08*07*06
          11*12*13*14*15
          formerly we had 173 for adding the two horizontal and one vertical
          summation, so we need to add one more vertical summation to that case
          also, where we find that is also
          1^2 +...+ 9^2 = 165:  adding this to the former 173 giving a new
          value of 338 for the 1-d bifilar made with equalized horizontal and
          vertical no samplings.  338/258 =1.31, so in this better
          representation for comparisons we can say the first bifilar has 31%
          more internal capacity than the adjacent layering method. Now
          reposting the 25 magic square for easy recognition to the
          calculations;
          17+24+01+08+15 = 65
          23+05+07+14+16 = 65
          04+06+13+20+22 = 65
          10+12+19+21+03 = 65
          11+18+25+02+09 = 65
          1st horiz; (24-17)^2 +(24-1)^2 +(8-1)^2 +(15-8)^2
          = 7^2 + 23^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 = 49 + 529 + 49 + 49 = {676}
          2nd horiz; (23-5)^2 +(7-5)^2 +(14-7)^2 +(16-14)^2
          = 18^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 + 2^2 = 324 + 4 + 49 + 4 = {381}
          1st vert across horiz values; (23-17)^2 +(24-5)^2 + (7-1)^2 +(14-8)^2
          + (16-15)^2
          = 6^2 + 19^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 +1^2 = 36 + 361 + 36 + 36 + 1 = {470}
          {666, my favorite equal numerological combo of three fold nines! =
          18, 1+8 =9}
          2nd vert across horiz values; (23-4)^2 +(6-5)^2 +(13-7)^2 +(20-14)^2 +
          (22-16)^2
          = 19^2 + 1^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 + 6^2 = {470}
          Also just for the heck of it lets also take a horiz. sampling that is
          actually vertical
          (24-17)^2 +(23-5)^2 +(6-4)^2 +(12-10)^2 +(18-11)^2
          = 7^2 + 18^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 = 49 + 324 + 4 + 4 + 49 = {430}, heh
          lets try that again for the next column!
          (24-1)^2 +(7-5)^2 +(13-6)^2 +(19-12)^2 +(25-18)^2
          = 23^2 + 2^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 + 7^2 = {680}, oh well,  I thought we might
          find some kind of pattern here, but evidently nothing is there, just
          wondering why we got two 470's above....
               Huh pretty interesting! Sometimes we find out things about
          assumptions that might later be prooved to be false!  This is the
          first time I have made these calculations, because of all the work of
          math involved, but when I began "I assumed" that the vert. and
          horizontal samplings should be vitually the same procedure, and then
          in this writing I noticed: "Why does the horiz. voltage difference
          samplings only contain 4 terms, but the vert.difference samplings
          contain 5 of them?  Well there are only 4 sets of vert samplings to
          be made that way, but there are also 5 sets of  horiz. samplings
          containing the 4 terms, and in each case THEN they both would add to
          20 total samplings of voltage differences if we continued the process
          for the whole square. Actually the vert. samplings were made across
          the horiz row, but if we started out with the intention of doing the
          whole square, we would logically take the vertical samplings across
          the vetical column, instead of across the horiz, as was done in this
          case. To stick to the original intention here anyways, we can note
          then that 676 + 381 + 470 +470 = 1997
          1997/338 = 5.908...
               Thus by this data then the 1-d bifilar has 31% more internal
          capacity as measured by these samplings then does its adjacent
          layering method, and further then the 2-d bifilar then has 590% more
          internal capacity than its 1-d method!
          To make things even more interesting here, I have already scoped out
          some time ago the resonant frequency of a bifilar inductor of some 20
          by 30 zig zag windings,~ 600 ft of wire length and found that it
          slows down the speed of light electrical impulse down to about 13
          fold of what a normal solenoidal resonator of the same length of wire
          would be. It is ~ 1ft/wind.

          Bifilar spiral coil/ longitudinal reception for rf ringdown/ 1 x
          probe/ .2 volt/div: 10 us /div
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/BRS/Dsc00355.jpg

          This shows about 2.8 cycles in 100 us, or 1 cycle in 35.7 us, or
          28,000 hz. Now lets assume that instead I actually had a 2-d bifilar
          coil, with 5.9 times more internal capacity, and then its resonant
          frequency might even be further reduced 5.9 times, to about 4745 hz.
          Alternators can easily produce 500 hz, so here we might also assume
          that this hypothesised 2-d coil would only need to be 10 times as
          large, or 10 times the length of wire for us to create the condition
          where the generator will send out an electrical impulse that
          technically never reaches the end of its wire path, before the
          electrical source changes polarity. We would essentially be trapping
          electrons in the coil, and it is the electron movement itself that
          creates a magnetic field. The generator might act as if it were
          driving an open ended coil, and no return current from the coil load
          means no lenz law, and no lenz law means minimal work to turn the
          field rotor! Then if we wished to make this coil the primary of an
          air core transformer, the secondaries could output energy also with
          no lenz law effect on the primary, which typically makes a primary
          draw more amperage the moment we load down the secondary. IN FACT, we
          might even also make this into a longitudinal embodiment on the air
          core transformer itself, just as I have done in the jpeg with huge
          induction coils as the air core primary, where the secondary coil
          being scoped out, is in the wrong angle to recieve flux change from
          the magnetic field source. That additionally implies that the primary
          would not get "loaded down" from the secondaries amperage draw, and
          then the secondaries could be wound orthogonally at right angles over
          that special 2-d  bifilar primary coil. But to accomplish that we
          would need a resonant bifilar arc gapped resonance that puts out high
          frequency, and we have negotiated any high frequency out of the
          picture here, so that does sound a little unfeasible, so conventional
          air core transformation sounds more resonable.
              Now lets even go a bit further out there with these things, and
          propose how Tesla's propagation of electricity through the earth
          itself might occur using these principles.
              This takes a little more knowledge about magic squares, because
          industry still demands that the consumers pay for their electricity,
          and we dont want people  just sticking antennaes in the earth and
          getting their juice for free.  Someone has to pay for the cost of the
          coils and generation station, after all! There are three types of
          magic squares, the even numbered side squares are probably more
          advantageous to use in the first place anyways.  So what we do next
          is instead of the  generation coil having a return path to the
          generator, we make that return path the ground of the earth. It aint
          gonna get to the generator as a return path anyways, so why not just
          use that earth ground instead to pump the free electrons of the earth
          ground.  Now it aint that hard to explain and show how a magic square
          winding of merely 100 winds can have over 10 trillion possible
          combinations for it to still be a magic square.  The even magic
          squares divisible by 4, such as 12, having 144 winds, have a special
          option, only half of the pathways need to be switched for it to
          convert from an ordinary winding of adjacent layerings, to that of a
          magic square winding. This is the advantage of even magic squares,
          they can be put together in vastly different ways and still be magic
          squares.  Now the power company gives the customer a magic square
          coil device which is also grounded at one ending. At every switching
          junction where the next wind meets its next winding path in the coil
          are switching devices like diodes, and where it will go in its next
          winding pathway on the coil can be determined by a master
          controller.  That master controller is the radio signal containing
          coded information the power Co sends out, that tells those diodes to
          switch on or off on the recieving magic square, to perfectly mimic
          how the power station itself is altering those pathways on its own
          sending coils into the earth. In one AC cycle, one of those random 10
          trillion magic square possible combinations are chosen, and that
          information of  the correct switching to make on the pathways that
          switch to convert it to a magic square on the recieving coil is
          transmitted via wireless!  How do I think up these science fiction
          stories?  Maybe I was Tesla in a past life! When this picture was
          taken, apparently both us accidently cut ourselves shaving that day
          mirror image on the photographs. One has to have an original
          photograph of Tesla to see where he did it. I was wondering about all
          of this later on, and then I discovered our birthdays were also
          mirror image, and we were both 37 when those pics were made. Tesla
          was born near midnight, but I was born 55 minutes afternoon. I was
          born exactly 12 2/3 years after Tesla died. Numerologically, there
          are also seven nines in my name, Harvey D Norris, which is also
          Teslas birthday, 7/9/1856, and mine at 9/7/1955, 99  some years
          later. I have always thought these things were bizarre, but the
          picture takes the cake!
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/ALT/DSC00062.jpg
          Sincerely Harvey D Norris

               "I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation
          between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of
          given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other
          opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as
          though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual
          relations existing between the special character of the current and
          the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity
          being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that
          frequency. It is well-known that the higher the frequency or
          potential difference of the current the smaller the capacity required
          to counteract the self-induction; hence, in any coil, however small
          the capacity, it may be sufficient for the purpose stated if the
          proper conditions in other respects be secured. In the ordinary coils
          the difference of potential between adjacent turns or spires is very
          small, so that while they are in a sense condensers, they possess but
          very small capacity and the relations between the two quantities,
          self-induction and capacity, are not such as under any ordinary
          conditions satisfy the requirements herein contemplated, because the
          capacity relatively to the self-induction is very small. "
               "In order to attain my object and to properly increase the
          capacity of any given coil, I wind it in such way as to secure a
          greater difference of potential between its adjacent turns or
          convolutions, and since the energy stored in the coil considering -
          the latter as a condenser, is proportionate to the square of the
          potential difference between its adjacent convolutions, it is evident
          that I may in this way secure by a proper disposition of these
          convolutions a greatly increased capacity for a given increase in
          potential difference between the turns."
          Nikola Tesla on his 1894 patent for internal capacity, COIL FOR
          ELECTROMAGNETS


          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          teslafy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • David Thomson
          ... you prefer. No, please respond to the group. I have worked with bifilar coils, both flat and solenoid, and would like to follow this discussion. Dave
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 22, 2002
            > If you'd rather save bandwidth in your group you may reply personally if you prefer.  
             
            No, please respond to the group.  I have worked with bifilar coils, both flat and solenoid, and would like to follow this discussion.
             
            Dave
          • harvey norris
            ... There seems to be little advantage to increasing internal capacity in a coil. The decrease in natural resonant frequency also reduces the voltage of the
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 22, 2002
              --- Chuck Farrar <psymund@...> wrote:
              > Hi Harvey,
              > Good mornin'. I've been reading and re-reading
              > your post regarding the coils/magic square (for
              > almost a week now) and I must admit I'm terribly
              > confused. I believe I understand what you are
              > proposing as an ability to obtain more volts/amps
              > from an identical length, but by utilizing geometry,
              > gain more in one or both directions above what would
              > be normally available.
              There seems to be little advantage to increasing
              internal capacity in a coil. The decrease in natural
              resonant frequency also reduces the voltage of the
              resonant waveform, as can be seen in the scope
              comparisons, where the lower frequency form is the
              bifilar, also with respectively lower voltage on the
              scoping. This is why aspects of internal capacity are
              not desirable with tesla coils. It reduces the output
              voltage to such an extent that secondaries are not
              even made with multiturn layer windings because they
              are impractical. What this speculation involves is
              merely thinking out certain things where we can
              IMAGINE what a practical purpose MIGHT become for
              employing internal capacity, and certainly it might
              only be applicable for things on a very large scale.

              I feel I begin to lose the
              > picture when we assume that Tesla's flat coil with
              > adjacent winding is not bifilar. I realize that
              > Webster didn't build any coils and has little or no
              > knowledge of the topic but in the dictionary it
              > clearly states that "....two filaments wound
              > together..." , now because of this we could say his
              > pancake coil(s) is wound bifilar or simply return
              > path wound. My understanding is that it would be
              > bifilar if it wound the length of the core before
              > continuing on to the next layer, while being wound
              > side-by-side.
              Yes an ordinary vertically wound multiturn coil is
              also bifilar, because the windings go up to the top of
              the layer, and then back down again, these are not
              return adjacent layerings, as would be the case if the
              next winding was also routed from the bottom winding,
              similar to the preceeding layer. Bifilar simply
              implies this zig zag method of layering, where no
              magnetic cancellation takes place. I cant do much more
              to show that the zig zag layering method will deliver
              more total "internal voltage squared " values between
              windings, than the adjacent wind layering method,
              which I would suppose is actually very seldom
              employed, simply for the logistics of trying to wind
              something that way would be impractical. I can only
              cite the simple numbered wind example I have given as
              proof of that. The zig zag layering has Non-linear
              voltage values between winds, leading to more internal
              capacity via the exponential .5CV^2 relationship. The
              adjacent layering method preserves a constant voltage
              difference between layers, but when we compare the
              two, the geometrical progression of added square
              voltages for the bifilar case is greater than that
              given for constant voltage values.

              This implies 2 wires wound side by
              > side over a series of wraps of layers. I make this
              > distinction only because I have another
              > understanding of the pancake coils and their
              > inherant gain. As a builder I know that when two
              > circles are compared and one is twice the diameter
              > of the other, the area of the smaller circle is not
              > half of one of twice its diameter but the square
              > root of the larger circle. When Tesla used the
              > pancake series coil I felt he meant that it obtained
              > its exponential gain from the geometry of the circle
              > alone. When engaging bifilar winds there is a
              > variety of means to attach the ends for voltage
              > /amperage gains ie ... parallel ...pp-nn,
              > series..p-n,p-n, anti-parallel p-n,n-p
              > (magnetic-self-cancelling). I agree that clockwise
              > from in to out is right-hand-rule and from inside
              > out counterclockwise is no different. It is merely a
              > regular coil with winds down to one end (of a core)
              > and winds back to return (no break just keep
              > winding). I have been working with Doug Konzen on
              > his motors for a couple years now and am always
              > interested in what you have to say and due to my
              > confusion I felt the need to write in hopes of
              > clarity? I have read some of Bearden's work and
              > although I can't understand half the sh*t he rambles
              > about (no insult to Mr. Bearden) I can make sense of
              > laymans terms of relaxation times and parallel paths
              > (both key in the motors of Doug's to get a higher
              > volt AND amp return.
              I'm not that familiar with the Konzen motor. I thought
              it used rotation based on magnetic repulsion, no?

              I have just returned to a spark
              > gap for switching instead of mosfets and find the
              > anomalous readings are back again. Another question
              > I have is how do you re-arrange your coil to get the
              > magic square you have to get your numbers in proper
              > order ?
              This of course presents the monstrosity of that
              building problem. Fo the group 1 square cited, if you
              follow the numbers in order you should see a diagonal
              pattern. When the diagonal leaves the square, it goes
              to the opposite side, If it leaves a corner, or finds
              another number for the next diagonal winding in its
              place, it goes down one level. It should not be
              impossible to wind like that, but of course it would
              still be difficult. Granted we have to allow for space
              in a junction cut in some cases for the next return
              wind to go to a "different" winding. Then we have the
              wire going at right angles to get to the next winding
              layer, in its journey across the square. For the cited
              25 square then the first winding goes around till it
              almost meets itself, then it makes a right angle turn
              to go to the bottom of the square where winding number
              2 is located. This wraps around until it meets itself
              again, only the next winding move is simpler, it just
              continues on the next diagonal layer... and so on,
              till the entire square is completed. If you
              constructed much larger group 1 magic squares, you
              would see how the diagonal pattern begins to start
              predominating the square, making most of the windings
              to be made easier without all of the changes shown
              with smaller ones such as this. Actually it would be
              better to route some of the outside non diagonal
              changes around the periphery of the square as right
              angle turns.

              The aspect of the even squares was not dealt with in
              the previous article. Let us say that we have such a
              square array, BUT it is not wound at all, each of the
              loops in the array are just that: only independent
              loops of wire, all in parallel loops. 64 independent
              winds there. So for a 64 square array we have 64
              independent loops. Now what we are going to do is just
              completely cut a cross section in those loops, leaving
              64 open ends of the loops on each side of the cross
              section cut. Each of these endings on both sides go to
              what looks like two old fashioned telephone
              switchboards. Remember in the old movies what the
              telephone switchboard operator does, she takes one
              loop ending and connects it to a new loop ending for
              the person to recieve the call. Likewise we can take
              both of these switchboards and then arrange all of the
              loops together so that it makes the pattern of a
              return layered winding. Now it is basically just like
              Tesla's coil layering idea. This is the uniform
              winding state, where at the switchboard each switch
              routes over to the next adjacent winding, till we
              reach the end of the row, and the next winding switch
              starts over at the beginning of the next row. Again
              that is not the zig zag pattern of the bifilar method,
              it is the return winding layered method. Now suppose
              we wish to make this arrangement different so that it
              instead is in a magic square state. For the squares
              divisible by 4, this can be done in such a way, that
              only HALF of all the switches need to changed for the
              new arrangement, and there are quite a few
              possibilities on how this switching can be made with
              the switchings that DO move from their uniform state.
              Since we are started from the uniform state, when we
              pull one ending out to place it to a new location, for
              the simplest case of switching, the new position where
              the current goes in its next winding pathway will be
              in a symmetry on the square itself, so at the start of
              this procudure from a switch made on the upper left
              corner, it will go to a new destination point symmetry
              wise to a new position on the bottom right corner.
              That position will already have a winding in place
              from the previous winding uniform state, so we have to
              also pull the ending out, for the new ending route to
              be placed. What we do with that ending that had to be
              removed, is to place it back to where the original
              switching ending "used to be" before we pulled it from
              its uniform pattern state. Thus the switchings that
              occur, occur in symmetry.

              Now suppose we wish to employ a different strategy.
              For one half of the AC cycle we wish the coil to
              conduct in a uniform winding state. For every spot of
              the 50% windings that do switch to become magic, we
              can then put a forward conducting diode in place. But
              we can also put a reverse conducting diode on the same
              wire junction that would go to the new winding place
              if it were to conduct as a magic square. Now when the
              polarity reverses, the former forward conducting
              diodes now become blocking diodes, and the reverse
              conduction instead follows the pathways made for the
              former blocking diodes. It this way we can make the
              coil have normal function for 1/2 cycle, and then
              magic state for the next half cycle. Provided such a
              coil would be of huge size, it might be possible that
              the magic state would slow the electrical propagation
              of the impulse down so far that the impulse "doesnt
              have the time" to reach its destination. In one half
              of the cycle we are then allowing that impulse to be
              complete, thus essentially supplying the coil with
              electron movement, but in the next half cycle that
              movement is made with very little input energy, as it
              then appears as driving a load with no endings.

              This of course is just a theory, nothing more. It will
              take vast expenditures to proove such a thing. But I
              am only saying that it should be possible, that is
              all. I have quite a bit of a lifetime left, and
              assurances of future funds to attempt to do such a
              vast project in the future. Here I am just trying to
              explain the idea of what that project would consist
              of.

              I understand the need to balance the square
              > numerically but how is this accomplished in the coil
              > when you only have a limited number of possibilities
              > to consider when wrapping the coil ? I again agree
              > that the numbers you present appear to be accurate
              > (ya right,...like I could tell...*smile* no insult
              > intended it's just I couldn't keep you honest if I
              > had to ) but I don't seem to be grasping how you
              > arrive at the return-wind, vs. bifilar, vs
              > anti-parallel, vs regular continuous wrap in down
              > the shaft to end-back up again. There is after all
              > only so many ways to wrap and almost as few ways to
              > connect.
              Again I have tried to explain how such switching would
              be accomplished, via the idea of a telephone
              switchboard. Complex electronics might eventually be
              made so that this switching could be incredibly
              complex as on each cycle a different magic square
              state might be coded into such a switching scheme. As
              I have mentioned, there are easily over 10 trillion
              switching possibilities for just a 100 square array.

              ( I did share your fascination with the
              > radioshak speaker coils tho, and when I saw them,
              > had to run out and buy a half dozen myself, just to
              > play with ). Don't feel badly if you presume me to
              > be just a bit ignorant ...I am, but I'm working to
              > understand and with a bit of help ..... well, we'll
              > see. I was terribly caught-up with your mention of
              > a signal being trapped in the wire along its path
              > and have the input signal change polarities before
              > the original signal reached its destination as this
              > seems to be along Tesla's idea in his patent for
              > method of producing currents of high voltage and
              > high pontential...(several patents, 568176,
              > 568178,568179, 568180 ) which I believe to be key in
              > his search for scalar (or as described by that
              > infuriating Webster as scalar- a quantity such as
              > mass, length, or speed that is completely measured
              > by its magnitude as it has no direction). Tesla
              > mentioned that he trapped the electricity in the
              > circuit building a potential... your idea to have
              > the source change polarities before it actually
              > arrived is along those lines, at least in my mind..
              Nothing is known on this category, only speculation at
              this point in time. As I have indicated it might be
              advantageous to have a situation where continuity DOES
              exist for half of a cycle. There might be a problem
              similar to that of trying to drive a Tesla secondary
              at a higher frequency that what the natural resonant
              freq of the secondary actually is. In that case we
              might reason that we are also trapping electron
              movements in a coil, but whats the benefit of it? All
              we see is a mistuned coil that makes no effects. We
              might need a mechanism to actually impart a complete
              charge movement, and then make that charge movement
              again occur with a minimal amount of energy
              expenditure.
              > Thanks for addressing this. If you'd rather save
              > bandwidth in your group you may reply personally if
              > you prefer. thanks, Chuck
              > Farrar
              No thats okay, but its nice to highlight/ edit/ cut
              portions of previous entries that are redundant to the
              posting.
              Sincerely HDN

              =====
              Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
              http://mailplus.yahoo.com
            • David Thomson
              Hi Harvey, The practical application of Tesla s bifilar coils was in increasing the magnetic strength of the coil. Is there a formula for calculating the
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 22, 2002
                Hi Harvey,

                The practical application of Tesla's "bifilar" coils was in increasing the
                magnetic strength of the coil. Is there a formula for calculating the
                magnetic strength of a coil? We might learn something from it.

                Dave
              • harvey norris
                ... This is what makes me dubious. Tesla may have already been known as a very relevant inventor in his time, and his claims accepted on face value. No model
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 22, 2002
                  --- David Thomson <dave@...> wrote:
                  > Hi Harvey,
                  >
                  > The practical application of Tesla's "bifilar" coils
                  > was in increasing the
                  > magnetic strength of the coil. Is there a formula
                  > for calculating the
                  > magnetic strength of a coil? We might learn
                  > something from it.
                  >
                  > Dave
                  This is what makes me dubious. Tesla may have already
                  been known as a very relevant inventor in his time,
                  and his claims accepted on face value. No model was
                  presented for this electromagnet patent. For
                  electromagnet calculations, the primary influences
                  seems to be the H value; amp turns/inch.(length of
                  coil) The B term, flux density is simply the amp
                  turns/ unit area, (2pi r squared), opening of coil.

                  I think that ratios of B/H have something to do with
                  this also, but I'm pretty rusty in that magnetics
                  field. The steel piece to be used as an electromagnet
                  has a certain maximum value of H, the amp*turms /inch
                  that can be used before the steel material gets
                  "saturated", and no further amounts of amp turns will
                  significantly increase the resultant magnetic field. A
                  commercial magnet is already designed with a good B/H
                  ratio inherent in its geometry. If we stack a number
                  of these magnets together we do not get the same
                  linear total magnetic field increases proportional to
                  the additions of the magnets, because now the total
                  assembly is a different inherent B/H geometry. With an
                  AC application in transformers a somewhat unexpected
                  result of saturation is that the windings loose their
                  impedance down to the level of air core action; but
                  I'm rusty there too. But in any case I just cant see
                  how a special increase in magnemotive force, (mmf
                  determined by amp turns) can be had by Tesla's coil
                  example. If this were true, we should be able to
                  measure a difference in inductance for the bifilar vs
                  returned wind models. For the spirals tested, there
                  was no difference in inductance measurements between
                  one or the othher with increased internal capacity. So
                  I dont see how the windings could be anymore effective
                  with their use as electromagnets. Many commentators on
                  this patent have emerged, but no one has actually
                  commented on the fact as to whether they make a better
                  electromagnet. This would be a good thing to test for,
                  as to whether there is anything to the method itself.
                  I dont see any possible rationalizations for it to be
                  true however, but of course I could be wrong.
                  HDN


                  =====
                  Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                  http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                • Chuck Farrar
                  Hi all, Just a note, thanks for the clarification Harvey, and Dave I believe I recall you mentioning that you d like a formula to decipher coil strength ?
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 22, 2002
                    Hi all,
                       Just a note,   thanks for the clarification Harvey, and Dave I believe I recall you mentioning that you'd like a formula to decipher coil strength ? This may or may not be of interest to either of you.  www.quickfield.com or http://femm.berlios.de/ are both 2-3d magnetic field mock-ups assuming you have better math skills than I do. They also offer a free downloadable version to experiment with. Best of luck.
                       One other note along the lines of energizing a coil and trapping potential in it check this url    http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm
                                    regards, Chuck Farrar
                     

                    --- David Thomson <dave@...> wrote:
                    > Hi Harvey,
                    >
                    > The practical application of Tesla's "bifilar" coils
                    > was in increasing the
                    > magnetic strength of the coil.  Is there a formula
                    > for calculating the
                    > magnetic strength of a coil?  We might learn
                    > something from it.
                    >
                    > Dave


                    =====
                    Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                    http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    teslafy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • David Thomson
                    Hi Harvey, ... Let s see if we can find one. I ll bet my new physics model will handle it. ... I ll get brushed up a bit as we start laying the groundwork.
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 22, 2002
                      Hi Harvey,

                      >No model was presented for this electromagnet patent.

                      Let's see if we can find one. I'll bet my new physics model will handle it.

                      >I think that ratios of B/H have something to do with
                      >this also, but I'm pretty rusty in that magnetics field.

                      I'll get brushed up a bit as we start laying the groundwork.

                      >But in any case I just cant see how a special increase
                      >in magnemotive force, (mmf determined by amp turns) can
                      >be had by Tesla's coil example.

                      I have a web page up that is quite popular among children's science classes
                      around the world. It is a simple experiment that demonstrates Tesla's
                      "bifilar" wound electromagnetic coil.
                      http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm

                      >If this were true, we should be able to
                      >measure a difference in inductance for the bifilar vs
                      >returned wind models.

                      Maybe we will discover something is wrong with our magnetic model? That's
                      why I want to look at some equations first.

                      >For the spirals tested, there
                      >was no difference in inductance measurements between
                      >one or the othher with increased internal capacity. So
                      >I dont see how the windings could be anymore effective
                      >with their use as electromagnets.

                      And yet, if you actually build the experiment, you find it is true.

                      >This would be a good thing to test for,
                      >as to whether there is anything to the method itself.
                      >I dont see any possible rationalizations for it to be
                      >true however, but of course I could be wrong.

                      Give the experiment a try and report your findings.

                      Dave
                    • David Thomson
                      Hi Chuck, Thanks for posting the link to the Cook patent. I think I ll try building that. It doesn t look very difficult or time consuming. My immediate
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 22, 2002
                        Hi Chuck,
                         
                        Thanks for posting the link to the Cook patent.  I think I'll try building that.  It doesn't look very difficult or time consuming.  My immediate thought was the device would benefit by replacing the two separate iron cores with a looped laminated steel transformer core.  This way the magnetic flux would also be in a loop.  Maybe I'll try it with Tesla's improved electromagnet design.  I've got to go look for a transformer I can butcher.
                         
                        Dave
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Chuck Farrar [mailto:psymund@...]
                        Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 5:50 PM
                        To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [teslafy] True Meaning of Bifilar/ 2-d Bifilar Calculations

                        Hi all,
                           Just a note,   thanks for the clarification Harvey, and Dave I believe I recall you mentioning that you'd like a formula to decipher coil strength ? This may or may not be of interest to either of you.  www.quickfield.com or http://femm.berlios.de/ are both 2-3d magnetic field mock-ups assuming you have better math skills than I do. They also offer a free downloadable version to experiment with. Best of luck.
                           One other note along the lines of energizing a coil and trapping potential in it check this url    http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm
                                        regards, Chuck Farrar
                         

                        --- David Thomson <dave@...> wrote:
                        > Hi Harvey,
                        >
                        > The practical application of Tesla's "bifilar" coils
                        > was in increasing the
                        > magnetic strength of the coil.  Is there a formula
                        > for calculating the
                        > magnetic strength of a coil?  We might learn
                        > something from it.
                        >
                        > Dave


                        =====
                        Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                        http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        teslafy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        teslafy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • xyme3@aol.com
                        In a message dated 12/21/2002 4:18:31 PM, harvich@yahoo.com writes:
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 31, 2002
                          In a message dated 12/21/2002 4:18:31 PM, harvich@... writes:

                          << The generator might act as if it were
                          driving an open ended coil, and no return current from the coil load
                          means no lenz law, and no lenz law means minimal work to turn the
                          field rotor! Then if we wished to make this coil the primary of an
                          air core transformer, the secondaries could output energy also with
                          no lenz law effect on the primary, which typically makes a primary
                          draw more amperage the moment we load down the secondary. IN FACT, we
                          might even also make this into a longitudinal embodiment on the air
                          core transformer itself, just as I have done in the jpeg with huge
                          induction coils as the air core primary, where the secondary coil
                          being scoped out, is in the wrong angle to recieve flux change from
                          the magnetic field source. That additionally implies that the primary
                          would not get "loaded down" from the secondaries amperage draw, and
                          then the secondaries could be wound orthogonally at right angles over
                          that special 2-d bifilar primary coil. But to accomplish that we
                          would need a resonant bifilar arc gapped resonance that puts out high
                          frequency, and we have negotiated any high frequency out of the
                          picture here, so that does sound a little unfeasible, so conventional
                          air core transformation sounds more resonable. >>

                          A most interesting discourse on the bifilar coil. I have read it several
                          times and still do not follow some of it. I am somewhat of an amature in the
                          field, however have done some reading about Wardencliff. I have wound a
                          couple of "bifilar coils" and found them to have electromagnetic properties.
                          It is my understanding that electromagnets increase in strength relative to
                          the current in an electromagnetic. As we note from your astute calculations
                          the capacity in a bifilar coil increases greatly with each wind. If i follow
                          your reasoning I would suspect that additional increases would occur in a
                          stack of bifilar coils.
                          I would request, if you have the time, that you do calculations for the
                          following example. Suppose we have two 250 foot rolls of #12 wire wound in a
                          dual spiral. On top of that layer we continue to add additional identical
                          layers until the height is equal to the diameter of the coils. I estimate it
                          would take a 3 foot diameter coil to wind two spirals.
                          288 layers of coils would equal to 3 foot in height. In the Wardencliff
                          project the primary was connected to a disruptor coil tank circuit on one
                          end, and if my speculation is correct, the primary was grounded to 16 lake
                          sized capacitors.
                          Paul
                        • harvey norris
                          ... I would also request that you do the calculations also. They have these things called guardian angels who have aided me against man and his police
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 31, 2002
                            --- xyme3@... wrote:
                            > I would request, if you have the time, that you
                            > do calculations for the
                            > following example. Suppose we have two 250 foot
                            > rolls of #12 wire wound in a
                            > dual spiral. On top of that layer we continue to add
                            > additional identical
                            > layers until the height is equal to the diameter of
                            > the coils. I estimate it
                            > would take a 3 foot diameter coil to wind two
                            > spirals.
                            > 288 layers of coils would equal to 3 foot in height.
                            I would also request that you do the calculations
                            also. They have these things called "guardian angels"
                            who have aided me against "man and his police state."
                            The police state comes in to rob you of your assetts.
                            When it is possible for that to happen, get your
                            calculator out for duty. HDN
                            > In the Wardencliff
                            > project the primary was connected to a disruptor
                            > coil tank circuit on one
                            > end, and if my speculation is correct, the primary
                            > was grounded to 16 lake
                            > sized capacitors.
                            > Paul
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            =====
                            Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

                            __________________________________________________
                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                            http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                          • harvey norris
                            ... One can only guess for such a thing. The outside of the spiral windings would have more capacity between them then what the inside winds would have. The
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 1, 2003
                              --- xyme3@... wrote:
                              > I would request, if you have the time, that you
                              > do calculations for the
                              > following example. Suppose we have two 250 foot
                              > rolls of #12 wire wound in a
                              > dual spiral. On top of that layer we continue to add
                              > additional identical
                              > layers until the height is equal to the diameter of
                              > the coils. I estimate it
                              > would take a 3 foot diameter coil to wind two
                              > spirals.
                              > 288 layers of coils would equal to 3 foot in height.
                              > In the Wardencliff
                              > project the primary was connected to a disruptor
                              > coil tank circuit on one
                              > end, and if my speculation is correct, the primary
                              > was grounded to 16 lake
                              > sized capacitors.
                              > Paul
                              >
                              One can only guess for such a thing. The outside of
                              the spiral windings would have more capacity between
                              them then what the inside winds would have. The
                              predominant capacity would be between the layers. At
                              best we MIGHT find a 13 fold reduction in resonant
                              freq. So first we take the quarter wavelenght value.
                              250 ft * 288 layers = 72,000 ft =13.63 miles: this
                              would be the quarterwavelength, making the entire
                              wavelength 4 times that value, or 54.54 miles.
                              Dividing by the speed of light at 186,000 miles/sec
                              yeilds a cycle time of 2.93 * 10^-4 seconds, where the
                              inverse of this would be the frequency of 3410 hz. If
                              this were reduced 13 fold by the internal capacitance,
                              this would be the very low frequency of 262 hz. This
                              would qualify as a coil that might "trap" electrons in
                              the coil when driven at a frequency past that 262 hz.
                              Nothing is much known on these categories however. The
                              geometry of the spiral coils themselves,having zig zag
                              windings, and having the best inner diameter might be
                              large factors for this theorized resonant frequency
                              reduction. Undoubtably this is a very large coil.

                              Sincerely HDN


                              =====
                              Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

                              __________________________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                              http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                            • xyme3@aol.com
                              In a message dated 1/1/2003 2:40:16 PM, harvich@yahoo.com writes:
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jan 4, 2003
                                In a message dated 1/1/2003 2:40:16 PM, harvich@... writes:

                                << This
                                would qualify as a coil that might "trap" electrons in
                                the coil when driven at a frequency past that 262 hz. >>

                                Thank you for your reply. I will read through several times, as it is the
                                first time I have had time to look at calculations for the Tesla coil
                                primary. My primary interest is in Tesla turbine and disk generator designs
                                although particle acceleration is a fascination.
                                The above quote from your previous reply, leads me to speculate that
                                electrons might also be repelled from the field. I am interested to know if
                                you have looked at the Tesla carbon button experiments where several
                                different materials were subjected to disruptive discharge until particles
                                were repelled from the electrode. My somewhat uneducated guess is that
                                charged particles can be manipulated by the magnetic field and forced in a
                                known direction much as a solenoid is forced from a coil. It occurs to me
                                that the bifilar coils could be operated somewhat independently if each
                                individual coil were attached to an on off switch. I say "somewhat
                                independently" because of induced current in nearby coils.
                                Paul
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.