OverUnity Research

If theres a patent for a Device and at the end of the patent it lists 2 witnesses what did they witness, the signing of the patent or did they witness the device working.

I am talking about the Daniel Mcfarland patent.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=fE5rAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Witnesses were A.J.Mack & J.W.Jenner What have they witnessed ?

I find this device very interesting, Cook was a mad inventor, he made his money making a Sugar refiningtable, he died poor having put his fortune into an air ship.

more importantly the patent pre dates most electrical & electronic understanding, something happened in theory after the early 1900's which prohibits our thinking from being able to build a working OU device.

I feel all the answers are in the Cook device.
The way he connects the 2 sets of solenoid coils up is almost laughable, interestingly this was also the same comment when someone trained in the art watched Hendershot wire his device, chances are that if we knew how SM wired his TPU then we would probably say he was mad for wiring it the way he did as well, my point is, our electronic logic is stopping us from winding coils or connecting them in a fashion to produce OU because the way they need to be made and wired is so stupid we would never even bother trying.

Remember what SM said about it being right under our noses  O0

I am looking at the Daniel Cook coils and think to myself you idiot why would you wire a primary to a secondary and the the other primary to the other secondary and expect it to work, our training tells us this would never work, and on this basis i will come forward to say, this is the exact answer to OU, here lies in some way, a way to beat Lenzes law.

There are some interesting features of many of these OU devices they seem to use magnets and wire.
In the Cook device we know he uses large amounts of wire for the secondary, the thinner and longer the better, so again it goes against logic, we have large resistive losses here, we have 2 huge iron rods, guess what the Cook device sounds exactly like the Tesla Car generator, there are the 2 iron rods again.

There are similarties with the TPU and the Hendershot devices as well, and also as Poynt pointed out to me, Spherics used coils with large amounts of copper wire as well.

Thane used large amounts of copper wire along with the work Deepcut is doing on the Acceleration under load motor, interestingly this also works with transformers, no OU yet with this but it's an intersting effect most over look which only gives results with high resistance coils.

Also interestingly nearly all of these devices blame the magnetic earths field for producing the excess energy, there are more than one device where it has been stated that enormous amounts of energy can be harnessed from the earths magnetic field, yet all we can do is get a compass to align.

Well one thing i will say is that i have personally witnessed a valve filament be tugged at power on, and according to SM the earths field is responsible, there's no doubt it's quiet a tug.

Everyone knows that we cannot extract energy from the earths mag field so all these people with working devices are crazy because our knowledge makes us wiser and tells us it wont work.

I cant but help think that Cook in 1871 can do it even before Tesla invented AC electricity.

The way i see it is that our knowledge is stopping us from achieving our ultimate goal, we will never find OU until we study things that we find stupid.  >:(

The Cook device is the only device we have all the information on.
All replications so far have not realized the significance of an enormously long thin secondary  O0

Oh and also Cook used a high resistance in series to allow the coils to run at low potential, allowing them to tick over once intially started, Cook was pretty clever he had to mention the word battery to get the device started, he worded this very carefully to confuse the patent office and to get the device through the patent process, the simple fact he used a resistance to idle the device tells us it really was a free energy machine, if it relied on batteries all the time, then you would simply disconnect the battery LOL and reconnect when you wanted the device to run, this is not the case.
Funny enough Hendershot also used a high resistance in series with his windings, this it would appear to be a idle secondary circuit, when switched off, this resistance would allow just enough idle current to keep the device in operational condition, so that when the main switch was on the device would instantly operate. He was a lot more clever than Cook   ;)

One other thing about the Cook coils, the secondary coil has no wires at the end, the primary has 2 copper shorted turns at each end which have little taps on for connections, but if you look at these copper rings and the shading, you will also see copper rings on the inside these compress against the secondary coil for connection, this is why there are 2 secondary wires that appear to connect only to the primary as well.

So to recap, the primary has a shorted copper ring at each and, and also does the secondary, the secondary winding itself has no loose wire ends as such, isn't that interesting, because with each secondary we have excess wire which is thin and long, and not terminated, these could well be built in helical antennas or maybe used for capactive tuning, Tesla preferred to use a straight antenna instead, but then he had his coils mounted in a sealed box so no one could see how simple the device was.
You will also see that these helical coils are only at one end.

Happy thinking  O0

These two links are interesting but unsuccessful, but he might have done something incorrectly.
http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm

and an update on the above:
http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookUpDate.htm

Daniel's starting explanaiton from the patent:
The mode of producing or starting the action in the helices consists in the use of a steel or electromagnet, or a helix, around one of the helices, and causing a secondary current in the enclosed helix by means of a battery current in the outer one; the action then in either the simple or compound helices increases in quantity to the maximum capacity of the wires to conduct with the existing tension of the current. If, now, the circuit is broken the current instantly ceases, and can only be restored by the same means that it was first produced; hence to allow the use of the main circuit for common purposes I introduce a rheostat or resistance of any kind into the circuit, so that a small portion of the current only will flow along the resistance, by which means the action in the helices is feebly maintained when the main circuit is broken, and instantly restored when it is closed to its full force. By this means the action becomes in effect the same as the common battery currents, and may be used for similar purposes. For the purpose of preventing the heating of the helices caused by the intensity of the action, and to prevent circulation of the initial secondary currents in the main circuit, a rheostat of any convenient form may be made to constitute a part of the main circuit D. The alternate changes of the iron cores or magnets may be used for producing electro-magnetic motion, or motion to a wheel of any suitable device.

This excerpt from the patent is interesting:

A ribbon spiral may be substituted for the secondary helix, say of three, six, twelve, or twenty-four inches in width and of any convenient length, but always of sufficient length to raise the tension of the terminal current to a degree necessary to reproduce itself by its action on the primary helix. In the use of compound helices it is important that the secondary coil should be wound on in the same direction as the primary coil, and that the poles or wires should be connected to the opposite poles of the primary coil B.

Cook's patent for improvements in galvanic batteries:

http://www.google.com/patents/US110206

Harold Aspden on Cook's coil device:

http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org-uk/3.html

A blurb about Cook's air machine and loss of his fortune:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pswAU6UsA0YC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=daniel+mcfarland+cook&source=bl&ots=2DOTLHNOe3&sig=nM0vBYETtCzx3MjDGz4WZXbC2Hs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R3nrUMq6Kcb6rQGLpYDwCw&ved=0CH8Q6AEwDw#v=onepage&q=daniel%20mcfarland%20cook&f=false

Quote from: Peterae
If there's a patent for a Device and at the end of the
patent it lists 2 witnesses what did they witness,
the signing of the patent or did they witness the
device working.

Witness to Signature is a legal process which may
still be used today.  This is the most common meaning
of the two witness signatures following the signature
of the claimant.

Quote from: The Free Dictionary
...
b. One who is called on to be present at a transaction
in order to attest to what takes place.
c. One who signs one's name to a document for the
purpose of attesting to its authenticity.

@Grumpy
Thanks for the links, there was one that I have never read before.
You know I have read this patent 20 or more times and I still like it and I still learn something new every time I read it. It like it because there is nothing there, it is simply two transformers which have been cross wired as anyone can plainly see. However intuitively we know this is not true, intuitively we know this is not the case because of the way the author describes the device and it's actions. Intuitively we know these are the words of a person who has spent a great deal of time and effort perfecting this device and refining it's actions to the point where it verges on a form of art.

I like this device because it takes the term expertise to a new level, imagine the skill required to create a circuit which self-oscillates, which self-resonates without switching of any kind relying solely on the properties of the components and the qualities of the currents within it. Personally I know of no expert who has this level of understanding let alone the skills required to make it a reality and from some of the related experiments I have done this is very much harder than it appears.

As well there is the language barrier and the term "current" or "currents" was used in a general sense to describe many things at the time of this patent. It should also be noted that he refers to the coil B as the primary which we intuitively see as the secondary and the secondary C which we see as the primary of fewer and heavier turns. He also makes reference to a main circuit D which is not present in the patent and which I have yet to see.

AC

Good find Grumpy i was not aware of the battery patent.

The ribbon spiral is interesting, especially if your iron rods are 24 inches long and you wind your ribbon using 24 inch wide copper ribbon  O0

Yeah i had seen that replication, his primary wire does not look thick enough, it would appear it is important to minimize it's resistance, it also looks like he connects at the end of the secondaries and does not place a shorting ring.

Cheers Dumped, yes i guess that's what it probably means but was not sure if the device could be witnessed as working, wishful thinking on my part  C.C

When I look at the patent drawings of the Cook device, I interpret compound wound coils to have a different meaning. In other words, the wire is first wound on a small diameter former to create the first helix, then this is first helix is wound around the iron rods to produce the second helix and what looks similar to the patent drawing. This is my interpretation of "compound wound".

He states "My invention relates to the combination of two or more simple or compound helices" etc.

Years ago I considered this and wound some coils in this manner. I did not experiment with large iron cores, perhaps this is necessary. I did not have any material on hand to make the iron cores 2 to 3 inches in diameter and 2, 3 or 6 feet in length. Interesting that he states that using a bundle of fine iron wires is much better than a solid bar. It seems eddy current losses were possibly a factor, but this would imply a frequency of oscillation, not DC

To my knowledge, no one else has approached it from this observation. This is an unusual winding technique and should be further explored as the fields are twisted in an interesting way. I find this patent intriguing and hope to give a better try at replication.

Maybe soft steel hanger wire straightened and packed into a tube would work as the core.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.01.08, 01:57:07
Harold Aspden on Cook's coil device:

http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org-uk/3.html

A blurb about Cook's air machine and loss of his fortune:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pswAU6UsA0YC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=daniel+mcfarland+cook&source=bl&ots=2DOTLHNOe3&sig=nM0vBYETtCzx3MjDGz4WZXbC2Hs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R3nrUMq6Kcb6rQGLpYDwCw&ved=0CH8Q6AEwDw#v=onepage&q=daniel%20mcfarland%20cook&f=false

Aspden describes the linear config like a kunel or hendershot.

Thanks for the Link GK

ION well spotted i was trying to work out what he meant by compound, well that makes sense, i was trying to work out how a 1000ft of wire could be wound on a 24 inch iron rod, if it's axially wound first then that would be feasible, i wonder if an iron wire was used for the copper to be wound axially first.

Dam every time i think there is enough info to try a build, i always end up with a 100 ways to build something, very frustrating.

One thing i have been asking myself, is there any difference between modern materials and 1871 materials.

and i would say there is possibly a difference between soft iron and steel, iron losses all magnetism at rest, steel will hold a magnetic field.

Cook says compound or simply wound.   

I think he uses compound to mean wound from one end with several overlapping turns, rather than in long layers from end to end. 

This lowers the capacitance between the windings.

His primary is the inner coil of finer wire.  Primary and secondary wound in the same direction.

Get this

I just zoomed into the coil picture and counted the turns

Visible turns
C=23
b=61

but B has 5 turns sticking above coil C that gives us b=56 turns for the full length of C but C has 2 end rings for connection, these are equivalent of 5 B turns each end so if we now subtract our 2 end cap turns of 10 from the 56 which are left we get 46 which just so happens to be twice the turns of coil C  O0

We have now established the coils in the patent must be compound coils, so we have a 2:1 ratio with 5 turns as an antenna at the top of B, the copper end rings are on both coils so these compound 5 turns each end of Coil B get shorted in a very strange way as they get contacted by the copper ring.

I guess compound could also means litz

I thought i would search early patents that use compound wound coils.

I found this one
http://www.google.com/patents/US546756?pg=PA8&dq=compound+coil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FX3sULe1FvGY1AW9rIDoCg&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=compound%20coil&f=false

Read from 35 onwards.

I will keep looking

per a dictionary, compound winding is a combination of series and shunt winding

I remember playing with the Cook coils a few years ago but no OU results.  Maybe my coil was too small.


Take a look at the graphic I drew up, and copied some of the relevant text from the patent.    Notice that the coils will develop the same magnetic fields polarity.  I underlined the text that leads me to this belief.  If you don't get it think about it some more.  


To start the device just induce a magnetic field between the coils and it will start.


edit:   I added another diagram illustrating the "simple" arrangement, with just two coils on two cores.   Also I'm showing the starting circuit.  If you analyze the curent and polarities,  it will be apparent that the magnetic field of one core will induce in the other the correct current shown, which builds up the magnetic field even more, so Cook really thought this thing out pretty good.  But there is a problem, when he current gets to the max, then once the magnetic field begins to decrease it decreases at a faster and faster rate, just like it went up.   It's basically a system with gain and it works both ways,  positive feedback on the way up and positive feedback on the way down.  


Actually, I think it's an over unity system if used properly.  We kick start with the smallest flux and energy, and it builds up from there on its own to the maximum possible level, perhaps until core saturation, at which point we need to disconnect and reap the benefits (capture the kickback) before the magnetic field starts to decrease again on its own and rapidly too due to the positive feedback.  :)

I will yield to the current definition of "compound coils".

Does anyone have the definition of a helix comprised of a sub-helix? compound helix?

I guess progress on the Cook coil arrangement can only be had when the correct large core is part of the assembly.

Perhaps a critical mass of core / inductance is required to get an over unity factor when other losses such as wire resistance is taken into account.

Anyone have good ideas to build such a core from easily obtainable materials?

When one reads the patent, the inventor seems sincere and appears to explain actual results, not theoretical results.

I guess it's time to move all this to the Cook coil thread, and a task for the new year......build this devil.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.09, 03:27:06
...

Actually, I think it's an over unity system if used properly
...

As I see no logic theory, no quantified estimation, no experiment giving the least clue of OU,

Actually, I think it's not an over unity system even if used properly

The truth being proportional to the police size and the color of the claim, I beat you at your own game, EM.   ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: ION on 2013.01.09, 15:20:30
I will yield to the current definition of "compound coils".

Does anyone have the definition of a helix comprised of a sub-helix? compound helix?

I think that there is no definition because there are many ways to build helix compounds. I saw here and there different sorts of helix, some being double helix like dna, others being crossing helix at an angle, 90 deg being a very interesting configuration that generates a transverse field instead of being along the winding cylinder, others being variable, to spatially modulate or rotate a field...

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=33.0;attach=2309)
Compound of 3 layers on a single wire iron core and a virtual ground around the outside.

Quote
I like this device because it takes the term expertise to a new level, imagine the skill required to create a circuit which self-oscillates, which self-resonates without switching of any kind relying solely on the properties of the components and the qualities of the currents within it. Personally I know of no expert who has this level of understanding let alone the skills required to make it a reality and from some of the related experiments I have done this is very much harder than it appears.

HA HA HA HA, funny you should mention this. I am actually working on a completely passive transformer "network" which self oscillates, doubles its own frequency, and then injects the two harmonically related frequencies into a mag amp transformer for parametric conversion. No transistors, switching of any kind. Give me a ring and we can discuss.

I agree ION. i can feel a build coming soon, i am currently also working on a plan.
I will move this thread tomorrow when i get some time to it's own board and thread.

I will use bundles of bare soft iron wire, varnished and wrapped 2 inch diameter 24 inch long, wrapped with paper & glue.

I want to find a way to build the coils so they are interchangeable, maybe wrap them on a carboard tube and drop them over the core etc.

Today i have sent an email to someone where Cook lived to see if the community knows of any information or pictures regarding the device, he had a picture posted on the web of Cooks flying machine that ultimately bankrupted Cook, the flying machine capsule still survives

Enjoy this video  ^-^
http://vimeo.com/31399217

Quote from: ION on 2013.01.09, 15:20:30
I will yield to the current definition of "compound coils".

Does anyone have the definition of a helix comprised of a sub-helix? compound helix?

I agree with your definition for "compound coil" ION. I have somewhere some info on this type of coil, but I have not yet found it.

Part of the reason I have not pursued the Cook Coil invention, is because of the ambiguity involved in deciphering his patent. No one can seem to agree on what he means by the terminology used.

tao studied this patent a great deal, and he was not able to decipher it to sufficient certainty either.

You guys don't see it?  

The way the McFarland coils are wired is intended to create a stable point, or equilibrium point, at a high flux / current condition, where both coils produce the SAME POLARITY magnetic field.   The other mode is when the flux of one coil loops through the core of the other coil to form a closed loop, but this mode (odd mode) is suppressed by the way the coils are wired.  (see diagram below)

I studied this patent closely years ago, and came to the conclusion that the guy was simply wishing for something that is not possible.  He does not understand how transformers work, and this is evident from the language and the description.    For example, he does not address the basics of how induction works, that a CHANGING magnetic flux is what generates a voltage in the coils, and when the flux does not increase anymore, the voltage drops to zero, or he says nothing about the magnetization current required in a transformer.  My conclusion was that it is just a theoretical concept that somebody though of but never really got it to work because the theory he had was erroneous.

However, having said that, I try to learn something from everything, even a worthless patent and new thoughts can be born.   So,  if we approach the problem with the spirit that Daniel Cook had, we can now engineer a starting system for the coils that build up in flux on their own.  My objection is that his system of coils as described in the patent does not produce DC as he seems to claim, but it is an unstable electrical component which can be used to advantage.

I'll give you guys an example.   A magnet that approaches a ferromagnetic material is attracted to it and energy increases.  This is free energy from the atomic realm.  So even though this is a one way street, ( because it takes the same amount of energy to remove it,)  now with a coil system replacing the magnet, we can simulate this approaching behavior then after the attraction and energy increase is complete, we can "break" the magnet or disable it and thus remove it with no energy input.  Now we can repeat the cycle.  

So,  this configuration "works" but it requires an ingenious application.  It is only a small part required to play a role in a bigger system.

EM


PS.    EX,  if a system of coils or magnetic material increases in magnetization all by itself,  energy has increased. This is exactly what an unstable coil system can achieve as wired in the patent.  This is what we call a NEGATIVE inductance inductor.     So when we apply a voltage to the inductor (on a third winding)  the voltage developed at the terminals is the negative of the back EMF, so it aids the current instead of trying to stop it, so the current increases some more. It is a positive feedback loop.

chew on that for a while.



edit:  I added the graphic below to illustrate the two magnetization modes.  Even vs Odd.  The way the coils are wired it prefers the EVEN mode, even though it is the higher energy mode.

I actually have doubts that the single coils configuration works,  it has to be the double helix coils configuration with a primary and secondary!  (even though he says in the patent that it works as well but needs to be longer)

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.10, 02:31:25
You guys don't see it?  

I think this coil arrangement can only work if there is some aspect of these perpetually changing, back and forth, currents in the coils that we are not aware of.  If the currents are high voltage in the primary and high current in the secondary, one could hypothesize that there is a hv spike in the primary superimposed on a magnetic field in the secondary.  This might (I have my doubts) produce additional current through non-inductive means (non-inductive current drive).  I see no other way to account for Cook's claims, as there is no mechanism for gain in conventional electromagnetic induction.  Output would be predominantly DC since the coils/fields are the same direction and the large core probably had a fair amount of (insert word for retained magnetism).

Welding rods are typically 36" long.  10 lbs for about $50.
http://www.fastenal.com/web/search/product/welding/welding-rods-and-wire/brazing-rods/_/Navigation?searchterm=&sortby=webrank&sortdir=descending&searchmode=&refine=~|categoryl1:%22600974%20Welding%22|~%20~|categoryl2:%22601020%20Welding%20Rods%20and%20Wire%22|~%20~|categoryl3:%22609989%20Brazing%20Rods%22|~%20~|sattr01:^%22Mild%20Steel%22$|~

Cook speaks of a bundle of wires several feet long and 3 inches in diameter - that's a pretty large core.  Can we guesstimate the inductive properties that he might have had with this and use a more permeable material to make it smaller?  He says the wires give better action that a solid bar - so he must have tried it.

You can tape the rods/wires to hold them together, but you'll want to rig up a way to rotate it to wind the wires.  I'd start with single layers for each as a test.  You can easily get 1000+ feet on a large core like that.

these guys developed passive NEGATIVE inductors,  O0      Now, will they figure out how to achieve OU?    

http://www.udayton.edu/research/_resources/docs/documents/tech_pdfs/UD488_Negative_Inductance.pdf


Damn,  look at figure 6 in the paper,  the negative inductance begins at DC and quickly transitions to positive values at higher frequencies.  The more layers of aluminum and copper we have the higher the bandwidth for negative inductance.



@Grumpy

QuoteI see no other way to account for Cook's claims, as there is no mechanism for gain in conventional electromagnetic induction

that's why he uses a primary and secondary coil, to step up the voltage,  that's a voltage gain!


I often wonder if perhaps the patent tries to describe a magnetic holder, just a storage device for energy.   :-\

[edit:  I'm seeing something very interesting.  I'll have to do a more detailed analysis tomorrow.]

Armagdn03

QuoteHA HA HA HA, funny you should mention this. I am actually working on a completely passive transformer "network" which self oscillates, doubles its own frequency, and then injects the two harmonically related frequencies into a mag amp transformer for parametric conversion. No transistors, switching of any kind. Give me a ring and we can discuss.

A mag amp transformer well that makes perfect sense now that I think about it. I have been testing delay lines with feedback loops however I cannot seem to produce the proper field biasing to have the secondaries self-oscillate. Crap I think I just found my answer while thinking about it, lol. The issue with switches is they always form a resistive node at the junction and always act just like a resistance which dissipates energy at the node. This is not the case with impedance where we are storing energy in a different form which does not dissipate energy. I will have to give you a ring.

Regards
AC

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.10, 02:31:25
...
PS.    EX,  if a system of coils or magnetic material increases in magnetization all by itself,  energy has increased. This is exactly what an unstable coil system can achieve as wired in the patent.  This is what we call a NEGATIVE inductance inductor.
...

I know that. It's a tautology, negative inductance <=> positive reaction <=> energy input.
"If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle!". You go around in circles. The fact is that there is not a "positive feedback loop" neither experimentally nor theoretically.

Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.10, 07:18:49
...
I have been testing delay lines with feedback loops however I cannot seem to produce the proper field biasing to have the secondaries self-oscillate.
...

A self-oscillation needs a positive reaction and therefore energy coming from somewhere. We must get an idea about the possible source of energy input in order to design such circuits. To do it at random leave us with poor chances to win (the patents are not reliable).

From that video i posted there is no doubt he was primarily a builder, i wonder how he powered the bulbs in that building 10 years before Edison invented the bulb.

EM you say he does not appear to understand transformers and inductors, well yer it's not surprising in 1871, i think this is the whole point, once everyone understands transformers and inductors you would probably never use 2 inch cores 2 foot or longer and connect 2 back to back to generate free energy, with basic transformer understanding everyone would think you are mad.

If you want to know where the power came from to fuel the Cook Generator, Tesla Car, Hendershot Generator, Steve Marks TPU and Moray device then read this from Moray

QuoteMoray: 'It was during the Christmas holidays of 1911 that I began to realize the fact that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature but of an oscillating nature, and that the energy was not coming out of the Earth but that it rather was coming in to the Earth from some outside source.'

So if we were to start looking for a natural oscillation where would we look, i think we would know by now if it was above 1Hz what about sub Hz are the background energy charts we can look at that cover the full spectrum, i suppose you could say light is a natural energy in the form of a frequency.

Edit
From the TPU i think we can work on the basis that this energy is under 500kHz in frequency, our air ways are so full of crap these days i bet it's not easy to find a natural source of EM waves, i would bet the military have put a no go zone tag on this frequency if there is one, maybe HARP is a blocker  >:-)

I've been looking at A.J.Mack who witnessed Cooks invention, when doing a search i came across this patent for a wagon seat also Witnessed by A.J.Mack and again the inventor lived in Mansfield, also notice Jenner is there also as a witness but this time it is Jno Jenner.

I cannot find these witnesses again on any other patents.

Interestingly there appear to be 2 sets of witnesses on this patent, one set by the diagram and our 2 at the end of the explanation.

http://www.google.com/patents/US143086?pg=PA2&dq=aj+mack&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uabuUOPjA8uY1AXx9oDIDA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=aj%20mack&f=false

EDIT OK i found Mack he was a probate Judge
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ohrichla/POP/Bench/Mack.htm

and
Jenner was also a Judge

QuoteHe then formed a partnership with Judge J.W. Jenner

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ohrichla/NN-MDS18921110.htm

I have also found Cook on the 1880 Census, Crikey his wife is half his age, must have been all that money  >:-)
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M8SV-8S4

"The energy" is already all around us.  It's not a battery that can be tapped easily by merely applying two wires.

Electrons spin.  How can use that to our advantage?

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.10, 03:26:07
these guys developed passive NEGATIVE inductors,  O0      Now, will they figure out how to achieve OU?    

http://www.udayton.edu/research/_resources/docs/documents/tech_pdfs/UD488_Negative_Inductance.pdf

That spiral micro inductor on page 5 looks uncommonly like a Tesla pancake coil.

I am thinking that these Compound Helix coils are just Helix wound coils, because he says here

QuoteFigure 1 represents the different parts of a compound Helix

, so it takes B & C to make 1 compound Helix, he says you need 2 or more which we have in Figure 2

Simple or Compound Helix, i see this as meaning it to be feasible to use just an iron core with one coil but then you would need 4 in total 2 with B coils and 2 with C coils.

I think it means you need 2 coils & Cores for using simple coils which is equivalent to 1 compound coil

He then goes on to say you need several helices  :D

He also says

QuoteThe poles of the two helices being connected the action is the same as in the compound helices there being but four currents developed two initial

I interpret this to mean, if simple coils are used then we would have 2 separate B coils & Cores and 2 Separate C Coils & Cores, and what he is saying here is that if simple coils are used then the poles would be connected, or to put it another way the iron core of B1 would mate with the core of C1 and like wise for B2 & C2

We would end up with 1 long iron bar twice the length with B on one half and C on the other

Here is the text of the patent:

To Whom It May Concern:

Be it known that I, Daniel McFarland Cook, of Mansfield, in the county of Richland and State of Ohio, have invented an Electro-Magnetic Battery, of which the following is a specification:

My invention relates to the combination of two or more simple or compound helices and iron cores or magnets in such a manner as to produce a constant electric current without the aid of a galvanic battery.

Figure 1 represents the different parts of a compound helix and iron core. Fig. 2 is a perspective view of my invention.

In carrying out my invention I do not confine myself to a particular mode of constructing a helix or helices, or to any particular size of wire, observing only that the quantity of wire in the several helices is sufficient to produce the results, using less or more wire in the helices to suit the purpose for which they are designed; also using such material for insulating the helices as will secure a proper action.

I prefer, however, in common , to use the same size of wire in the construction of either simple or compound helices.

In the use of the simple helices for convenience, and to favor the insulation in the resistance to obtain a sufficient tension and quantity of current for action, it is desirable to use a long iron core, A, Fig. 1, say two, three, or even six feet in length, and two, three, or more inches in diameter; also a large copper wire of good conductive quality, the wire being well insulated with silk, shellac, or paraffin only, the latter being objectionable as it is liable to be melted by the heating of the helix while in action.

The iron core A may be a solid bar or a bundle of iron wire, the latter giving higher tension to the current with equal length and fineness of wire. In any event the wire may be fine or coarse; but I prefer to use No. 16, or even heavier wire, as the result is powerful in proportion to the size and length of the wire.

In the use of the compound helices it is preferable, in some cases, to use a small wire, say No.30, or even less, for a primary helix, and No.16, or even larger, for a secondary helix. By this combination the initial secondary current of the primary helix being very small in quantity in comparison to the terminal secondary current of the secondary helix offers but little resistance to the terminal secondary, hence a quicker action is secured; or the primary helix may be made of un-insulated wire coiled into a solid helix, being insulated only between the coils, in which case there is but little or no opposing initial secondary current.

Helices alone with large quantities of wire will produce similar results. A ribbon spiral may be substituted for the secondary helix, say of three, six, twelve, or twenty-four inches in width and of any convenient length, but always of sufficient length to raise the tension of the terminal current to a degree necessary to reproduce itself by its action on the primary helix.

In the use of compound helices it is important that the secondary coil should be wound on in the same direction as the primary coil, and that the poles or wires should be connected to the opposite poles of the primary coil B.
The action will then be as follows:

• The terminal secondary current of the secondary helix C will circulate through the opposite primary coil B, while at the same instant a terminal secondary current from the primary helix B will be developed and circulate through the opposite secondary helix C, both currents flowing in the same direction in the opposite helices B C, and produce a combined magnetic action upon the iron bar A in the center
  
• 
  The opposing initial secondary currents of the two helices B C being overpowered do not manifest themselves in the main circuit D of the battery, there being eight distinct currents developed in the action of one entire circuit of the two pairs of helices, two terminal and two initial secondary currents to each pair of helices, the four initial secondaries constantly opposing the circulation of the four terminal secondary currents
  
• 
  (but) the initial secondaries being of much lower tension and less in quantity than the terminal secondary are consumed or taken up by the terminal, leaving a sufficient surplus terminal to overcome the resistance of the primary wire and charge the bar A to a degree necessary to reproduce itself in an opposite secondary coil.
  
• 
  By this means a constant current is kept up in the several helices.
  

The coils may be composed of from five hundred to one thousand feet or more primary coil, and less or more secondary coil, in any event the more coil and the better the insulation the more powerful the result.

In the use of simple helices, or two coils only, any size wire may be used, only so that the insulation is effectual and the quantity of wires is sufficient. The longer and the larger the wire or coil the more powerful the result, one thousand or more feet being preferable.

The poles of the two helices being connected the action is the same as in the compound helices, there being but four currents developed, two initial and two terminal currents, the latter flowing constantly in the same direction – in effect there being but one current in the same direction.

The mode of producing or starting the action in the helices consists in:

the use of a steel or electromagnet, or a helix, around one of the helices, and causing a secondary current in the enclosed helix by means of a battery current in the outer one;

the action then in either the simple or compound helices increases in quantity to the maximum capacity of the wires to conduct with the existing tension of the current.

If, now, the circuit is broken the current instantly ceases, and can only be restored by the same means that it was first produced; hence to allow the use of the main circuit for common purposes I introduce a rheostat or resistance of any kind into the circuit, so that a small portion of the current only will flow along the resistance, by which means the action in the helices is feebly maintained when the main circuit is broken, and instantly restored when it is closed to its full force.

By this means the action becomes in effect the same as the common battery currents, and may be used for similar purposes. For the purpose of preventing the heating of the helices caused by the intensity of the action, and to prevent circulation of the initial secondary currents in the main circuit, a rheostat of any convenient form may be made to constitute a part of the main circuit D.

The alternate changes of the iron cores or magnets may be used for producing electro-magnetic motion, or motion to a wheel of any suitable device.

Having described my invention, what I claim as new, and desire to secure by Letters Patent, is –

The combination of two or more simple or compound helices, in the manner and for the purpose set forth.

================================================================================

What is "main circuit D"?

Grumpy asks:

QuoteWhat is "main circuit D"?

It appears this drawing was not included with the patent, but should have been.

On another note, I was once told that long iron cores produce a more powerful magnetic field versus short cores for the same number of turns and current. Early telephone relays used long cores, especially for stepping relay or sensitive applications, where low input current was required to produce a powerful driving force.

This is not fact but remains to be tested. I will have to examine the formula for iron core solenoids. If it is true, perhaps the long core length  of the Cook coils was a factor in getting some type of large scale domain avalanche effect, which could be utilized in his feedback arrangement to provide the supposed output.

In this case, perhaps it would seem to be a magnetic "flip flop" running at some unknown low frequency, probably under 100 Hz. based on the size of the inductance involved.  

The quote from Moray which Peterae provided:

Quote from: Moray
'It was during the Christmas holidays of 1911 that I
began to realize the fact that the energy I was working
with was not of a static nature but of an oscillating
nature, and that the energy was not coming out of the
Earth but that it rather was coming in to the Earth
from some outside source.'

is absolutely correct.  Some few are able to summon this
energy while the vast majority are not.  It is not so much
a matter of the type of circuitry one employs, but rather
some other mysterious means.  It seems that the ability
to tap into the "supernatural" is some sort of "gift;"
It is the "person" and not the "tool" which makes it
happen.

Quote from: ION on 2013.01.10, 18:45:43
large scale domain avalanche effect

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/burn-magnet-burn
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/07/magnetic-avalanches-could-harm-hard-drives/

Would the sudden domain flip along a rod be like firing a magnet through the coil around the rod?

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.01.10, 21:33:41
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/burn-magnet-burn
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/07/magnetic-avalanches-could-harm-hard-drives/

Would the sudden domain flip along a rod be like firing a magnet through the coil around the rod?

Maybe like a magnet rotating as it moves linearly, I don't know, but the link you found is very interesting:

QuoteThe group still doesn't entirely understand what conditions set off the avalanche. "It's a probabilistic event," explains Sarachik. "We sweep the magnetic field and then at some field it goes boom, and you can't predict it." But in the same way that a fire requires energy to sustain itself, the "ignition" of a magnetic avalanche also seems to require a magnetic field of a certain strength; near the threshold energy it peters out partway through the crystal. "It's like a fire that goes out before it finishes its fuel," says Sarachik. However, once there is successful ignition, when the molecular magnets's spins in one area flip over to line up with the external magnetic field, they release energy that helps the next section to flip as well, propagating the process.

It propagates in the meter per second range - not so fast that nothing happens - a rather nice rate for induction into coils.

Cook doesn't mention a threshold of any sort but he does talk about the coils getting hot and the current rising to the capacity of the wire.  So, did he discover some easily reproduced mechanism for producing a magnetic avalanche in long cores.  Makes you wonder if everything is in the patent.

hmm...

Might the interaction of the two coils, one with many fine windings - the other with few large windings, be the cause of the magnetic avalanche?

We need a drawing showing "Main Circuit D".

================================
EDIT:
the use of a large core supports the idea that the domains in the core avalanche, aligning more and more of them with a small triggering event.

If you pulse the primary, having many more turns, what will you see in the secondary?

There is paper describing magnetic avalanche in non-exotic materials attached.

I wonder if such effects are noted in large steel structures?

I think that Main Circuit D is another coil wrapped around one of the cores with the two coils, and that this circuit can also be used to start the action with a battery attached.

Man circuit D could be around both coils - not so sure about that though.

QuoteWould the sudden domain flip along a rod be like firing a magnet through the coil around the rod?

Why that sounds like an EMP!

I don't think Circuit D is anything other than the starting circuit, consisting of a switch, battery and 1 over wind for one coil.

I think 'main circuit D' is nothing more than the load and the connection means to Cook's 'battery' or other batteries.

It is interesting to research the older patents because so many terms meant something different at the time.

'Magnet wire' is one of them. What we know as magnet wire didn't exist until the very early 20th century. Before then, a reference to magnet wire may have meant magnetizable wire or any wire that could carry current and be used to make an electromagnet.

'Main' or 'Mains' is another. 'Main' referred to the battery set main bus where each battery was connected or the terminal points of the battery for connecting the load.

In the U.S. we use the term 'Line' referring to the utility electric grid while other locations still use the term 'mains' to refer to the grid.

All interesting but I think the poor man just didn't know how a transformer worked.

Quote from: ION on 2013.01.11, 00:02:19
There is paper describing magnetic avalanche in non-exotic materials attached.

I wonder if such effects are noted in large steel structures?

...much appreciated.

I've been looking for that paper (in an unrelated application) since I misplaced it 2 years ago.

Mookie

Quote from: Peterae on 2013.01.11, 07:22:33
I don't think Circuit D is anything other than the starting circuit, consisting of a switch, battery and 1 over wind for one coil.

I've printed out the text and images to go through carefully.  I think "main circuit D" is a missing link to the device and that this circuit may have been both the DC output and also provided a magnetic bias to one of the cores to keep the device working.  Cook also states that the core can be a permanent magnet or an electromagnet. The effect that he utilizes appears to be the same effect that I also have seen when pulsing a large air-core coil with HV, and holding a magnet near it.

MIB's been at the diagram with a rubber  >:-)

This is where a versatile construction method could be handy, if the coils are made removable then the core could be slipped out and magnets added in place, or new coils tried.

I am trying to knock up some software to do the maths on the coils, turns, wire gauge, length, diameter etc so i can see the inductance and wire length etc.

Whats the correct inductance formula for a iron core solenoid coil, u=200 for iron, so far i have found 3 slightly different formula.

OK, after stewing over the patent and diagram, here are my conclusions:

1. compound helices are what is shown in the diagram with one coil over the other
2. simple helix is just a single coil, he says two can be used with the poles connected together (he doesn't say crossed polarity)  The simple coils have to very very large.
3. main circuit D is the circuit of the coils, this get's the rheostat, but maintains the perpetual action of the coils (yeah, that's hard to believe...)
4. the starting circuit or action is just an inductive pulse to one of the coils

Brilliant Grumpy  O0
That's exactly what i think.

The rheostat is simple to grasp, the initial spark from the battery starts oscillation, this means we are not picking up any ambient signals, but i suppose it could be interacting with the earth's field.

Once started the battery can be removed, if the device needs to be stopped, he allows a residual amount of current to recirculate in the coils to allow them to keep functioning but on a very low level, this almost means that when you draw a large amount power the device provides it alone and runs hotter.

It sounds as if it truly defeats lenz law when in operation, although it maybe stealing energy from a magnet as well.

It has been known that some early generators used the earth to start stator coils. it maybe possible that hendershot also used the same process but instead used the earths field to start it.

The thing that keeps me going on this bazaar Cook coil is that Tesla used 2 iron rods in his device, i wonder if Tesla had any patents that use very large cores and amounts of fine wire.
It is also possible the effect is increased by winding in Tesla bifilar method.

OK i am pretty sure this is the Inductance formula i want

It might be if it told how it calculated it  :)

This is a good read:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ASUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA173&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

The implications may apply here. Start at section 5 page 198, but the prior pages also are valued. Lots of good practical inf throughout.

Thanks for that, I hate scrolling Google books online.

Whats this mean

QuoteLong Range Order in Ferromagnets

The long range order which creates magnetic domains in ferromagnetic materials arises from a quantum mechanical interaction at the atomic level. This interaction is remarkable in that it locks the magnetic moments of neighboring atoms into a rigid parallel order over a large number of atoms in spite of the thermal agitation which tends to randomize any atomic-level order. Sizes of domains range from a 0.1 mm to a few mm. When an external magnetic field is applied, the domains already aligned in the direction of this field grow at the expense of their neighbors. If all the spins were aligned in a piece of iron, the field would be about 2.1 Tesla. A magnetic field of about 1 T can be produced in annealed iron with an external field of about 0.0002 T, a multiplication of the external field by a factor of 5000! For a given ferromagnetic material the long range order abruptly disappears at a certain temperature which is called the Curie temperature for the material. The Curie temperature of iron is about 1043 K.

PS i have the inductance calculations sorted now  O0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28electromagnetism%29

@Deepcut

QuoteGotta go watch a romcom with the girly now

Oh the humanity
We understand ... sacrifices must be made and the romcom is equivalent to a Samurai falling on his sword, the ultimate sacrifice grasshopper.
AC

Grumpy

Quote2. simple helix is just a single coil, he says two can be used with the poles connected together (he doesn't say crossed polarity)  The simple coils have to very very large.

This sounds just like the Leedskalnin PMH or a variation of it and the action almost identical.... coincidence?.
I would imagine they were doing exactly the same thing, damn copy cats.
AC

A negative inductance that can not be disabled at will is not going to produce OU when averaged over integer cycles of the current waveform.

To visualize this consider a triangular waveform of current flowing through such a negative inductance.  If the curent does not increase there is no voltage across the inductor but as the current ramps up this inductor creates or develops a voltage across it's terminals that aids the current, unlike a normal inductor that opposes the current change.

Therefore, the current flows out of the positive terminal which means it is delivering power and energy, not absorbing it as a normal inductor does and putting that energy in the magnetic field.

So far so good, this first rampup of the current waveform is an OU event, but here comes the ramp down part of the cycle.

As the current begins to decreas, but still flows in the same direction, the negative inductance switches it's terminal polarity and now opposes the current, and thus absorbing energy from it.

So, half a cycle is OU, the other is not, and each integer cycle the energy balance is zero.

That's why I said that unless we can disable the negative inductor at will it won't help us. Preferably we want negative inductance for the first half cycle and positive inductance for the second half of the cycle.

I'll leave you with this thought,   A regular inductor absorbs energy then gives it back, but a negative inductor first gives energy than takes it back, the difference between a BANK and a CREDIT CARD

EM

Quiet an interesting read here about early induction coil construction.
Iron wire bundles and ebonite tube insulation

http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/i/induction_coil.html

It has occurred to me wire length is everything.

I have come to the conclusion there is no magic frequency of operation, It was once said SM trims his wire length, Don Smith aimed to have wire length of 1/4 operating frequency for feeding back energy, the Cook patent reads as if the primary and Secondary should be the same length even though 1 wire is thick and one is thin.

So if there's no magic frequency of operation then it might be matching wire length that's important.

How do you wind 2 large coils of wire and expect them to be the same length.

A process is needed to test each coil and then determine how much needs trimming, so how would i do this.

Is the process as simple as grounding one end of the coil to be trimmed, then exciting the coil with another coil running at the frequency that's wanted and trimming the end of the coil under test until the scoped waveform is zero, i imagine the signal generator can be adjusted and the scoped voltage monitored to see how far off i am.

You might be right, wire length is critical for any traveling wave type of resonance/antenna performance, so that standing waves can be created, thus resonance accomplished.

Moreover, length could play a different role, as a delay line. In a feedback system, we need gain >1, and in phase feedback, or positive feedback. If either one is off (based on gain and phase margin of course) it won't work.

But that's dynamics. In statics, if the wire were to produce the dc voltage per length, and really strengthen rapidly beyond a certain point, then length would be very critical.

How much length are you shooting for?

I'm shooting for 1000 turns on a 12" long coil.

Here's another idea, make a sliding contact, and you can adjust the length easily.

EM

Hi EM
Cook was clear that 2 foot core and 2 inch diameter is used or bigger in his device, if i get to the point where i can build then i will try this size.

I've not yet worked out my turns or wire length, soon, i think he matches wire length, his primary coil B uses thin wire and goes on the core first for good reason.

He does use 2 rings at each end of the primary & secondary, i suppose these could be adjusted for positional tuning, at first i thought these were complete rings, which would in effect be a shorted turn, but it is possible to see a slit up one side to stop the shorted turn.

If I build a coil with those dimensions I think I'll do very well where I'm at.  I just measured a strong signal @ 60 Hz, and nothing is turned on in the house, but we live close to a high power line, maybe 1/4 mile.  I get 10 volts p-p when I touch the probe.  O0


OMG, Just hooked up my big aerial coil and i get an unbelievably huge signal at 7.1428 Hz!  Is this the Schumann's resonance?  I get almost 2 volts p-p which is unbelievable! O0

[edit: ] I moved my post to the Magnetic Pickup of Schumann Resonance topic.

EM

Very interesting EM
Maybe put a load resistor so we can gauge the power  :)

I rushed to the garage to unpack my electronics but I can't find one box with all my discrete components,  we just moved so most of my stuff is still in boxes.  The other day I just happened to stumble on the box with the scope so that's why I'm experimenting again.   I love that scope!  

I think I'm going to step up the voltage with a transformer and see if I can light a LED with it, once I find my components.  I sure hope the strong signal returns tomorrow in the morning or today in the evening.     

I tell you,  this was a freaking coincidence, just happened to put it all together at the right time to observe it. 

EM

Just to give you an idea of the size of coils i am contemplating.

These measurements are taken in relation to the diagram, assuming the diagram is drawn to size

If i used a 2 Inch Core

iron core diameter = 50mm = 1.96 inches
length core = 1311mm = 51.61 Inches
secondary outer diameter = 252.5mm = 9.94 Inches
secondary circumference = 793.25mm = 31.23 Inches
primary outer diameter = 158mm = 6.22 Inches
primary circumference = 496.37mm = 19.54 Inches
length secondary = 1022mm = 40.23 Inches
length primary =1152.5mm = 45.37 Inches

primary wire 30awg diameter = 0.255mm
secondary wire 16awg diameter = 1.291mm
primary Turns = 4519.6
secondary turns = 791.63
primary wire length = 392841.38mm = 1288.85 feet per layer (1)
secondary wire length = 627960.50mm = 2060.23 feet per layer

If i used a 24 Inch long core

Iron Core diameter =23.5mm = 0.925 Inches
length of core = 610mm = 24 Inches
secondary outer diameter = 117mm = 4.6 Inches
secondary circumference = 367.57mm = 14.47 Inches
primary outer diameter = 73.5mm = 2.89 Inches
primary circumference = 230.91mm = 9.09 Inches
length secondary = 465mm = 18.31 Inches
length primary = 536mm = 21.1 Inches

primary wire 30awg diameter = 0.255mm
secondary wire 16awg diameter = 1.291mm
primary Turns = 2101.96
secondary turns = 360.19
primary wire length = 485363.58mm = 1592.40 Feet per layer (1)
secondary wire length = 132395.04mm = 434.36 Feet per layer

:o

Found very interesting new source of information on Daniel McFarland Cook
YOU MUST read it :
http://www.richlandsource.com/community/article_fbac1344-779e-11e3-8a2f-10604b9f7e7e.html

So we need to look at:
https://www.google.com/patents/US119825

Correct?

Seems like I mused this once before.  Big, long inductors that I wasn't too confident I could actually wind.

(http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookPatent.gif)

What would be nice to know is its principal of operation and why you cannot just connect two normal transformers together and get the same effect.  The only thing I can think of is the interaction of the two open cores somehow magnetically interfere with each other.  This interference must somehow be additive.

did you READ the article which link I posted ?  :( ???

Quote from: forest on 2014.09.28, 08:43:35
did you READ the article which link I posted ?  :( ???

Yes.  What specifically?  How his life ended?  How brilliant he was?

Not sure exactly what you are trying to point out.

@Matt Watts

We had a crack at this back in 2007. See here....

http://www.overunity.com/2630/the-brnbrade-coiloverunity/msg37613/#msg37613

Still have my three builds. I was actually thinking about re-looking at them with more experienced eyes but its just time is really hard to stretch any more then it is these days.

wattsup

Guys, think ! Why would anybody bother with dynamo if he owns a magic coil producing constant current and overunity (without battery) ? We were mislead by the patent, which is nothing more then a slight element of the bigger project !

"In 1871 he patented a device that the U.S. Patent Office document claims to produce a constant electrical current without the aid of a battery.  The patent, number 119,825, is easily found on the internet today because students of electrical energy are still wondering if and how it works.

There is a still more intriguing energy mystery, however, spawned from a newspaper article printed in 1886 by the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, when the reporter claimed to have witnessed first-hand a demonstration of Daniel Cook's 'perpetual electric generator and engine.'

He quoted Cook as saying, "I have found the principle that I have been hunting for so long. I can now start a dynamo to going and it will never stop, except by the wearing away of its own parts. Not only will it run itself by its own current, but also produce power enough, according to the size of the engine, to run any machine in the world."

"Perpetual motion," I suggested.

"More than that," he replied.  "it is perpetual motion with only ten percent of the force used, leaving ninety percent for power to be utilized as desired...to produce light and heat your house."

"What will be the cost to run it?"

"Nothing.  As I said, start it and it will go; heat, power and light produced by one machine for absolutely nothing."

"I looked at him to see if he was mad, in earnest, or joking.  He laughed at my astonishment and said, "I am now making a model and when far enough along I will show it to you."

The Demonstration

Some months later the Cincinnati reporter was invited to Cook's shop where he had to sign an agreement not to reveal the secrets he was to witness.

The writer noted that Cook worked in a stable with a horse in the next room, and continued, "The machine was rudely constructed for Mr. Cook made it all himself with a few old tools that had done too much service already. Parts of it were made of wood and the whole was put together in a not very artistic manner."

"I tested the current in several ways and found it very powerful. Having made electricity somewhat of a study, I was surprised at the simplicity of many of the principles. The manner in which he expects to get the results is theoretically correct and there is no mechanical difficulty which he has not already overcome."

"After examining this machine carefully in all its parts I was conducted to an adjoining room where, on a table, sat a smaller model of more accurate make. It contained a much better arrangement of the parts, and from what he showed me I am compelled to believe all that Mr. Cook had told me."

Wow good find forest, so there was a witness to the patented device working WOW
and it's good to hear a smaller version worked because i had always been working on the principle that it had to be huge to work.

Quote from: forest on 2014.09.29, 08:07:17
Guys, think ! Why would anybody bother with dynamo if he owns a magic coil producing constant current and overunity (without battery) ?

You mean something like this?

Have just perused this thread and offer the following comments.

It is clear that the Cook device produced alternating current because he states that "The alternate changes of the iron cores or magnets may be used for producing electro-magnetic motion, or motion to a wheel of any suitable device".  Presumably he used that possibility to drive his perpetual dynamo.  That would have given him access to the free energy that otherwise simply heated up the coils.  DC was the established mains power at that time so maybe the alternating current couldn't be used and he needed some means to covert it to DC.

It strikes me that a Fe core that is between 2ft and 6 ft long will have significant magnetic delay which brings me to the subject of delay lines that have reactive characteristic impedance.  These can exhibit negative resistance as I mention in the Magnetic Delay Lines thread under EM Theory.  So maybe the device used this characteristic and once started did truly self-oscillate.  That gives a new perspective to the thing.

Smudge

Hi guys :)
I see that you have already make some first hypotheses about the working principles which lay behind Cook's coils. Especially Forest's finding is something that helps a lot for further investigation as it is more acceptable to my perceptions. And I speak about the case of having a primary which oscillates and supports the whole assembly operation, instead of having a coil system which infinitely oscillates.

A key for me lays behind Cook's statement about magnetic action in the center of the core. This by itself shows that we have an opposite filed operation between each coil pair. And as partnered coils are in the foreseen, then I will make a new attempt to fill this magic icon.

Please see attachment drawing.

What I will try to do is to make a drawing which supports the operation described by Cook with compound coils, so to be more easy to imagine how a two coils system would work.

For shake of simplicity I will assume that the trigger coil is pushing only one side by rectified pulses.
Both pairs are wounded the same direction as told by Cook.

Phase A. The trigger coil is pushing North to our first core. At this first phase, secondary currents will be developed at the ends of primary and secondary coil on the core on your left. Coils 1&2.

Study with right hand rule the direction of the induced currents I1 and I2.
I1 will induce the shown polarity on coil 3, and this coil 3 will induce in turn the sown polarity of coil 4.  

But because I4 is higher than I2 as Cook correctly explains, then at phase B we see a reverse in direction of the initial current I2.

At this phase B, we have two currents on both loops, where they induce internal magnetic fields inside both iron cores, which are in an opposite fashion.
And here comes Cook's description about 'magnetic field action in the center of the core'. Hmm

So now, at the peak of the externally applied pulse, we have a tension inside both rods which is stored in the middle of the rod waiting the start of next cycle to be released. When the externally injected pulse starts to decay, then we have a change in current polarities, and an opposite in action magnetic fields start to develop inside both cores. But what about the already stored energy in the center of the coil from previous cycle? Where this energy go?

This stored magnetic energy will manifest itself at the begin of the next cycle. It will give a push to the new direction of the induced magnetic fields to reach their maximum tension quicker. But wont this reaction produce a higher current inside of both loops during this second cycle?

Cycle by cycle, wont this current addition eventually lead to a some limit? The limit could be a factor of wire thicknesses and others like length, core material, saturation points etc.

So I believe that the whole situation acts like having a spring on the middle of each rod which acts as to constructively build a steady oscillation with enough current for usage.

So according to this and if everything is right until now, then how a two coil system could be built? Will it be two different cores with a coil on its rod, or we are going to use a one rod system with two coils wounded in a bucking mode?? I pick the second...

Thanks
Jeg


Ps. The attached coils are 300m each, of awg15 wire, in separate PVC tubes which can move on the core, the core is a bunch of iron rods 1m in length rusted or painted doesn't matter. Core's diam. 10cm. In case, I placed two aluminum foils underneath. 600m of wire correspond to 499khz. System vibrates at 479khz. I will tune it with cap to a lower sub. Inserting or taking out iron rods, help on tuning also.  

Guys, also Cook speaks about circuit D like there is a reference drawing or something. Do you think that is missing for purpose? Do you think it would be an easy task to search for it in the specific patent office or somewhere? Any idea?

Yes,I believe you may find it if you can reach the original patent, but it would not be easy due to very old age of document. There is a difference between Figuera patents from 1902-1908 (which were still damaged by flood) and this very old one Cook patent. I wish you could find it and scan. Maybe there is another McFarland Cook patent date around 1888 (or application at least if Cook was on time with application before his own death)  ?

This appears to offer the text as subsequently typed out document:

http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm

Thanks forest! I wish to see it one day!
What is your opinion about this magnetic loading in the center of the core? It is like you keep two opposite magnets in conduct, and suddenly release them. But in a resonant oscillation way.

Thanks paul :)

Quote from: Paul-R on 2015.02.10, 17:07:34
This appears to offer the text as subsequently typed out document:

http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm

Dear All.

I followed the link that shows the patent drawings. What jumped out was the fact that in the top left corner there was no reference to " No model " !!  This would suggest that he was able to present a tangible, and possibly working device to the Patent office.
Of course it could also mean that the Patent office had not implemented that clause until later years !!

My gut feeling is that there is more to this device than meets the eye.  ;)

Cheers Grum.

I'm very interested in this, after some unsuccessful attempts at building with iron plumbing pipe (one fit inside other) from home depot and cat 5 wire in various configurations (series-wound bifilar, bucking, parallel etc.)

What comes to mind after reading Jeg's remarks is something as simple as the Tate power module, where radio waves and ambient electrostatic charge are brought into a system thru an antenna and germanium diodes and into a cap to be discharged to the next stage.

Suppose the outer tube were used as a kind of antenna: at each end, you'd have a germanium diode discharging into perhaps a 47pF or 10nF ceramic cap.  The two caps can be connected to the inner tube windings. Does the cap pulse affect the iron core? Is it possible to capture the flux and feed it back to the outer primary until some kind of resonance or perhaps a standing wave is formed?

Can't say much more now - need to get back to work from lunch.  
Will order some germanium diodes this week to try.
Bob

OK.  I have done the following experiment some months ago.
I wired up a MOT in the Cook way. I pulsed it with a 12 volt battery.
The longest run time I achieved was 4 seconds as follows.

I was able to open the circuit and still light an NE2  (Leedskalnin PMH style)

The only way the ne2 bulb could light was due to spike bemf (terminal secondary)
overcoming the initial 12 volts (initial secondary in Cook speak).

So something was very nearly happening, the oscillation just didn't sustain for long enough.

Maybe Grumage could replicate the experiment.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.02.10, 19:10:29
OK.  I have done the following experiment some months ago.
I wired up a MOT in the Cook way. I pulsed it with a 12 volt battery.
The longest run time I achieved was 4 seconds as follows.

I was able to open the circuit and still light an NE2  (Leedskalnin PMH style)

The only way the ne2 bulb could light was due to spike bemf (terminal secondary)
overcoming the initial 12 volts (initial secondary in Cook speak).

So something was very nearly happening, the oscillation just didn't sustain for long enough.

Maybe Grumage could replicate the experiment.

Clever idea A.king! 4sec??? Do you remember the oscillation frequency?

Jeg

Idea is good. I have to re-read your comment later. IS that about oscillating opposite magnets ?  like Richard Williis patent ?

Quote from: Jeg on 2015.02.10, 19:38:21
Clever idea A.king! 4sec??? Do you remember the oscillation frequency?

It was a crude experiment to test the principle. I simply used a twelve volt 7 amp hour battery and briefly touched the terminals of the MOT.
You should all replicate the experiment.
It proves the case.
The result speaks volumes.
1 It's the terminal secondary which overcomes. (As cook said it would)
2 a current is definitely circulating inside the trafo. (As Cook said it would)
I think I may just have given birth to something......... ;)

Dear Bob.

Whilst slightly tangential, an interesting idea.

I built a circuit on breadboard and attached a 75 M long aerial to the input, the ground was furnished from our incoming Copper water service. What comes next might be a surprise to some. I monitored the voltage output on a DMM which varied over the day and night. Average voltage was a little greater than 2 V DC but used to peak out at 4 V DC around 11 AM  UK time !!  

Out of interest I even placed a scope on the input, a very messy looking noise would be the best description.

I do know of others who have built this simple device only for it not to work when they switched off their incoming electrical mains supply. My success was probably due to the very long aerial cable that I was using.  :)

Cheers Grum.

Thanks A.king. Still it is a mystery for me that your oscillation last 4 secs. Did you have a cap in between the mots?

I tuned my Cook's Coils (bucking coils after-all) to 80Hz with a 10uF cap in between them. I charged it with 12V and when i took the battery out, oscillation continued for about 60ms (dump wave). The first peak of the dump wave was about 800V pk-pk. I will try to tune it down to 8-10Hz to see its response. Also i will try to inject over 1kv dc to see if any improvement in duration.

My conclusion for working with low frequencies came from two basic thoughts. First, Cook said that with the magnetic alterations of the coils someone can rotate a rotor! Second, for making a magnetic ping pong someone has to stick with frequencies where iron can follow easily!

I feel very excited working on a 1870 tech!!! :D  

Quote from: forest on 2015.02.10, 20:11:11
Jeg

Idea is good. I have to re-read your comment later. IS that about oscillating opposite magnets ?  like Richard Williis patent ?

Hi Forest
I haven't heard about him, but yes, it is like a magnetic ping pong at the center of the rod. During each cycle opposite fields build up at the center, of different polarity every time.

Quote from: Jeg on 2015.02.10, 19:38:21
Clever idea A.king! 4sec??? Do you remember the oscillation frequency?

4sec is a looooong time in non-superconductive LCR world !
It would help to know the inductance and resistance of that winding...

Quote from: Jeg on 2015.02.11, 11:23:31
I tuned my Cook's Coils (bucking coils after-all) to 80Hz with a 10uF cap in between them. I charged it with 12V and when i took the battery out, oscillation continued for about 60ms (dump wave).

Damped wave or a decaying oscillation  ;)

I used one MOT with copper coils- Not the newer version where one winding uses  an aluminium  (aluminum for our US friends) coil. I Linked primary to secondary, and loaded it with twelve volts from an alarm battery.
I had an ne2 across the terminals in parallel. I then removed one of the terminals and lo and behold the ne2 flashed.
I tried to increase the run time but was typically getting one or two seconds, with the record being about 4 secs.
I didn't think it would cause so much interest....

I also noticed that the brightness of the NE2 bulb diminished with longer durations, indicating a ring down.
I don't think I used a cap, from memory. I'll have to re-create the experiment and let you know.
Anyhow, it convinced me that  McFarland Cook had a principle that was not hogwash.
If you think about it, Leedskalnin's principle is along the same lines.

Correction:  In the interests of science I have re-created the experiment as follows:
Connect output terminals of MOT to input terminals. (AS Daniel Cook states)
connect ONE terminal on NE2 bulb to one terminal of MOT terminal.
Apply a voltage (12 volts ok) BRIEFLY to both MOT terminals - there will be a flash.
Then apply the second terminal of ne2 to the MOT

IT WILL LIGHT.

Repeat:-
IT WILL LIGHT UP sometime after disconnect of the battery.
Up to four seconds sometimes but at least 1 to 2 seconds afterwards.

This indicates a current flow of Daniel Cook's "terminal secondary"  ie collapsing bemf spike.
If you guys think that is amazing.
Then I take a bow.
I hear the applause.
:D
On the other hand it could just be acting as an inductor holding a current for a while.... :-[

@Aking21

QuoteThis indicates a current flow of Daniel Cook's "terminal secondary"  ie collapsing bemf spike.
If you guys think that is amazing.
Then I take a bow.
I hear the applause.

I can hear the applause as well and verpies last comment was spot on. In fact I can almost hear that "click" in the minds of a select few of the viewers here as another piece of the puzzle drops into place. Your on the right track....run with it.

AC

Quote from: Bob Smith on 2015.02.10, 18:34:00
I'm very interested in this, after some unsuccessful attempts at building with iron plumbing pipe

Iron is very good for magnetic applications but extremely difficult to find at a fair cost (or at all). For cores, maybe Hubbard rather than McFarland Cook, possibly R45 or R60 welding rods should be used (as recommended by the ###### mob).

In fact, with quite a lot of difficulty, it might be possible to fashion a tube out of welding rods. (We need a source of iron).

This has been covered early on in this thread. Cook mentions that the finer the iron rods the better the operation.

I would recommend fine iron wire.

Very pure, fine iron wire can be purchased as one of the thermoelement materials. It can be cut to the required length and bundled into the insulating tubes. There are other possibilities  for wire, this is but one.

The fine iron wires should also be insulated with a varnish to prevent eddy current shorts which would sap power.

Quote from: ION on 2015.02.12, 17:15:23

I would recommend fine iron wire.

Very pure, fine iron wire can be purchased as one of the thermoelement materials.

Yes, but from whom? Most iron wire turns out to be steel wire for gardening or making jewelry.

@Ion

QuoteThe fine iron wires should also be insulated with a varnish to prevent eddy current shorts which would sap power.

It's funny more people don't understand this concept and I have done many experiments in this area. For instance, if a take a piece of iron  and move a magnet past it then it will always retain some magnetism...residual magnetism. If I then place the core in a coil and strike it with hammer it will induce a voltage in the coil and at the same time the residual magnetism is reduced. The alter ego to this effect is that when I apply a single DC current impulse to a soft iron core/coil I can measure a large spike in the magnetic field with a hall effect sensor and this peak diminishes with each DC impulse. Keep in mind these are singular events however we know the same phenomena occurs when an AC current is applied which we call magnetic hysteresis following the B/H curve. With each reversal in magnetic polarity the reversal must first overcome the coercive force of the residual magnetism in the core.

Which leads us to a new concept which is in fact very old considering what we already know. It is known that a HF AC current diminishing in amplitude will produce a demagnetizing effect which removes residual magnetism. Which is not all that different than when I strike my core with a hammer causing a material oscillation which disturbs the magnetic domains releasing the residual magnetism. In fact we could think of it as a molecular induction generator and if ever the domains should release there stored energy faster than the external field changes then this is a generator action. The induced motor/generator action is determined by whether the field change is slower/faster than the applied field change.

It is peculiar that so many say we cannot get around the B/H curve losses when in fact it seems very easy and intuitive. If I push on the sand at the beach it offers a great resistance to the applied force however if I vibrate/oscillate the sand it becomes fluid and offers very little resistance to change. In a similar fashion a parametric HF AC oscillation within the applied current may remove residual magnetism as the domains become more fluid and offer very little resistance to change. The question is should we be adding energy to remove residual magnetism or should we be utilizing the stored energy inherent in the residual magnetism?. Which raises yet another question, if we designed a system in which only residual magnetism was utilized then our loss in the system would also be our gain in the system...a curious dilemma. Now if all the inherent losses were also gains then really what have we lost?, we cannot keep compounding our problems one onto the other and hope to solve anything in my opinion.

I think this relates to our perspective, many times we see problems with no workable solution however the best way to negate an unworkable problem is to turn it into a workable solution. As if to say the Sun is heating my house so I must buy an air conditioner pulling 3 KW which is a liability or I could plant trees and wet the ground around them and the transpiration/evaporation due to the Sun could cool my house which is an asset. Same problem however in the last case the problem, the Sun, becomes the solution.

AC

@Paul

QuoteYes, but from whom? Most iron wire turns out to be steel wire for gardening or making jewelry.

I use rebar iron tie wire which is very cheap then dip the wire in paint which I'm sure we all have laying around from renovations and such. I simply bend a little hook on one end to hang the wire as it dries then snip off the hook...too easy.

AC

http://www.advent-rm.com/catalogue/lines.aspx?criteria=materialform&materialid=21&formid=17

Search for Fe Wire

Wow ION 1m of 1mm iron wire £41 or 100m £168

Looks like we need to get into the iron wire business  :o

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.02.14, 06:13:30
Wow ION 1m of 1mm iron wire £41 or 100m £168

They are ripping you off.
Here (http://www.sourcingmetals.com/galvanized-iron-wire-scrap-10166222) is a higher purity (99.9%) scrap iron wire for much less

Quote from: verpies on 2015.02.11, 16:07:07
Damped wave or a decaying oscillation  ;)

Hi guys
Yes Verpies :) A decaying oscillation describes it better!

Cook writes that a solid iron core will also work even with not so much tension as when fine iron wire is to be used. I think if we find the way to make this thing oscillate then we can proceed with finer wire. But, as I see it this will never happen without a constant triggering by the use of a trigger circuit. Forest's mentioned article speaks about a dynamo so this is what I will try when I ll get back to my bench in two weeks :( (currently far from experiments due to a trip).

Fine info from your experiments allcanadian! Reminds me much of Ed. Leedskalnin ideas! O0

Quote from: verpies on 2015.02.14, 09:14:31
They are ripping you off.
Here (http://www.sourcingmetals.com/galvanized-iron-wire-scrap-10166222) is a higher purity (99.9%) scrap iron wire for much less

I'm not sure what these people are selling They speak of scrap and say "type: rails" or something like that. If this is recycled railway line, then it is going to be steel and not iron. There are a lot of dealers out there who don't know the difference. Including wrought iron sellers.

Quote from: verpies on 2015.02.14, 09:14:31
They are ripping you off.
Here (http://www.sourcingmetals.com/galvanized-iron-wire-scrap-10166222) is a higher purity (99.9%) scrap iron wire for much less

That was just the first hit on a search for Fe wire to demonstrate it is obtainable, certainly not the best source.

A search for Fe wire will yield many hits.

BTW, I don't buy as I have my own stock of 99.9+ high purity thermocouple grade Fe  wire.

Dear All.

In days of yore, Florist's wire was made from Soft Iron, usually in bunches of 12 " ( 300 mm ) lengths. I have made several calls to eBay suppliers asking what material our modern stuff is, they just say " I don't know !! "

I am suggesting this in case other members might have better luck. I used to use them for making early style Trembler Ignition and Low tension units for early American stationary engines.

The wire itself had a black oxide coat and was of a fairly high resistance. I never found any problems with overheating due to eddy currents.

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.02.14, 18:25:23
In days of yore, Florist's wire was made from Soft Iron...

Sometimes, florist wire and wire for jewelry/crafts is iron. These people swear that their iron is iron:

http://wires.co.uk/acatalog/COLOURED_ENAMELLED_IRON_WIRE.html

It would be good to run some tests magnetising and demagnetising and see if it sheds the magnetism promptly.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2015.02.16, 18:34:36
Sometimes, florist wire and wire for jewelry/crafts is iron. These people swear that their iron is iron:

http://wires.co.uk/acatalog/COLOURED_ENAMELLED_IRON_WIRE.html

It would be good to run some tests magnetising and demagnetising and see if it sheds the magnetism promptly.

Dear Paul-R.

That is a cracking site !! So many wire products, from Litz to Thermocouple !!

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.02.16, 18:50:32
Dear Paul-R.

That is a cracking site !! So many wire products, from Litz to Thermocouple !!

Cheers Grum.

I second that, they have Ni wire I have been looking for, thanks O0

regards

Mike 8)

Hi guys
For cheap and quick solution someone can use soft iron wire of this type.

https://www.google.gr/search?q=soft+wire+25kg&biw=1093&bih=602&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QBjlVPHWIYuAygTviYKYAw&ved=0CDgQsAQ

Builders use it to tie iron rods for concrete. If you let it for a few days out in the air and in the rain, it will become very rusty which works as an insulation. You can find packages of 2.5kg and 25kg to experiment with.   ;)

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.02.12, 04:01:38
Correction:  In the interests of science I have re-created the experiment as follows:
Connect output terminals of MOT to input terminals. (AS Daniel Cook states)
connect ONE terminal on NE2 bulb to one terminal of MOT terminal.
Apply a voltage (12 volts ok) BRIEFLY to both MOT terminals - there will be a flash.
Then apply the second terminal of ne2 to the MOT

IT WILL LIGHT.

Repeat:-
IT WILL LIGHT UP sometime after disconnect of the battery.
Up to four seconds sometimes but at least 1 to 2 seconds afterwards.

This indicates a current flow of Daniel Cook's "terminal secondary"  ie collapsing bemf spike.
If you guys think that is amazing.
Then I take a bow.
I hear the applause.
:D
On the other hand it could just be acting as an inductor holding a current for a while.... :-[

Hi A.king21!
Cook said that coils on the same core has to be wounded on the same direction. Did you check about that? Does anybody know if both mot's coils are wounded at same direction?

Thanks

Hi All,

I'm happy to see the Daniel cook patent getting a lot of attention here. I was the one who originally found this patent in the US databases in 1996, and recently have gone back to the subject with new search tools. I've now gathered some more material about him and his several patents, and will start posting them here as I can convert them into image files. Nothing earthshaking, but intriguing nonetheless.
Here is a bit to get started.

orthofield

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.19, 05:44:16
Hi All,

I'm happy to see the Daniel cook patent getting a lot of attention here. I was the one who originally found this patent in the US databases in 1996, and recently have gone back to the subject with new search tools. I've now gathered some more material about him and his several patents, and will start posting them here as I can convert them into image files. Nothing earthshaking, but intriguing nonetheless.
Here is a bit to get started.

orthofield

Thank you for any info on Cook that you can supply. I am pleased to know that you originally found the patent. If you were to ask what interests me  about the device, I would say the patent reads "true", as if the inventor is talking from his own experience. The simplicity of the device is also interesting.

Opinions:

This is one of a handful of devices that I would say are worthy of detailed study and replication as power sources, barring some fraud being discovered. Other older devices being the Hubbard coil, the work of Moray and Hendershot, Earl Amman (not much known). A few others escape me.

More recently, LENR, the TPU of S. Mark, the work of Arie DeGeus, and the offerings of OUR user Smudge. Apologies for those I have not included at this time, mainly just considering prime power sources.

Regards, ION

Add to this list Figuera generators. Rather on first position due to simplicity (though require skill in mechanic engineering I don't have)
I wish someone could replicate Figuera first generator with rotating coils.

@orthofield

I like this video concerning Cook -- https://vimeo.com/31399217
It puts things into perspective and 1859 was a very different time concerning all the luxuries we enjoy today. One has to wonder considering the date, 1859, who saw the article or the device and who did he talk to?.

AC

Hi Allcanadian,

Yes, I saw this video, it is very good, although it left out some things. Daniel Cook's coil was discussed in vague terms in the New York Times, and also in a book called The Common Liar, published in 1883. Keely's motor had made the news two years ago, and Cook's "motor" is compared to his. As you saw from the video, Cook was a well known inventor who revolutionized the extraction of sorghum and for a while, he had some money. He is mentioned in many books and periodicals of the time for his sugar inventions. But it turns out that his patents did not cover all the bases, and despite many efforts, including a hearing in Congress, he could not get relief and the rights were taken away from him. It was considered a travesty of justice and was discussed as such in Congress, but the judge had spoken. From that time on he was destitute, and in that time the "Induction Coil" patent was issued.
In terms of his more unusual inventions, he announced on several occasions that he intended to build an airship called "Queen Of The Air"-- the result being the bullet like device shown in the video. He also had two battery patents, which I'm not sure are already known at this time, but I'll be posting anyway pretty soon.
The only eye witness account of his motor is an article called "Another Perpetual Motion Fiend" published in the Electrical Review, Vol. 8, Aug. 21, 1886. The article is pretty long and takes a while to process using my primitive image processing setup. Attached is a sample. 

orthofield

Hi ION,

Yes, in the 1990s and 2000s I did huge patent sweeps, basically going through an entire patent class starting at the beginning. I found Cook by reviewing all coil and transformer patents starting with the beginning of the US patent system. His is not the only unusual patent in that time period, and there are a number of electric motors which look like they could be OU to me. My eyes are not as good now and it literally hurts to look at 200 patents a day. Interestingly, Daniel Cook's coil is the first of its patent subclass-- they had to create a new subclass for him. It is not correct that 'free energy' devices were not patented in the 19th century or even earlier.
I agree in general with your analysis of which older devices are useful to look at. Smudge certainly deserves mention among modern inventors. I have only one small article on Amman, so not sure about him. I would add Hans Coler. Smudge and I did a big study of Coler a couple of years ago and found much new information:

http://chavascience.com/papers/the-coler-devices

I found the Norrby (or Unruh) patent quite easily-- it is the very first overunity patent in the GB section of the EU patent database. But it took many years and Smudge's parallel historical research to figure out the significance of it. I do think that this sort of work shows that historical research does have its place in the OU field.
As an aside, there are a huge number of overunity patents on the EU server that have never been discussed to my knowledge. Go to the espacenet advanced search page, and type in H02N11/00, the "solid state overunity" patent class, on the IPC classification line. You will turn up 13,9067 patents, at least 6,000 of which claim overunity. And that is not the only overunity classification in that system!

orthofield

Quote from: Jeg on 2015.02.18, 23:30:01
If you let it for a few days out in the air and in the rain, it will become very rusty which works as an insulation.

In that case, it cannot be iron. Iron doesn't rust.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2015.02.19, 17:26:30
In that case, it cannot be iron. Iron doesn't rust.

What reference have you used to arrive at this claim?

Orthofield:
I would be interested in reading the rest of the article "in his lab". Is it available?

Also, I would have mentioned Coler, but his name slipped my mind.

Hi ION,

I have a lot of irons in the fire in OUR right now-- not to mention other aspects of life :-)-- so it might be a week before I can finish processing it.
Hmm, it might actually be easier just to retype it...

orthofield

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.19, 17:35:56
Hi ION,

I have a lot of irons in the fire in OUR right now-- not to mention other aspects of life :-)-- so it might be a week before I can finish processing it.
Hmm, it might actually be easier just to retype it...

orthofield

No hurry, take your time

Quote from: Paul-R on 2015.02.19, 17:26:30
In that case, it cannot be iron. Iron doesn't rust.

Dear Paul-R.

Perhaps Jeg's comment should have been oxidised rather than rusted, however this article should clarify the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust

Cheers Grum.

Hi All,

Attached is a fascinating article from 1886 giving an eyewitness account of a visitor to D.M Cook's workshop, and his observations of the "Induction Coil" in operation. Enjoy!

orthofield

Hi All,

The copy I just sent had some typos, this one is better.. ignore the above...

orthofield

Quote from: Jeg on 2015.02.18, 23:34:53
Hi A.king21!
Cook said that coils on the same core has to be wounded on the same direction. Did you check about that? Does anybody know if both mot's coils are wounded at same direction?

Thanks

I simply swapped the contacts around. The trafo has to be wound in the same direction or it wouldn't work
Some more info.
I had a faulty trafo - but in a good way!


The MOT  is very old (bought from a car boot sale) and has DRY JOINTS.

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.19, 05:44:16
Hi All,

I'm happy to see the Daniel cook patent getting a lot of attention here. I was the one who originally found this patent in the US databases in 1996, and recently have gone back to the subject with new search tools. I've now gathered some more material about him and his several patents, and will start posting them here as I can convert them into image files. Nothing earthshaking, but intriguing nonetheless.
Here is a bit to get started.

orthofield

Orthofield:  Have you any idea where the diagram for circuit D may be found. It appears to be missing from the original patent.
Well done for finding this gem of a patent.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2015.02.19, 17:26:30
In that case, it cannot be iron. Iron doesn't rust.

Sorry for my English. Grum's link explains better the idea. Thanks Grum :)

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.19, 17:14:46
Smudge and I did a big study of Coler a couple of years ago and found much new information:

http://chavascience.com/papers/the-coler-devices

Many thanks orthofield for your contribution. I am very interested in what you propose and post. Unfortunately this link doesn't work for me.
I also have the same question as A.king about this circuit D. Is it possible to propose some other patents that relates to Cook's EM battery? Perhaps a compined study will give more light behind the principle that Cook uses.

http://www.rexresearch.com/infolios/colerbios.PDF


A.king thanks for the answer about winding direction.  

Hi A.king,

I think as circuit D refers to the entire electrical circuit, it would have been a letter D in the space outside Fig. 2. It's not uncommon for typos to be found in patents, and I think this is likely just a typo.

orthofield

Hi Jeq. You're welcome. It's extremely gratifying to see my 'find' the subject of so much discussion, from people smarter than I am.
Sorry about the link. I've attached the paper here.

I'm really dipping my toe into deep waters when I say this, but I'd say the most similar thing to Cook is the Witricity system of resonant power transfer, if along with that there is a magnetic domain delay within each core. The two cores have an almost instantaneous near-field interaction between them, while within each core is a much slower domain rotation process. 
The combination of these means that the secondary flux supports the primary to some extent.
This is hyper-simplified, but it seems like a reasonable place to start. The patent language gives me a headache, so I choose to ignore it :-) ...there are basically just two transformers interlinked and separated by space, each with a core where domains are bound to take time to move from one end to the other.  Somehow, I think that the cores are separated in space is important, and the device wouldn't work if there were an iron bridge connecting them at top and bottom. We see the same cores with an open magnetic circuit in the Hubbard coil. The Negative Resistance Coil thread is focusing on the delay aspect, while the Hubbard thread has some discussion of mutually supporting parallel secondaries that might also be relevant.

orthofield

@orthofield

QuoteThis is hyper-simplified, but it seems like a reasonable place to start. The patent language gives me a headache, so I choose to ignore it :-) ...there are basically just two transformers interlinked and separated by space, each with a core where domains are bound to take time to move from one end to the other.  Somehow, I think that the cores are separated in space is important, and the device wouldn't work if there were an iron bridge connecting them at top and bottom. We see the same cores with an open magnetic circuit in the Hubbard coil. The Negative Resistance Coil thread is focusing on the delay aspect, while the Hubbard thread has some discussion of mutually supporting parallel secondaries that might also be relevant.

One issue I see is that the circuit D is incomplete based on the patent language which as you say is a nightmare to translate into meaningful terms. Cook speaks of multiple resistances ie. rheostats which are not shown in the patent nor where they are placed in the circuit. As well it should be known that some patents show a resistance configured as a transformer implying it is two wire wound resistors, inductors, in close proximity... it is both.

Quote:

Quotehence to allow the use of the main circuit for common purposes I introduce a rheostat or resistance of any kind into the circuit, so that a small portion of the current only will flow along the resistance, by which means the action in the helices is feebly maintained when the main circuit is broken, and instantly restored when it is closed to its full force. By this means the action becomes in effect the same as the common battery currents, and may be used for similar purposes. For the purpose of preventing the heating of the helices caused by the intensity of the action, and to prevent circulation of the initial secondary currents in the main circuit, a rheostat of any convenient form may be made to constitute a part of the main circuit D. The alternate changes of the iron cores or magnets may be used for producing electro-magnetic motion, or motion to a wheel of any suitable device.

I have no doubt Cook was a very smart man and he was very protective of his technology as such we can be almost certain only the main components have been shown and the critical external components which dictate the machines action have been left out. Generally speaking a patent is meant to protect the inventor by obscuring the most relevant facts but not so much that the patent becomes meaningless. It may look simple but it seldom if ever is... I like a good puzzle and this is most definitely a good one.

AC

The interesting thing to note is how to start the device. He does not say: apply a voltage to the coils: because the circuit would see it as a dead short.
He uses either a magnetic field via a magnet (permanent or electromagnet) or a pick up coil wrapped around one of the coils.
Any comments?

Dear All.

Whilst going through my ablutions this morning it dawned on me that perhaps we could try using a couple of the older style Car ignition coils.

They are constructed on a common vertical soft Iron core, primary first and the secondary wound over the top. The only drawback is that they have a common internal connection linking the " earthy " side together. Certain makes can be dissected as they are oil filled other cheaper makes were potted with a black pitch like compound, making dissection impossible.

Just a thought, but as has been said, this patent and comments seems to present an actual working device!!

Cheers Grum.

When you look at the drawing of the interconnected devices, look how thin the wire going into the screw terminations is. Now look at the actual windings around the core, they are drawn far thicker. I could only reconcile this with the idea of a compounded helical winding i.e. the wire is wound first on a mandrel then this  helical winding is wrapped around the core to form a second helical winding.

I was pushing this idea early on but yielded to the idea that compounded just means two windings. Is there any other way to reconcile the huge difference in wire size as seen in the drawing? Did the draftsman for the patent have no sense of scale?

I believe there is also a critical size for this device, below which it will not produce the cascade effect and powerful field needed to operate.

Also consider that long magnetic structures seem to create a much stronger field for the same number of ampere turns than a short squat coil. Such a coil design was used in the past (and is still used) wherever low power input was needed to create a powerful field as in early telephone relays or sensitive plate circuit relays. You can see this in the efficiency of modern small form relay designs. I can post some examples if interested.

Hi ION,

After you mentioned the idea of the 'compound helix' yesterday, I took a look at all patents between 1790-1920, looking for how the term was used. One patent from 1874, an induction coil for telegraphy, did use the term 'compound helix' to simply describe coils wound over each other, but around 10 patents for heating elements or mechanical spring structures from the same time period as Cook do use the term to designate a helix wound into a helix, which I will call a 'superhelix' in accord with the current usage 'supertoroid' for a toroid wound with a helix.

Then, a search of journals from the time period finds that the term was used first by Faraday to indicate two coils wound over each other, one copper and one iron, and connected to have opposing magnetic fields! What we would call a bifilar coil now. A much quoted article by Fleming refers to compound helices as simply coils inserted into one another. And electrical dictionaries of the time simply refer to a 'compound magnet' as an electromagnet with two or more separately controllable windings.
The upshot is that like many electrical terms of the time, the usage is murky. I find in general that people sort of made up the language they wanted. There is still some credence for the idea of using the term in the way you suggest.

As to the idea of the circuit D being a mysterious thing not included in the patent, to hide the inventor's intent, I suggest he would have not included the letter D in the patent text if that were true. Daniel Cook lost control of a previous set of patents apparently by not explicitly including important details, thus allowing those to be used by others, so I discount the 'hidden principle' concept. It is just as dangerous to leave out material of importance as to put it in! I've consulted on one major OU patent and this was exactly the difficulty, the inventor wanted to hide material that, if left out, would open the hidden material to be patented easily. Also, the article I just posted suggests that an 'electrical man' of the time will understand the principles without any difficulty.

The idea of superhelices being in the Cook device as they might be called is very appealing from the standpoint of current scientific explorations. There is a lot of research going on in nuclear and material physics about the "toroidal moment", an electromagnetic moment on an equal par with the electric and magnetic moments, which cannot be decomposed into those moments. The toroidal moment T, conceptually on the same level as E and B, has peculiar properties which are too involved to go into here, but the upshot is that the universe may be filled with toroidal radiations or particles, and a toroid may be the only way to tap into those entities.

orthofield

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.02.19, 19:33:40
Dear Paul-R.

Perhaps Jeg's comment should have been oxidised rather than rusted, however this article should clarify the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust

Cheers Grum.

I don't reckon these people have it right. Good quality pure iron tarnishes a bit but does not rust to virtually nothing. Somewhere in the world there is a huge iron obelisk. It hasn't rusted. Have a look for an old dumped vice in an out house of a farm. It may have been left there since between the wars.

Someone, possibly MagnetMan, Tom, or maybe someone else got excellent results off a device and was asked what a coil was made of. he said that he went down to the bottom of his garden and took some wire off a very old fence and used that. New fences tend to be made of steel - old ones of iron. That's what did it, the magnetism shedding properties of iron.

This is why architects sometimes use iron piles for foundations.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2015.02.21, 12:46:48
I don't reckon these people have it right. Good quality pure iron tarnishes a bit but does not rust to virtually nothing. Somewhere in the world there is a huge iron obelisk. It hasn't rusted. Have a look for an old dumped vice in an out house of a farm. It may have been left there since between the wars.

Someone, possibly MagnetMan, Tom, or maybe someone else got excellent results off a device and was asked what a coil was made of. he said that he went down to the bottom of his garden and took some wire off a very old fence and used that. New fences tend to be made of steel - old ones of iron. That's what did it, the magnetism shedding properties of iron.

This is why architects sometimes use iron piles for foundations.

Dear Paul-R.

Your term tarnish would be correctly called rust, however I am in full agreement with regards to the fact that some varieties of Iron don't disappear!!

My first ever holiday abroad took me to Athens, wow, what a wonderful place where antiquity and modern live together. I visited the Temple of Zeus where one of the columns had fallen over. These columns were made from segments of stone and were centred by large square Iron pegs. What astonished me was the fact that they had not corroded, not even expanded for a time of 2000+ years!!

Makes you think ??  ;)

Cheers Grum.

@all

I don't know why we never saw this when @brnbrade was around at OU.

On two cores of one coil each (1 helice each) you will need coil #3 over one of the helices to initiate the effect.

On two cores of dual helices each, you will still need coil #5 over one of the dual helices to again initiate the effect.

The coil #3 or #5 comes from Circuit D, where it could be energized via a turning rotor that gets its EMF from the two cores producing magnetic pulses where the rotor then turns and a pick up coil energizes the coil #3 or #5, hence a looped system that works just like a perpetual battery.

The coil #3 or #5 is the input. The single or dual helices are basically acting like a point of gain where the voltage from the secondary excites the current in the primary that passes the voltage but increases with more current in the secondary that excites more current in the primary and this just keeps working like a compounding effect until the developed gain in the mutual helices start heating the core thus he needs a rheostat in circuit D to control a runaway condition.

We never tried this in those days. We were just exciting the actual helices and looking for a perpetual gain to occur on its own, but without that coil #3 or #5, it never was possible to get the effect.

Now that I finally have some damn free time for myself, work, family just took everything over these days, I will pull out my builds and try a few changes. I know from past trials that my build with the iron wire worked the best (compared to the solid core) then under standard coupling so I'll try that first. My builds are no where near Cooks gigantic dimensions but should be enough to see any gain effect.

This same theory of operation could be tried with two identical transformers each having two primaries and one or two secondaries where one transformer primary and secondary can be connected to the other transformer as per the patent and use the extra primary on only one of them as the input point.

wattsup

wattsup

Can you explain your idea using picture ? Where is #3 and #5 coil ?

Quote from: forest on 2015.02.21, 18:48:18
wattsup

Can you explain your idea using picture ? Where is #3 and #5 coil ?

@forest

Yes, @EMDevices already posted on page 1 here;

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1616.msg27550#msg27550

That would be the coil #5 shown by @EMDevices hand drawn addition.

Based on the attached text grab of the patent.

In the patent there is no mention of frequency but I imagine he had to make his units very very large because of his limited ability to produce any steady high pulsing on that coil #3 or #5.

Preliminary test with my iron wire unit which is an extremely small build has a frequency response in the 10MHz range and scoping (no ground) that is impossible with my 60MHZ scope because at highest range the waveform is just fizzing by indicating to me that there is in fact a looping of the impressed energy inside the dual coils.

That 3rd or 5th winding would be over 1 or 2 coils already wound on the rods so the impulse from that outer coil is really only acting on the coil right under it for it to then create the looping in the completed system.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. This could be SM relevant if the FTPU outer wind was over a looped two stage wire that also passed into one half of the center toroid so he could then couple out some power from the other toroid half while leaving the loop intact. So basically if the helices then also passed through a second transformer primary, you could remove power from the system.

wattsup

Dear Wattsup.

I too have been having a little tinker whilst the weather is too cold and wet for any outdoor pursuits.

I have two identical commercial 12 0 12 to 240 V ( 300 VA ) torroidal transformers wired in the Cook fashion. Zapping them with a 12 V battery just shows a spike or two but hit the unused 12 V winding with a Sinus signal and a resonant peak shows up at around 800 KHz, no load condition.

I really do feel this might just have the so simple you would laugh slogan ??

Cheers Grum.

@All

Just to add, I am attaching a pdf book. From page 171 there are a few pages referring to something similar and drawings seem alike for those days.

@Grumage

Good to see you are testing with a transformer. I think with a standard core or toroid multi-layered transformer that was built to be run by AC, maybe just use a Variac and if you can plug it into a wattmeter and run that single primary at maybe 10-20 volts max to see how it will respond. But no higher to not risk burning out your coils.

I am putting up a photo taken many years ago of my three builds. The problem is these builds are more following @brnbrades' lead at OU back then. Cook says in his patent that he prefers using the same wire for both coils and that any mix could be used to get a specific desired effect, so given my builds are tightly wound thin wire first and thick wire out, I think the build is wrong if I base it on Spin Conveyance. My thin wires are wound so tight together and this will create an incredible amount of internal cancellation that would work against the Cook effect that requires as non hindered ability to shuffle the potentials with the least possibility of cancellation.

But before I go into this patent any further I needed to analyze what Cook actually says in the patent.

Cook says his wires can be insulated with silk, shelac or parafine. They did not have plastic coating then like we do, but I am sure the wire they used then had insulation that was thicker then what we have today and hence, this may be good when winding coils so there is some more space between turns, which in the atomic scale is immense but for us it may seem frivolous. So I think my builds may be good but only once a simpler version is better understood to show the basic effect of gain with the right peripherals that he calls circuit D.

So I went here......
http://deepfriedneon.com/tesla_f_calchelix.html
and using this coil wind calculator I set it up as follows;

For turns spacing I gave it half the 16 AWG wire diameter so the ideal wire insulation would add 1/4 the wire diameter times 2 when two turn meet side by side so half the wire diameter is used as the spacing.

Example 1
Units: Inches
Diameter (D): 2         
Number of turns (N): 1000
Wire Diameter (W): .051 or 16 awg
Turn spacing (S): .0255

The results were as follows;

Height (H): 76.5 inches or 6.375 feet of core
Length of wire: 6283 inches or 524 feet of wire
Inductance (L): 1292 uH    
Self Capacitance: 22.5 pF

Example 2
Units: Inches
Diameter (D): 3         
Number of turns (N): 650
Wire Diameter (W): .051 or 16 awg
Turn spacing (S): .0255

The results were as follows;

Height (H): 50 inches or 4 feet of core
Length of wire: 6126 inches or 510 feet of wire
Inductance (L): 1861uH    
Self Capacitance: 15.3 pF

Example 3
Units: Inches
Diameter (D): 4         
Number of turns (N): 500          
Wire Diameter (W): .051 or 16 awg
Turn spacing (S): .0255

The results were as follows;

Height (H): 38 inches or 3.1 feet of core
Length of wire: 6283 inches or 523 feet of wire
Inductance (L): 2497 uH    
Self Capacitance: 12.6 pF

When we analyze the above results and when Cook says the core can be 2, 3 or even 6 feet long and the core diameter can be 2, 3 or more inches (I also used 4 inches), you start to see the relevance of those numbers and he then says the coils are using 500 to 1000 feet of wire. I matched the turns to arrive near the 500 foot mark to see the core lengths and they all fit in his numbers. If you double these for 1000 feet or wire, only the 2 inch core would be 8 feet long so that's a little over his 6 feet but still in a realistic and fairly accurate depiction that he is giving us on those build specs, if the wire insulation is in fact thicker then magwire we have today, the patent seems OK.

I tried looking for a web site that might have antique copper wire samples but have not found anything yet.

But winding 16 awg wire on a 2, 3 or 4 inch diameter iron core just seems crazy, even suicidal (watch your toes). How much would those coils weigh? How can such little wire have any serious impact on such a huge core? This is the part that I don't get. Why so much iron mass? Before a 16 awg wire could develop any serious saturation of those cores to actually render them to any level to achieve any "magnetic" action.

Then what I don't get is if this is real and so simple, it would achieve a Category 1 as being the least complex on the OU complexity scale (my way of grading worldwide device replication potential and appeal), then he could have sold millions of these all over the world so WTH happened?

I think if there is any real truth to this patent, Mr. Cook at least got his numbers right so the information does hold up in that regard. As for the actual function, I'd then say use his favorite wire of 16 AWG for both coils, for now until the effect is understood. From there one could make deviations with 30 awg primary but as a best shot for success, I'd stick to same wire primary and secondary, so the difference will only be one coil near the core and other further off the core.

The effect on my small wire rod core device which has about 3/8" cores about 1 foot long and for which I can also post build specs etc., is that the looping effect is indeed there but most probably not enough core mass to make it grow, and also my primary wires (1 layer) are very thin tightly wound so there is a limited amount of looping that can occur and there is great potential for inter wind cancellation. When pulsing the outer wound coil #5 that I added, the impress goes to the secondary right under it and the primary does not see it as I had suspected. So the impress goes from coil #5 to the secondary and from there it is conveyed through the other coils. I will test the primary to secondary impress potential and let you know.

It is funny though. Looking at this after so many years and seeing the results with what I know today takes away many of the questions marks. At the time, @Brnbrade was not that forthcoming with his directive so guys were more or less working this blindly (nothing new there hey), but had I known what I know today, the build would not have been the same and I would have made sure there was some spacing between the primary turns and we would have realized the requirement for a coil #3 or #5. Why we did not see that then is just puzzling. We were really impressionable then just getting out of SM's entanglements so we were the perfect hungry sheep, ready to follow anyone with some semblance of OU on the plate. Hmmmmmmm, seems like nothing has changed on that front. hahahahahahaha

wattsup

Quote from: wattsup on 2015.02.22, 15:24:25

Then what I don't get is if this is real and so simple, it would achieve a Category 1 as being the least complex on the OU complexity scale (my way of grading worldwide device replication potential and appeal), then he could have sold millions of these all over the world so WTH happened?

wattsup

Dear Wattsup.

Some interesting ideas, as usual !!  O0

In answer to your selected quote as Aking.21 has pointed out Cook's device would be outputting an AC waveform. At that time, of very little use as there were no rectifiers or light bulbs !!

I guess then, that, as usual, the idea was lost to the next generation.

Cheers Grum

Hi Grumage,

Yes, no doubt the Cook coil produces AC. The article "Another perpetual motion fiend" mentions that Cook had lit his home many years before it was common, so he may have had AC lamps of some sort. Or a whole AC power system. For at least a while, he was well funded.

orthofield

Dear Wattsup and all.

Recognise these ??

Perhaps Mr Cook just used commercially made coils ??   ;)

Cheers Grum.

In one article I read it mentioned that he invented his own light bulbs, and that his house illuminated "half the street".
His problem was that he was a couple of decades, at least, ahead of the rest of the world.
I see no difference in principle between his device and Mark's TPU. It's just a knowledge of the coils and how they work.

Hi Grumage,

Nice find on the induction coil pics. I was wondering if you knew what the original sources of these pics was.. I'd like to look at the larger context of how these coils were usually built.
I agree with you that D. Cook's coils could have been near to standard issue. It's possible that just building them that size was the main cause in the OU effect.

orthofield

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.24, 16:09:52
Hi Grumage,

Nice find on the induction coil pics. I was wondering if you knew what the original sources of these pics was.. I'd like to look at the larger context of how these coils were usually built.
I agree with you that D. Cook's coils could have been near to standard issue. It's possible that just building them that size was the main cause in the OU effect.

orthofield

Dear orthofield.

Twas dear wattsup's post here.... http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1616.msg46485#msg46485  There was a download for Davis's Manual of magnetism 1842.  Page 173 onward.

If you then go to the end there is a price list, those coils were expensive !! $12.00 to $18.00. He must have been a wealthy man !!

Cheers Grum.

From the pictures Grumage posted this would seem to be how coils were depicted at that time just as we use a standard coil symbol when drawing our circuits. I have found this is generally the case with patents and we tend to focus on things which are obvious while ignoring what is latent or hidden within the patent. As if to say it is not what we see but what they are doing with what we see.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.02.24, 16:31:17
From the pictures Grumage posted this would seem to be how coils were depicted at that time just as we use a standard coil symbol when drawing our circuits. I have found this is generally the case with patents and we tend to focus on things which are obvious while ignoring what is latent or hidden within the patent. As if to say it is not what we see but what they are doing with what we see.

AC

Dear Allcanadian.

You have a favourite saying...... " To each his own "

I have read right through that book and strangely only one other coil depicted looks like the ones represented in DMC's patent. I really do feel that he must have acquired them from a manufacturer.

Now for an open question. Is it possible that the core length plays a vital role ? Remember Tesla's motor that had two short and two long Iron cores creating a 90 deg shift? Is it possible that over a long core we might have areas of phase shift?  ;)

Cheers Grum.

Hi Grumage,

Very interesting! It should be possible to find the actual manufacturer, since they probably advertised these cores in some of the periodicals of the time.
A couple letters back I said:

"There are basically just two transformers interlinked and separated by space, each with a core where domains are bound to take time to move from one end to the other.  Somehow, I think that the cores are separated in space is important, and the device wouldn't work if there were an iron bridge connecting them at top and bottom."

So I agree that a domain time delay is the best and simplest explanation for the operation of the Coil. If a time delay happens between two elements of an inductive circuit, there is a possibility for the output flux to shift in time so that it cooperates and adds to the input flux. Occam's razor suggests everything else in the circuit is conventional except for the core size and length.

It should be possible to experiment and find the time delay in iron cores of this description, either with or without the iron wires inside. There is even some old tests about speed of domains in iron wires from the Bubble Memory era that could serve this purpose

orthofield

Despite good efforts on everyone's part to find something unusual about the circuit, I've not seen anything that suggests the unusual except for the large cores. By Occam's razor, the large cores are the whole explanation for the unusual.

Hi Grumage, Wattsup,

Your find of the Davis Manual of Magnetism book is excellent, Wattsup. It gives many leads to follow up.

The Cook Coil is directly based on a well-known device of the time, "Page's Separable Helices". I've found many references to them. The inventor is Charles Grafton Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grafton_Page

The original instrument was used for medical purposes as shocking people was considered good medicine at the time.

http://www.erittenhouse.org/artitcles/erittenhouse-vol-24-1-2012-2013/c-g-page-and-his-shocking-coil/

You can see the 'stopcock' like electrical connections in some of these pictures.
Attached is Page's patent from 1868, just before he died. You can see the tall, secondary core with separable sections shown in Cook's design. The device had been invented 30 years before, and was in common usage by the time Cook patented.

Although it was unusual to have induction coil cores as big as Cook's, it wasn't unheard of..several very large cores are shown on this page:

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Electricity/Induction_Coil/Induction_Coil.html

Interestingly, Davis, who wrote the manual, was also one of the major manufacturers of these devices.

In the Davis manual, pg. 178 is especially interesting, since it points directly to a node, or standing wave pattern in the EMF, from use of the massive cores. A search coil moved up and down the large core will show greatest shocks at the central portion, despite the fact that the magnetism is strongest at the ends. The quote is attached here as well.

orthofield



orthofield

Hi Wattsup, Grumage,

Daniel Davis was the manufacturer of the Separable Helices that the Cook Coils were based on. I'm not sure if Cook used store-bought coils, but they are certainly very similar. Davis made such instruments out of Boston for many years, and sold something very similar to 1/2 of the Cook Coil for 12-18 dollars (the ad is in the back of the book you found, Wattsup).
Another point mentioned in one of the pages in the old articles on the Separable Helices is that the primary could be spatially separated from the secondary and the device would still work.
It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine Daniel getting two such separable coils, observing time delays or nodal patterns on each coil, and then observing their interaction at a distance, to get to his patent setup. He would certainly have had the Manual OF Magnetism in his shop, which refers to the unusual effect of greater induction in the center of the core than at the ends. This just screams "delay" to me.
All of this to me indicates that the Cook Coil is simple. No 'superhelices', no hidden circuits, no missing patent parts. Just what is seen-- but as Allcanadian said, what is seen is not the whole story...
Research continues.

orthofield

Hi all,

Still finding stuff based on Wattsup's book find. The page below shows coils extremely similar to those shown in the Cook patent, and made by Daniel Davis...

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Daniel_Davis_Apparatus/Separable_Helix/Separable_Helix.html

orthocoil

@Grumage

QuoteNow for an open question. Is it possible that the core length plays a vital role ? Remember Tesla's motor that had two short and two long Iron cores creating a 90 deg shift? Is it possible that over a long core we might have areas of phase shift? 

We will know soon enough, I have wound two 24" primaries and next week I will build the cores then wind the secondaries...then fire this bad boy up.

AC

Lol nice ! I love that you called it a bb.

@orthofield

Good find. The thing is Cook says the primary is first and if compound helices of different wire size, he says #30 as the primary on the core and the secondary of #16 or even larger wound over the primary. This is the opposite of the devices shown on your last post or the guy that made that web page got it backwards.

@AC

Vavavoum. Those bb's are really sleek.

@guys

Found these three pdfs here......

http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/trade-literature/scientific-instruments/CF/SIsingle-record.cfm?AuthorizedCompany=E.S.%20Ritchie%20%26%20Sons%2C%20Inc.

Each is a treasure of those times. See on 51791 pdf page 72 or doc page 62.

The cook device is using an outside induction through a mains or battery make/brake to start a loop in the coils. But that looping has gaining on that huge core "up to the capacity of the conductors" of 16 awg. The wire could not handle more then 3.7 amps (according to todays ratings for power transmission) and how many volts?

If battery started of ??? volts, look at pdf 52552 pdf page 92 or doc page 87. Hmmmm.

If mains started, he uses a rheostat.  

Just trying to figure out some anticipated throughput, since he also indicates that paraffin can be objectionable due to melting because of the heat from wire under action. How much heat melts paraffin? Should not be much.

http://www.electrotherapymuseum.com/2010/Silicone1/index.htm

wattsup

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.24, 22:07:08
He would certainly have had the Manual OF Magnetism in his shop, which refers to the unusual effect of greater induction in the center of the core than at the ends. This just screams "delay" to me.

I think another explanation is the frequency of the discharge into the human body.  With the secondary coil at the center where the magnetic field is greatest then so is the inductance greatest  If we treat the human body as a capacitor shunted by a resistor then the discharge will be a damped sine wave at a frequency determined by that LC. With the coil at the ends the L will be lower and the frequency higher.  And since the only measure of power or energy is the "feel" then this could very well explain things.

Smudge

Dear All.

This might sound silly? But I am a little confused.  ???

I see this transformer as having it's primary being the heavier coil with fewer turns and the secondary being the lighter wire and many turns !!  Ah La, the Tesla coil. Whereas you all seem to be saying the other way round, hence my confusion !!

Is it me or is it you ??  ;)

Cheers Grum.

@Grumage

Hahahahaha. This was also a question then.

What seems to be the case is this. Cook does not care what AWG you use for either coil. He has his preference as he says 16 awg for both when two coils per core, but you can mix it up and he says you can use #30 on the first layer which he always identifies as Primary and #16 over that as the Secondary. Then over one of the secondaries, you need a third coil wound to provide the initial impulse.

He was always working with DC mains or DC battery or paralleled and series Layden Jars since AC was only after 1883.

Anyways, that's why I indicated to @orthofield that the web page he referenced was confusing as well when compared to Cook.

It is confusing if you look at each core with two coils as a regular transformer. But this design is not a transformer, it is a, hmmmmmm, Looping Gainer, hahahaha, so our own standards just get thrown out the window, since as a gaining device, primary and secondary does not really matter more then the effect obtained. He is basically saying the coil next to the core is the primary.

Maybe Cook was a Kook with intent to Spook. hehehe

wattsup

Hi Smudge,

Yes, that's a very reasonable explanation for the seeming nodal effect. This particular type of coil, later becoming the Ruhmkorff coil, was mostly used in medicine. I'll try to find an old experiment that shows this nodal effect around an induction coil with a galvanometer to make sure. Or such a test could be done in this forum with Allcanadian's cores.
Even if the nodal effect exists, I'm not sure if it is caused by domain motional effects. There are voltage standing waves in the coil anyway, based on the coil length.

Hi Grumage,

Yes, I agree, putting the thick secondary wire on the outside of the thin primary wire is unusual. But Wattsup is right, Cook does specify this in the patent. Looking at Tesla magnifying transmitter, you do see a large outside wire around a small inside one, but there the outside coil is the primary...so Cook is in effect reversing the pri and sec of the magnifying transmitter setup.

His explanation for using thick secondary wire is:

By this combination the initial secondary current
of the primary helix being very small in quantity in comparison to the terminal secondary
current of the secondary helix offers but little resistance to the terminal secondary, hence
a quicker action is secured ;

This is confusing to me, but I guess it has something to do with reducing the resistance so that the current can grow maximally in the secondary. I found reference to 'small coil' and 'large coil' secondaries in the lit, so still info gathering about that.

orthofield

Dear all.

Lets try to clarify this.

I have attached the shocking device picture again. Please note where the handles are coming from. I am surely correct that this coil has the higher turns ratio to create the shock ? Secondary ??

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.02.25, 17:33:40
Dear all.

Lets try to clarify this.

I have attached the shocking device picture again. Please note where the handles are coming from. I am surely correct that this coil has the higher turns ratio to create the shock ? Secondary ??

Cheers Grum.

This device may be a single coil inductor.

You don't need a dual winding transformer to create vigorous shocks and high voltage. With a single inductor coil the flyback voltage can get very high, many times the interrupted voltage applied to the inductor with the rasp and a small battery. Try it and see, but be careful.

Naturally a high turns count secondary would step the voltage up even further.

Are the metal caps at each end a shorted turn ?

I think the outer is a high turns secondary giving high voltage, low current. If only a single coil the power is stored in the coil as current, it just might kill someone holding on to it :D

regards

mike 8)

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.02.25, 15:59:49
Dear All.

This might sound silly? But I am a little confused.  ???

I see this transformer as having it's primary being the heavier coil with fewer turns and the secondary being the lighter wire and many turns !!  Ah La, the Tesla coil. Whereas you all seem to be saying the other way round, hence my confusion !!

Is it me or is it you ??  ;)

Cheers Grum.

Hi Grum and all
Nice point Grum. When different gauge wire is used there might be better if same weight is being used for both prim and sec. If it is to use same gauge for both, try to keep a wavelength analogy between them. :)    

Hi Grumage,

No doubt the secondary is on the outside. The question was whether the sec. wire was thicker than the primary one. This does seem to be a common practice of the time, to intensify the spark. # 30 SWG is specified in the attached excerpt from radiotelegraphy manual.
I know the basic ideas of induction coils but I am on a steep learning curve as to specifics. It seems to me the more we know about the standard practices of the time, the more we will know about what is different with Cook's concept.


orthofield

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.02.25, 18:50:49
Are the metal caps at each end a shorted turn ?

In Davis manual says clearly that a slit across the ring is a must for reducing eddy currents :)

Whoops, sorry for posting the pic twice!

orthofield

Nice pictures orthofield! It is very exciting to see those old fashion coils which might be an answer on Cook's system. What also Davis mention at page 175 of the original paper, is the brass tube between the iron core and the inner coil. The same brass tube Ed. Leedskalin describes for the PMH construction. I started yesterday a more comprehensive research on the same Davis manual about the role of this brass tube. At page 175 and on, a detailed report is written about its use. I'll report if I find something more on this.

Some nice pictures there ortho  O0

QuoteIn Davis manual says clearly that a slit across the ring is a must for reducing eddy currents Smiley

Thanks Jeg that explains it then  O0
I found the below picture on that web site which shows the slit when zoomed in.
Hopefully it does not rely on contact with the coil for connection, if it does then that slit wont do much, so they must be careful that the insulation is not damaged on the wire when that ring is fitted, presumably they solder the wire to the cap somewhere.

Hi Jeg,

That's very interesting about the brass tube! I've seen some transformer patents that claim increased power from a conductive insert between the coils. I critiqued Matt Watt's Lenz lock transformer design because it had a shunt coil that didn't supply power, but this brass tube would be the same sort of thing. It looks like it would absorb power from the transformer and not add it, so I'm really going to take a look at the info you find on that. I have a hunch I was wrong before.

orthofield

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.26, 15:46:31
Hi Jeg,

That's very interesting about the brass tube! I've seen some transformer patents that claim increased power from a conductive insert between the coils. I critiqued Matt Watt's Lenz lock transformer design because it had a shunt coil that didn't supply power, but this brass tube would be the same sort of thing. It looks like it would absorb power from the transformer and not add it, so I'm really going to take a look at the info you find on that. I have a hunch I was wrong before.

orthofield

Hi orthofield :)
You might be right my friend. In the same manual at the end of page 176 states that a longitudinally cut of the brass tube will also help to reduce eddy currents. This is a slit across the tube...  What I am trying to locate in the same manual is the why to use a brass tube and not just wind the inner coil straight on the iron core with just a normal insulation like Teflon or PVC. There is some reason for using brass tubes! Leedskalnin also mentions about the use of brass or aluminum..
In the case of using a solid iron bar instead of thin iron wires, Davis states that if the bar be sawed through to its center, this also prevent eddy currents. But again using thin iron wires insulated with varnish is better.

Quote from: Jeg on 2015.02.26, 16:02:59
Hi orthofield :)
You might be right my friend. In the same manual at page 176 states that a longitudinally cut of the brass tube will also help to reduce eddy currents. This is a slit across the tube...  What I am trying to locate in the same manual is the why to use a brass tube and not just wind the inner coil straight on the iron core with just a normal insulation like Teflon or PVC. There is some reason for using brass tubes !

IMHO, the brass end caps are are convenient and sturdy mounting surface for the connection terminals and also serve to protect and contain the edges of the windings There is certainly some form of insulating material under the end caps. The slits as said previously prevent the formation of a "shorted turn" by the brass end caps, which would negate most of the inductance of the coil, and would be a huge loss to both forward and flyback energy.

Quote from: ION on 2015.02.26, 16:17:29
IMHO, the brass end caps are are convenient and sturdy mounting surface for the connection terminals and also serve to protect and contain the edges of the windings There is certainly some form of insulating material under the end caps. The slits as said previously prevent the formation of a "shorted turn" by the brass end caps, which would negate most of the inductance of the coil, and would be a huge loss to both forward and flyback energy.

That is true ION. Thanks for mentioning this. But why brass tubes between the core and the inner coil? I suspect that there is something more than just a convenient material to give a form for the coils.

Hi All,

I spent most of yesterday afternoon looking for anything in the US or EP patents, or in the old periodical lit, on the interaction of two induction coils of the type we have been talking about (Pre-Tesla for the most part).   

There were a couple of standard usages of two induction coils in connection or space interaction-- in measuring absolute resistance, in telegraphy, in metal detectors, and in some medical devices. But there were also discussions about how "problems" always arose when two coils were in proximity. Although the issues were never discussed in so many terms, I would bet that there is a lot of near field interaction between two such coils even when they are not connected.
This is especially born out by devices that used two induction coils to detect the presence of underground metal-- the coils were linked in bucking voltage opposition, or differentially, and only show an output when the metal was closer to one than the other. So the interaction of two coils was well known to Cook, as a well read electrician of his day. It was his innovation to connect them so that their voltages added rather than subtracted.

I found two other things of interest. I will deal with the first in this post, and continue with the second in a later post.

Much of the original work on induction was done by Humphrey Davy, and I kept turning up references to his collected works everywhere I looked for interactions between two induction coils.
Davy used solenoids of wire that could be stacked or inserted into each other to study inductive effects. I've attached a small part of this material. Davy seems to be only one of a few people in the literature who have looked at "higher orders" of induction. That is, a primary induces on to a secondary, and then this secondary induces on to a third coil which is not in inductive relation to the primary (I'm not sure about this last). You can see that you can continue to add more orders of induction.
He reports some counterintuitive findings about the 'direction of induction' in different coils, where they are each linked in transformer induction to the next. Attached is a chart he found true in his research. You can see that in the usual primary and secondary the currents are in the same direction, so sec flux opposes that of the primary. He expected to see the same relationship going into higher orders of induction, where a third coil is linked to the second, and a fourth, and so on, but instead he was surprised to find something quite different. The currents of the third order, and currents of the fifth order, are in opposite direction from the primary current, so magnetically support the primary current! (I guess this relates to third and fifth harmonics in some way...)

It seems, in an abstract sort of way, that since the different order coils can have different transform ratios, that you could take a small part of the output from a third or fifth coil, not directly linked to the primary, transform it so the current is very high, and then feed this back to the primary to double the current there.. literally, a loop of transformers! There has to be a flaw :-)

I'll send the whole article if you want-- it is 7 image files.

orthofield

Sorry for posting twice again, there is a glitch in what my screen is telling me.

orthofield

Hi Ion,

I agree completely. On examination of the transformer patent where the conductive material is supposed to improve efficiency it is not oriented to get maximum eddy current as in the brass tube. The brass tube seems to be an easy way to regulate the voltage output of the device, as in the attached excerpt from a long article about "Page's Separable Helices" of the precise form that Cook takes.

whoops, here's the attachment for the use of the brass tube.

orthofield

Quote from: Jeg on 2015.02.26, 16:22:19
That is true ION. Thanks for mentioning this. But why brass tubes between the core and the inner coil? I suspect that there is something more than just a convenient material to give a form for the coils.

I would say the inner brass tube may be needed to contain the annealed iron wires. It is clearly explained that the action of the brass tube without a slot will greatly attenuate the output, so I would surmise that this particular brass tube has a slot or or if not, is used also to demonstrate the attenuation effect.

This is a piece of laboratory demonstration equipment and has many modes of demonstration usage, as explained in the pages starting at 174. It use is not limited to just a finished induction coil.

Hello All

Not to dis-rail the topic, this kinda applies.............

A patent from Brazil, in Portuguese.
Fractional Muon energy generator.
Coil inside a coil run by oscillator at a fraction of the muon vibration frequency???

take care, peace
lost_bro


EDIT:  maybe this post should be moved to 'partnered output coils'

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.26, 16:44:06

I'll send the whole article if you want-- it is 7 image files.

orthofield

It would be nice if you could! :)
Little hard to visualize how comes that currents of primary and secondary are on same direction. Isn't that depends only of what is the related winding direction of both? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

About the interaction between primary and secondary, have you noticed that in partnered coils thread, this was one of the main discussions? And I refer to this:

EMJunkie:
@ALL

Floyd Sweet said:

"If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-Field will be created. The energy density of the fields remain as calculated above, but the value of the E-field will double from E/2 to E"

Hi Jeg,

It would be nice if you could! :)

--Ok, they are attached. I already sent pg. 3



Little hard to visualize how comes that currents of primary and secondary are on same direction. Isn't that depends only of what is the related winding direction of both? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

--Yes, they are wound in the same direction, and also traveling in the same direction in this case. If you used counter wound coils interacting, then Davy's chart would be a bit different looking, but it would contain the same information.

About the interaction between primary and secondary, have you noticed that in partnered coils thread, this was one of the main discussions? And I refer to this:

EMJunkie:
@ALL

Floyd Sweet said:

"If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-Field will be created. The energy density of the fields remain as calculated above, but the value of the E-field will double from E/2 to E"

--I don't think that really applies here. That would have to be a different geometry. What we are talking about here is just what successive interlinked orders of coils do. There is no more H-field cancellation than there would be in any transformer.
The main issue I need to resolve by reading deeper, is whether the third and fifth order coils are actually in the field of the other coils, or if they are not inductively linked. There's a big difference!

orthofield
[/quote]

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.27, 02:47:40
Hi Jeg,

It would be nice if you could! :)

--Ok, they are attached. I already sent pg. 3



Little hard to visualize how comes that currents of primary and secondary are on same direction. Isn't that depends only of what is the related winding direction of both? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

--Yes, they are wound in the same direction, and also traveling in the same direction in this case. If you used counter wound coils interacting, then Davy's chart would be a bit different looking, but it would contain the same information.

About the interaction between primary and secondary, have you noticed that in partnered coils thread, this was one of the main discussions? And I refer to this:

EMJunkie:
@ALL

Floyd Sweet said:

"If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-Field will be created. The energy density of the fields remain as calculated above, but the value of the E-field will double from E/2 to E"

--I don't think that really applies here. That would have to be a different geometry. What we are talking about here is just what successive interlinked orders of coils do. There is no more H-field cancellation than there would be in any transformer.
The main issue I need to resolve by reading deeper, is whether the third and fifth order coils are actually in the field of the other coils, or if they are not inductively linked. There's a big difference!

orthofield

Can you post whole article ?

@AC

I tried my three builds and the effect is the same in all three. There is a looping condition that occurs through the two coil pairs, but the effect on even my small cores are not impressive at all in terms of any "magnetic" action to the core ends. One build uses iron wire core and the two others are solid iron core. What they do share is the fine wire primaries are all wound tight side by side and I am convinced this is where the snag occurs in the system. There are so many turns with inter turn cancellation that the actual throughput just drops to a level that could never self sustain itself (if that is the required effect). One of the solid cores is build with a very elaborate insulation using aluminum paint and aluminum foil, but that does not help the tight windings.

I am saying this because in your present build, this may also "wind up" being an issue although your wire is 16awg on the primary that will be interesting to see, but still, I am afraid that the tight winds will produce the same cancellation effect. I am saying this because it may play into the final results that should be well understood from the start.

I don't feel like unwinding one of these builds so I will look to make a new one, with the same core size using 16awg but I need to find a wire with a very thin plastic coating to make sure the turns are better distanced from each other so there is no skin effect between turns. Skin effect for 16 awg starts around 11khz, the looping is actually above my scope capacity of 60 mhz so you see there is only one way to help reduce the turn cancellation and that is to increase turn spacing.

I'll need a few days to find the time and do this and will revert back here to see if there is any major differences.

So, this constant looping with potential gain is a method to increase output if the increased output can be maintained without increasing input, and if there is a way to extract that increase from the system. Cook does not really get into the extraction method.

At the time I took pictures of both solid core builds plus I made one build spec of the non-alu paint device. Two of these are attached just to give you an idea on what not to do.

CBC-1-2.jpg - Build with no aluminum paint
cbc2-coil1-wind-close.jpg  - Photo of primary winding on unit with aluminum paint.

wattsup

PS. Some analogs to this could be the SM TPU, the TK coil (spark initiated - Cook could be using a rasp and many Layden Jars to start her up) or even @otto's ECD rings.

Wattsup:

I could be wrong but I think your aluminum foil is acting as a shorted turn secondary and will kill the inductance of your coil, unless there is a slot along the length of the aluminum or it's turns are in some way insulated.

The large iron bar will certainly have eddy current losses, which will also sap energy. Best to use fine varnished or otherwise insulated iron wire as a core material to reduce eddy current losses to a minimum.

Guys,

What ideas do you have for minimizing the parasitic capacitance between the turns of a coil without sacrificing its self-inductance ?

The first thing that comes to mind is using thin low-κ dielectric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-k_dielectric) of high dielectric strength for the wire insulation.  A thick insulation sacrifices the self-inductance of a coil because it takes up space, that could be used for more windings.

What else?

Quote from: verpies on 2015.02.27, 15:53:13
Guys,

What ideas do you have for minimizing the parasitic capacitance between the turns of a coil without sacrificing its self-inductance ?

The first thing that comes to mind is using thin low-κ dielectric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-k_dielectric) of high dielectric strength for the wire insulation.  A thick insulation sacrifices the self-inductance of a coil because it takes up space, that could be used for more windings.

What else?

Back in the days of Cook, I believe cotton or some type of cloth insulated wires were often used as these produced a low inter winding capacitance. These may have had lower dielectric loss due to less inherent capacitance. Rubber insulated wires were also common, but I believe these had higher dielectric loss.

Varnishes,shellacs, and paraffin produced a very thin high capacitance dielectric, with probably a lot more loss.

The less capacitance the lower the loss especially at higher frequencies, one reason Tesla used large air insulated coils with lots of space between turns in his large coils to get a high "Q".

Other winding techniques for close wound coils may minimize the effect of capacitance, such as honeycomb, basket weave, spiderweb coils.

http://www.pa2mrx.nl/UK/PA2MRX-UK.htm?coil%20homebrewing_uk.htm

I'm sure this info can be found in detail in some of the older books

Seems to me one could wind two strands together, side-by-side--one wire and the other non-metallic fishing line.  Certainly the width of the fishing line would keep the turn-to-turn capacitance way down.  This would be far easier to wind and still maintain accurate/predictable spacing.  It's only when you have the metal wire real close together that they noticeably act like capacitor plates.  With this technique you wouldn't even need insulated wire to start with, solid grounding wire would work just fine.

Cook is very clear on the extraction method. He says put a rheostat in series with one of the coils, then put a load in parallel with the rheostat. The rheostat is there to stop you from having to re-energise the coil. It also prevents overheating in runaway mode.

Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.02.27, 17:36:29
Seems to me one could wind two strands together, side-by-side--one wire and the other non-metallic fishing line.  Certainly the width of the fishing line would keep the turn-to-turn capacitance way down.  This would be far easier to wind and still maintain accurate/predictable spacing.  It's only when you have the metal wire real close together that they noticeably act like capacitor plates.  With this technique you wouldn't even need insulated wire to start with, solid grounding wire would work just fine.

Good point Matt, I've used a that method but instead of fishing line, I've used nylon or cotton string, especially when winding bare wire single layer coils. If wound on a pre-varished former while still a lttle tacky, the string can be removed after winding and the coil turns remain neatly spaced. Instead of varnish you could also wrap the former with double sided tape prior to winding.

Hi Forest,

The whole thing would be a lot of little image files, but you can read the complete article here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4jgWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR9&dq=%22double+induction+coils%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VFfuVMCBAdawogSI2oDACA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=on%20production%20properties%20&f=false

go to pg. 127, if the link doesn't take you there.

I mentioned I wasn't sure if the higher order coils were inductively linked to the primary, and you can see that they are not, by the attached pic from the pages above.

orthofield

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.27, 22:06:07
Hi Forest,

The whole thing would be a lot of little image files, but you can read the complete article here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4jgWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR9&dq=%22double+induction+coils%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VFfuVMCBAdawogSI2oDACA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=on%20production%20properties%20&f=false

go to pg. 127, if the link doesn't take you there.

I mentioned I wasn't sure if the higher order coils were inductively linked to the primary, and you can see that they are not, by the attached pic from the pages above.

orthofield

How did you manage to read it online ? I cannot find any way to do it or to download into pdf file :-(

Hi Forest,

I gave you a bit of the wrong link.
Click on the top block of text, containing the title page, or the 'view all' tab just above the block, and you should go to the full article.
(And the full book! It makes interesting reading since Davy reminds me a lot of us-- continually surprised, delighted to be doing research, and full of things to try :-)
Occasionally google books can be downloaded but most books don't have a download link. I did a bit of research on how to gather data from G books when I started doing heavy searches there, and the best I could come up with is what I use: doing a screen print, and then opening it in paint, cropping it, and then saving it. This is time consuming but works.

orthofield

Hi All,

The attached pdf is useful for calculating or at least seeing the trends in interturn capacitance with different coil pitches, and with different coil formers, which is useful I think. It is based on experiments. He notes that the coil pitch is important-- hence the basket weave coils that ION has mentioned here an in relation to Hendershot. Also, the permittivity of the coil former is included in the formula. But most important is wire length relative to frequency of operation, because this determines whether the coil can be seen as a lumped element, or must be seen as a helical wave:

"We can however use it to deduce the circumstances under which the lumped-component theory breaks down.  The situation is that, at very low frequencies, the superposition of an axial slow wave and a wave following the helix results in a helical phase velocity several times the speed of light.  In this region however, the transmission-line equation asymptotes to the approximation  Tanθ = θ , and the relationship between  R 0   and  v p   is fixed from purely magnetic considerations.  At intermediate frequencies,  v p   decreases smoothly in such a manner as to cause a reasonable match between the transmission-line model and the lumped component model.  As the SRF is approached however, the scattering cross-section of the coil increases dramatically and the helix propagation mode comes to dominate the superposition."

If I understand this correctly, the phase velocity at low frequencies is irrelevant in the Cook case, since it probably naturally self oscillates at high frequency. No matter how much C you get rid of, some will remain, and there will be an LCL self-resonance through the whole device. But near self resonance, the two coils will also be transmission lines with nodes. Given the large bulk inductance and the large interwinding capacitance, the resonance should be in the low Mhz, just as a guess.

Running at high frequencies with less capacitance seems better, from an energy storage standpoint-- the less C, the less energy is stored in C and kept out of induction-- but also in the view that there is an evanescent field around the two induction coils. This is not a transverse wave but a near field induction directly between the core, that at resonance leads to near 100% magnetic energy transfer between them.

This near field or evanescent wave located around two solenoid coils in parallel is now used in Witricity, an ultra efficient wireless power system, that can transfer 40-60% of the power between the source and portable coil, even across a big room. The system works because the magnetic energy transfer is adiabatic-- the near-field magnetic field does not radiate, so no energy is lost from the field, and whatever does not travel to the other core, is returned to the first core in resonance. In order for this to happen, the frequency must be high enough so that the resonators can operate efficiently, while low enough so that the field does not radiate. The natural self oscillation of these large cores would be low enough for this effect to manifest. Wikipedia:

"Resonant inductive coupling: This means the area within about 1 wavelength (λ) of the antenna. In this region the oscillating electric and magnetic fields are separate[6] and power can be transferred via electric fields by capacitive coupling (electrostatic induction) between metal electrodes, or via magnetic fields by inductive coupling (electromagnetic induction) between coils of wire.These fields are not radiative, meaning the energy stays within a short distance of the transmitter".

A case can be made that there is strong direct magnetic energy transfer between the Cook coils, and not only that, that this takes place in a different time frame from the electrical self resonance. The magnetic energy transfer in an evanescent field has been thought by some to take place at more than C, in the case where the coils are closer than 1/4 wavelength... so the ends of the two cores would have almost simultaneous magnetic field strengths and polarities, while the electrical potentials would have to be somewhat different than that.

orthofield

Hi All,

Further reading in the Joseph Henry papers has showed that the phenomena of currents in the third order and fifth order coils can be attributed to the spacing between the coils.
Henry did new experiments where he built an apparatus of two thin air coils on the inside and outside of a glass cylinder (see glasscoil pic). When the outer coil was excited by a Leyden Jar, the inner coil would have a current in the same direction, and induce sparks or move a magnet needle. As one would expect.
Then he built similar coils, and connected them in higher orders as he did previously with the flat solenoids: primary inducing on secondary, secondary inducing (only) on tertiary, etc.
He found different results with these cylindrical glass coils of higher orders than he did with the large air solenoids used before. The higher order currents were all in the same direction as the primary current, unlike the case in the previous experiment with flat solenoids where the third and fifth order currents were opposite.  After struggling for some time to account for the difference, he realized it must be that the large solenoids were more distant from each other than the coils in his second experiment,  just separated by a thin glass wall.
By an elegant experiment he discovered that the distance between two coils determined whether the current in the second coil was in the same direction as the first, or in the opposite. I'll simply attached the passage in question here, since his writing is more elegant than mine.

I'm not sure whether this is relevant to Cook or not-- it's too soon to tell-- but Henry reports that his continued investigations of this phenomena were anomalous, and he didn't include them in the paper because they were too premature.

If you want to read this section for yourself, go to the previous google books url I mentioned, and scroll until you get to pg. 132.

orthofield

Hmmm....

An electromagnetic analogy of the Wesley Gary effect ?? !!   ;)

Cheers Grum.

Hi Grumage,

Yes, 'similar to Wesley Gary' is exactly what I wrote in my first draft. Especially in his electromagnetic generator patent.


orthofield

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.28, 15:25:33
Hi Forest,

I gave you a bit of the wrong link.
Click on the top block of text, containing the title page, or the 'view all' tab just above the block, and you should go to the full article.
(And the full book! It makes interesting reading since Davy reminds me a lot of us-- continually surprised, delighted to be doing research, and full of things to try :-)
Occasionally google books can be downloaded but most books don't have a download link. I did a bit of research on how to gather data from G books when I started doing heavy searches there, and the best I could come up with is what I use: doing a screen print, and then opening it in paint, cropping it, and then saving it. This is time consuming but works.

orthofield

Hi orthofield,

I found that quite a few of the older books which have already expired copyright, are also available at archive.org and not only at Google Books.  And fortunately at archive.org such old books are freely downloadable in different file formats including PDF files while the same old books at Google Book suffer from the known countries restriction Google Book introduced. For instance, the books at Google books cannot be simply downloaded in any European country but in USA, what is more, you cannot even see all the pages of the books, many of them are restricted to see.

So there are some of Joseph Henry's scientific writings at this link:

https://archive.org/search.php?query=The%20Scientific%20Writings%20of%20Joseph%20Henry (https://archive.org/search.php?query=The%20Scientific%20Writings%20of%20Joseph%20Henry)      

and Volume 30 you refer to is a bit lower down that page as Scientific writings of Joseph Henry Volume 30, no. 1 and below it no.2

At archive.org you may wish to do some other search similar to what you do at Google Books and when found, you can download the books from archive.org, no need for the much tiresome screen print etc process. Of course this is true for books that are available at archive.org and fortunately the number of scanned and uploaded old books have been increasing.

Gyula

HI Gyula,

Thanks for the great research tip! I will use, no doubt!

orthofield

Hi Matt,

I hadn't heard of Birkeland currents before, thanks. When I looked them up, I realized I knew a similar concept as "E parallel B electromagnetic waves". These don't radiate because the electric and magnetic field vectors are parallel, and in the least energy state. Because of this non radiation they can form electromagnetic objects such as ball lightning. This least energy state forms vortical spirals of "force free" electromagnetic fields, that are used on Earth in the wire shapes of huge electromagnets which would bend out of shape from the Lorenz forces that are created.
How do you see this this very interesting area as relating to the Henry experiment where he moved the two wires further apart, and the secondary current went from being aligned with the primary to the opposite of the primary? That seems really anomalous to me, so maybe it does require a new geometry of EM to explain!

orthofield

Hi Matt,

I wasn't able to watch the videos of Dr. Scott, they wouldn't load, so I read a bunch of material on it instead. This sentence in your letter grabbed me:

is it a big stretch (uh hum) to think maybe electrostatic layers can bind together magnetic fields the same way?

I've noticed that the presence of a static electric field actually changes some of the magnetic relations. For instance, the article attached talks about the idea of moving field lines. We often think that magnetic field lines are moving when we imagine generator action, but people like Feynman said that there was no way to tell one line from another so no way to say that anything is moving. Still, moving field lines work in the formula E = BxV for generator induction. The article makes the point that in the presence of an E field that is parallel to the B vector, this relationship is not necessarily true anymore (first couple of paras.). I'm not sure what to make of this, but it does show the possibility that the presence of static E fields could influence a generator, for instance. And the Earth is in such a field, of course...

In the case of the experiment that Henry describes with two long strips on each side of a glass barrier,  I don't think that E parallel B fields are likely to be present here.  The E vector between the strips is at right angles to the B vector, so the usual conditions apply as far as that part concept goes. Still, I think you are tuning in to a real technology, which is the modulation of circuit characteristics with E fields--especially with E fields parallel to the active magnetic field.

Another example of this is the fact that even in a current carrying loop, for instance between a battery and resistor, that the E fields around the circuit actually guide the current through the wire. We don't often think of the E fields around a conducting circuit. It seems to me, you could modulate the conditions even in a simple wire circuit like this, by putting E field sources nearby. Even if they are not changing, they should have an effect on the distribution of these current controlling E fields. I think this is something like what you are talking about.

orthofield

@all

I rewound one of my bench sized cook coils and will continue experimenting tonight.

I used normal 16 awg solid plastic insulated wire just to see the effect. Will know more tomorrow.

In order to get this to work even better, I think if the iron rods could eventually and simply be machined with a thin spiral screw thread where a thin Teflon insulated #16 wire (multi-strand) could fit snuggly inside the thread, that would provide the best primary to core coupling since more of the primary wire will be in proximity to the core. Plus it would permit the secondary to be wound closer to the core as well. Maybe long fine threaded iron bolts would be an easy way to experiment this.

Lastly, I doubt very much that the cook coil of two layers 16 awg over a 2" or greater core diameter and three or more feet long,  when working in what I would call "Cooks Infini-Loop Mode", the action as Cook says is fast but I doubt that any action is ever attaining the iron cores most center portion, so possibly we can eventually look at iron pipe compared to iron core for an even quicker action. But as usual I am getting ahead of myself.

The photo below shows the present set-up and instead of getting to descriptive I will try and make a youtube during tonight to show some effects. hehehe

wattsup

Quote from: wattsup on 2015.03.02, 17:27:13
I think if the iron rods could eventually and simply be machined with a thin spiral screw thread

Do you remember all the talk about black sand, black magnetite etc? People walking about beaches with big magnets on the end of a piece of string? They were compressing it together with epoxy resin into cores.

Would a core of this material suit? If so, then, as it sets and is still soft, a plastic wire could be used to compress a thread of the type you propose. As it nears setting, the plastic is uncoiled leaving a nice thread behind. 

Hi all,

I wanted to return to a topic that got brought up recently. There seem to be two basic schools of thought about the patent.

Hypothesis 1) The coils have hidden details that make it very different from other induction coils of the time. These details are hidden in the patent, or even, these details are not in the patent. 

Hypothesis 2) The coils are basically 'off the shelf' coils, maybe with a few fillips from Cook, but mostly what he would have bought at Daniel Davis, or some other maker. Most of the things he talks about in the patent are in the prior art, except of course, for connecting them back to back.

To me, the first hypothesis doesn't engender any experiments. We can speculate for ever about things not put in the patent, but if this hypothesis is true, then there is no point bothering with the device. I've always shied away from projects with a mythical quality, where there is not a lot of ability to replicate, or where there is such a haze of controversial assertions that no truth can be had. Fortunately I don't think this is that project.

On the other hand, the second alternative is born out by many details, and does engender actual experiments. It *may* not be true, but it is certainly more useful than the first!

First and foremost the historical evidence of continuity between Cook's practice and the best practice of the time is clear. He uses all or most of the standard techniques for improving 'the spark'. So he is familiar with the literature and patents.

In that literature is evidence that two induction coils were known to play hob with each other. The field interactions around two coils were actually used to detect objects. There was also a resistance measurement method using two coils in series bucking config.
So these ideas of anomalies from two-coil interaction, and connecting them in series, were already around.

There is also the very standard appearance of the coils in the patent, which of course may be an attempt to foil attempts to replicate, as in hypothesis 1 above, but also may be simply that this was how most such coils looked. I surmise that he ordered the Page's separable coils because they were designed for experiments, with features to be taken apart and modified.

Then, there is the low tech nature of his workshop as described in the "Another Perpetual Motion Fiend". Even as a sympathetic observer, the reporter was dismayed at the run down conditions, and the workshop and even his first Coil were all wood, with magnets on the ground and wires hanging from rafters. Cook was beleaguered, at the end of his finances after a long and protracted patent battle which he lost, and was not in a position to do the sort of work he could have earlier done. And even his earlier electrical patents, the two Galvanic batteries, are not extraordinary. This was not Nikola Tesla in Colorado Springs!

Then, finally, and this is the nail in the coffin hypothesis 1 as far I am concerned, I've found another invention that gets excess energy from the interaction between two induction coils. Some details are the same as the Cook patent, and some details are different, which implies that the basic overunity effect is robust enough to appear in two different devices.

Behold! the Joel Slaughter Electric Regenerator! Revealed here for the first time since the year of its discovery! :-)
I found this while systematically searching all the patent subclasses from the Cook patent.

Attached is the patent from 1906 as well as a brief article from a magazine of the time, poking fun at the inventor.

The circuit claims to enhance the output power from an AC source, shown as a generator. It uses two vertical induction coils in close proximity, connected much as Cook has them connected, but with these connections then tied to the output wires from the generator, making a through circuit rather than a recycled one, as in Cook.

There are a number of fascinating differences and similarities to Cook, but I'll focus on them in a separate letter. I'm mostly using this pretty similar device here to bolster my theory that Cook really just noticed some anomalies that were already floating around, and put some well-designed conventional coils together in a different way than usual.

orthocoil

Hi all,

A brief review of points of similarity between the Cook Coil and the Slaughter Electric Regenerator.

Similarities:
They both claim excess energy.
They both use two identical induction coils with a soft iron core.
They both have the coils close enough to interact through the near fields.
They both use energy recycling. Slaughter points out on pg. 3 of the patent: "I claim and have found out by practical experiment that by electrically connecting one end of the secondary coil to the delivery end of the primary coil and the remaining end of the secondary coil to the condensing plates I can materially increase the efficiency of the generators now in use."

Differences:
Slaughter includes an explicit capacitor, Cook does not. (Cook does of course have plenty of winding capacitance).
Slaughter uses an outside power source, and increases the power, while Cook is self contained.
Cook's secondary optimally uses low gauge wire, while Slaughter's primary has the low gauge wire.
Slaughter shows an unusual winding pattern for the primary, which he describes as "the usual way". See 'coildetail' attached.  This winding starts at the top of the coil, winds down the bottom, then goes back up to the top with reversed winding direction. I'm not sure what the meaning of this is. I guess since the current has reversed direction as well as the winding, the two fluxes add together and this is not some sort of noninductive or 'bifilar' coil.

orthofield

whoops, here is the coil detail from the Slaughter patent...

orthofield

Hi Matt,

Yes, I was reminded of the cad. coil as well. Slaughter seems to be saying that induction coil primaries were wound this way all the time, but I haven't seen any other examples like this yet.

orthofield

Hi Matt,

I'm familiar with the Caduceus coil, but I think in this case that the coil is simply intended for better lead out of the windings, or possibly to reduce the C of the primary. The attached pic shows the primary winding in a very conventional ignition coil for early autos, and you can see the same type of primary.
Now, having said this, it's possible that they did this for mundane reasons but discovered that it had unusual effects...
Wilbert Smith got the caduceus coil through ET channeling mediated by Ken Killick, and his contacts apparently specified that the coil must be a ferrite. There's new information about Smith's tests available on the Rex Research site:

http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/smith2.htm

It's interesting that he shows a ferrite rod bending the Earth's magnetic field into itself. Smith was sure that he had found a way to tap the geomagnetic field for power. Maybe he thought he could do it with the Cad coil? Perhaps a Black Hole Antenna (antenna connected  to a negative impedance) attached to the cad. coil might do this. 
Off topic, since the Slaughter and Cook coils (sounds like a steak house :-) are vertical, and not lined up with most of the Earth's field.

orthofield

@ALL

Still testing my bench build. Nothing major to report so no point in making a youtube yet. Once I get a few curious effects I will make a video. Was getting these overload readings off my volt meter but wound up being a low battery. hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha. Man when you see that and your heart starts pounding because you know it is really not normal, so you keep testing here and there only to realize the effect was caused by a low battery. Check the batteries in your volts meters.

Found another patent by Cook (1870) and attached it below. Cook also made his own light bulbs.

Can't remember if anyone put this up or not but may be pertinent for @AC.
http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm
http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoilPics.htm

Question 1: Cook could have omitted something in the patent build. There are not many places to omit something. Let's see......

1) The core may require pre-magnetization. Maybe I need to hit it with a car battery first then try low level pulsing, etc. Hmmmmm.
2) The coils require greater insulation to provide a better dielectric effect.
3) The cores require keeper plates (Leedskalnin style)
4) In the patent drawings showing the connected coils, the 4 connection points have 4 screws shown that could indicate either a means to secure the wire to the terminal or the screw could hide 4 rheostats. He does mention rheostats but never actually positions them in the patent. Maybe analog to 4 resistors.

Question 2: Does the plastic coating of my #16 wire quality as a dielectric material?

wattsup

Hi Wattsup,

Yes, the boom bust cycle of excitement and dismay are part of doing this sort of research, or I guess, doing any sort of research.

I've only found a couple of induction coil patents that use the 'caduceus' winding. I'm sure I will find an older patent where the effect of this winding on the interwinding capacitance, and the ease of lead out, is discussed. That doesn't preclude any sort of high strangeness effects of course. 

There are two Cook galvanic battery patents. I assumed everyone had them, for some reason. Here's the other one.
Note the caduceus coil winding on the central post :-)

I'm always interested to see more experiments with caduceus coils. About 20 years ago now, a colleague at the time and I did some experiments with a caduceus coil wound around a double terminated quartz crystal aligned vertically inside a Cheops Pyramid-shaped orgone accumulator. Stimulating the caduceus coil with low level AC didn't seem to do anything, until he touched the top of the pyramid one day and got a fat blue spark. We estimated >2 kV from the color and length. We were never able to get it to happen again, and believe me, we tried.

I think without a theory of operation it is a shot in the dark to try to figure out what to do next with the Cook coil. My suggestion would be to follow the historical record, such as it is. Not to restate the obvious, but if there are weird effects in the Cook coils it is because of their magnetic (and possibly electric) near fields, which to some extent are due to the fact that the cores are open magnetic circuited. They don't appear in the closed form which took dominance in the early 1920's. At that point, the relation to the Cook or Slaughter coils ends.

Following that history, and the observations of effects in the order that they occurred, ake two independent induction coils, disconnected from each other, and run both of them from separate source at same frequency in close proximity, both in phase and out of phase from each other. Then look for negative resistance or amplification phenomena. The magnetic and electric circuits in the coils have different time frames, so it would be very surprising if you did not see any of these kinds of effects.

As far as pre-magnetization, I recently found more evidence that the Hubbard central core was permanently magnetized after the windings were on. I also discussed the Coutier patent, similar to Hubbard in coil geometry, which saturates the central core. In both of those devices, the pre-magnetization or saturation tends to prevent flux from returning to the central core and forces it to return through adjacent secondaries. This technique uses the secondary flux for power, as Matt Watts' Lenz Lock Transformer and some other gadgets.

I'm guessing, but I suspect in the case of the Cook coil, you WANT the full open magnetic circuit to have as low reluctance as possible, so you would not magnetize it. But I could be wrong, and putting a third, choked, DC saturation winding around both Cook cores would allow for some interesting experiments, and a possible control technique if the L of the cores needs to be reduced for some reason.

Who's the manufacturer on your #16 wire? usually the chemical specs for the plastic coatings will be somewhere, and then that material's e can be found. I think the C of the coils is important, but not necessarily to remove it but to control it. It allows the magnetic energy to be dumped back and forth as in an LCL resonant transfer circuit.

I'm not sure how Leedskalin used metal discs.
There are indeed a lot of uses for conductive plates, rings or other elements in these old induction coil patents. The attached patent is interesting because it claims an increased output when a "false secondary" is included in the induction coil, and even more output when a condenser is put across this open circuited secondary.  This is sort of be the idealized version of a disc with a slot in it, but he doesn't seem to be indicating this extra winding to prevent eddy currents, which would have been old hat by then, but for increasing efficiency. The open circuited version obviously doesn't have any real magnetic effect-- no current!-- but there would be a capacitance, and electric polarization along the open circuit wire. I'm not sure if all this has any relationship to the Cook setup or not. But it does give me an idea for controlling your coil capacitance, if it becomes necessary.

I think the rheostats of that time couldn't be concealed under the screw, and these are just connection points, looking just like those on the commercial models. They were called rheotomes and sat in front of the coil, as they probably did in Cook's case. These are often just assumed in these patents, and wouldn't necessarily be included in a patent referring to the geometry or winding. 

orthofield

Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.03.04, 20:28:35
That center winding sure looks like a caduceus coil.  T-1000 can probably explain what this type of coil can do.

For caduceus coil as primary I did design when it is part of virtual capacitor plate and for making magnetic pulses there was Avramenko plug in series. That made perfect open system which allowed to separate load from primary circuit. Please see old diagrams attached.

Orthofield; Well done in finding these old patents. Brilliant work Sir.

I would add that William Barbat makes a good point in his patent (there is a thread somewhere on this site). In days of old, the copper wire was usually heavily oxidized, (compared to modern wire with a formvar coating). Usually it was cloth or rubber coated. The oxidation layer he claims was able to allow fast electrons to flow on the thin surface layer much faster than normal electrons.

If I were to build Cook coils, I would make them as large as I could, a minimum of three to four feet long, three to four inches in diameter or more. I would use a fairly heavy gauge wire to keep resistive losses to a minimum, and for the core, very fine insulated iron wire to minimize eddy current losses.

I would use impulse testing and observe the damping ratio as I moved the coils closer or further apart, hopefully finding a point where the oscillation begins to build towards saturation of the core material rather than decaying off.

Hi ION, Aking,

Thanks Aking :-)

ION, I've read through the William Barbat patent now and it doesn't satisfy me. The soft electron concept comes from Joseph Cater, who supposedly had the original Hubbard coils, and replicated it. I'm not sure why he would have them, since Hubbard continued to live in the NW here until the 70s. I read Cater's book, and I thought a lot of it showed a misunderstanding of basic experimental realities, so I ignored him after that.

You can explain all of Barbat's, or Hubbard's action with only three principles:
1) a primary with a high internal reluctance
2) multiple low reluctance secondaries near the primary that are mutually coupled to each other.
3) The high reluctance of the primary core must be compensated with resonance.

The primary flux enters the secondaries and generates a counter flux. This counterflux goes to the adjacent secondaries on either side, and the reactive power of the secondaries is converted into active power. Some basic magnetic circuit math will show that the total flux going into the secondaries is almost twice that of the primary flux alone, and the total flux going into the primary (except its own flux of course) is near zero. In my opinion, that's all there is to it.

You're totally right about the Cook coil initial tests. No doubt they need to be large, for reasons both technical and historical, and it's just good design to use heavy gauge wire for windings and fine iron for the core. Also using impulse testing is most likely to scoop up some internal resonance, so will be more likely to tune into whatever makes it tick.

I've been reading a lot about near field interactions between coils, as in Witricity or Tesla's original research, and it appears  that some air coil devices could possibly be overunity just on principles analogous to the three given, but applied in the near field.
I find that the shape of an RF air coil has an effect on how large the near field is. This means two coils can both be designed for 1/4 wave but still have different sizes and shapes of near fields.

It then seems possible to have a primary where most power is resonantly transferred to the secondary, but where the secondary reactive power does not resonantly transfer to the primary, but stays in the secondary field where it can be recovered. This is not like the situation in a loosely coupled coil without resonance. There should be no loading of the primary no matter how much load is put on the secondary, just as I saw in some solid-state tests using the same principles.

All this may or may not be relevant to the Cook device, but I am sure the Cook coils have a near field link across the core ends, as well as the other core and wiring complexities..

orthofield

I tried staying within the confines of Cooks time when benching this present build. There is an effect of looping even without exciting coil #5, just on its own the device is looping an AC sinewave jumping around the 60 hz mark, sometimes lower sometimes much higher with voltage levels going from 1/4 to 3/4 of a volt. So there is a continuous activity but that activity is also present in many stand alone coils as I have seen in the past when scoping mV levels.

I think my build is way to small to even tickle the real anticipated effect and also the iron core may not be a suitable grade and there may be other variables missing from the patent equation.

At this stage it is difficult for me to consider moving forward unless I revert this basic design and work out new avenues, but my gut tells me that without a full scale build, giving careful consideration to all the components available to Mr. Cook at the time, knowing he made his own batteries but not knowing voltage values in those days, it would require way more time then I am willing to invest given my present orientation is not in this line at all (hehehe) as I had not planned on taking such a turn except that a small hunch pushed me to it just to verify a few effects.

My build driven by a pulse generator on coil #5 will do all the regular things high frequency does to these small builds and that is it permeates throughout the device regardless if one or two wires driven and you will get an output off of two of the four coil tap points. There is one particularity in that of the four possible tap points using a diode and capacitor with an led load, only two are prominent while the two others are rather dead output so there is a directionality there that is looping, but the build is so small that all we can see is mV that could be caused by so many other variables.

This is why I strongly feel a large scale investigation will be the only way to help come closer to any potential resolution, but that any large scale build would have to remain within the technical confines of those days.

Now if my device is looping mV, a larger scale device could be looping much much higher volts given the ratio between my build and a scaled build so I would simply advise @AC to proceed with some caution when putting on the first connections and giving it a first whack from a battery.

I will keep this unit on hand if required but will now put it aside since I have some other builds in mind for now that for me will be more promising in answering some effect questions.

wattsup

wattsup:  Could you try scoping your Cook replication away from mains? I nearly wrote, try scoping with the mains off! lol.
At 60 hz I wonder if you are picking up mains electrosmog.

@Aking.21

You know it's around 60 but it always fluctuates erratically sometimes 100, 153, 73, 88, it's always sine wave like regular 60, but with very jagged lines.

I'm not saying there is nothing there. There is. But in the strict Cook sense, it's too small to tell or to have a sampling that means anything with my build.

This is just great for me to realize today since this confirms to me that when we were working on these small builds with @brnbrade at OU, his build should have been considered a unique Cook derivation and not a Cook replication.

So yes, I could spend more time on it but only under a @brnbrade model, which is mainly why I am just putting it aside for now.

Cook patent is one from long ago so it's a pass, but I told myself I will never work on any other device shown by any @member or non-member that is not fully open source disclosed and @brnbrade falls into that category because he was very reticent to expand on any of our direct requests. So another venture that went sour. I have no more stomach for maybe's.

These days, I ask a question and then if I cannot work out the answer from other builds, I will design an experiment to answer that question. For me right now there is no justification to make any other big builds because the big ones will answer less questions then many small ones. The big build should be an attempt to confirm the many small ones and not "just to see if it works". So from my Cook based small tests, I can see that a bigger Cook build is warranted to actually see any real effect. hehehe

wattsup

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.03.09, 16:37:51
It then seems possible to have a primary where most power is resonantly transferred to the secondary, but where the secondary reactive power does not resonantly transfer to the primary, but stays in the secondary field where it can be recovered. This is not like the situation in a loosely coupled coil without resonance. There should be no loading of the primary no matter how much load is put on the secondary, just as I saw in some solid-state tests using the same principles.

A series wound bifilar secondary will accomplish this won't it?  The way I understand it, it can be used to pull charge off the setup without affecting the primary.
If we had a kind of loop-back mechanism from the secondary back to the primary (using diodes), we could feed what comes off the secondary into the primary until it builds up to a resonant state. In this sense, it would need time to "charge", that is, to build up useful charge.
Bob

Hi Wattsup,

I agree that only a full scale build with close attention to history and precedent is likely to get results from Cook.

I know you have probably several projects going on, but you might take a look at Slaughter as a test.  Slaughter doesn't specify any size of cores, but they do seem to be somewhat smaller than the monsters that Cook specified. There is of course the plate capacitor underneath Slaughter's coil, but it might be ok as a first assumption to replace that with different values of caps you have lying around.

Slaughter doesn't aspire to as much as Cook, but it may be a lot easier to do. The nice thing about adding to an existing current is that you can build your research on small gains. On the other hand, Cook has an all or nothing quality to it. It's quite possible to put a lot of time and energy into it, and still not hit the magic key.

orthofield

>A series wound bifilar secondary will accomplish this won't it?  The way I understand it, it can be used to pull charge off the setup without affecting the primary.
If we had a kind of loop-back mechanism from the secondary back to the primary (using diodes), we could feed what comes off the secondary into the primary until it builds up to a resonant state. In this sense, it would need time to "charge", that is, to build up useful charge.
Bob

Hi Bob, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I had a writing task to finish, and then had to think about the implications of what you said.
A brilliant idea, and I agree for the most part.

The tight coupled coil around the receiver coil would cancel much of its near field flux. This might allow the receiver coil to be much closer to the transmitter.

I do see the possibility that this bifilar secondary will also show a voltage from the transmitter coil. This voltage may buck the voltage in the receiver coil and reduce the output-- I'm not sure.

I think this issue can be resolved by making the secondary bifilar NON resonant, while the receiver coil IS resonant. The nonresonant secondary V will then be much lower than that of the resonant coil, but the interaction of the two coils will be such to limit the receiver near field.

Take a look at a related design that I came up with before I started reading about the Witricity system. In this one I was thinking more about the materials used, than the spatial relationships. The ferrite receivers/secondaries are mutually strongly coupled, and the transmitter coil is one or more air coils arranged around the receivers. Like in several purported OU devices, the primary flux goes to several secondaries, and the secondary's flux goes to each other, rather than back to the primary. This seems like a robust OU principle that appears in many places.

This is right on the edge between transformer and near field device. I think this design might have some problems in that the close coupling and resonance of the secondaries might cause the 'overcoupled' issue that EMDevices referred to.  There is also the issue of getting resonance at relatively low frequencies.

orthofield

Orthofield
Thanks for the response. I'm glad you thought my idea had some merit. I am of the belief that a properly wound series bifilar coil as a secondary will not induce secondary reflection back onto the primary. I do see your point about making it non-resonant with the primary. Yes, your diagrams remind me of a few devices touted as OU over the years. What a logical, yet amazingly simple idea to keep the secondaries' flux from going back to the primary.
I've had my Cook coils out on the kitchen table for 3 weeks, but my health doesn't allow me the energy to do much right now.
I look forward to reading the progress on this thread.
Bob

Hi Bob,

I was hoping to post an excellent paper I found which shows how the near field can be controlled by coil dimensions.. but now I can't find it among the many papers I dl'ed on this.. oh well, I will get it again :-/

I'm sorry your health is not so good. I pray that it will improve.

Using a tertiary coil is an excellent way of separating secondary actions from the primary. I'm not sure how close the tertiary coil needs to be to the secondary-- whether it should be in a bifilar coupling, or very near field (as in the thing I just sent) or further out into the far field.

It's oddly difficult to find the actual math for the 'double peak' phenomena that happens between tightly resonant overcoupled RF coils. Based on EMDevices experiences with Witricity type coils, I said that if the coils are too tightly couple they will try to conserve energy in the mutual positively superposed fields, by doing this odd double peak phenomenon. Strangely this does not happen when the coils are at the tightest coupling, right on top of each other--??  What happens in the double peak has to be a simultaneous *frequency up and down shift* in the two field sources, which is like a parametric change. 

The Cook coils are probably not the best place to start anyway-- as extremely interesting as they are, the situation is too complex to resolve without breaking it down into separate experiments, as Wattsup is doing. These involve a couple of different areas which I will probably try to list over in that forum.

I personally like to start with simple, well-acknowledged principles of physics, or empirical observations stated in journal articles or patents, and build them into overunity designs. I strongly believe that Nature is conscious, and wants us to have overunity. It is our blindness that prevents this.
When we start from ground zero, and work from well established principles, then there is a double payoff when the test is done. Either we find overunity as a consequence of Nature's laws, and everyone goes "of course!" a generation later :-) ...or we find an anomaly where results are not what's expected, leading to further experiments. We may well find ways of improving our efficiencies through all of this.

It would be truly surprising if these "logical, yet amazingly simple" rules of magnetic reluctance in circuits were not upheld, and indeed they have been. In three different experiments I've been involved with, the combination of secondary fluxes to increase power, along with isolation of the primary, resulted in the increase of secondary output power, complete isolation of the secondary loads from the primary source, and a drop in input power. The experiment with total isolation of loads did use resonance in the primary, and showed an ostensible calculated COP of 19 as the four load resistances were reduced towards four shorted coils.

This number was exceedingly inconclusive, and I consider to be a case of faulty power calculations. Reactive power or Q was not calced/measured correctly in the primary.. nonetheless, all indications were positive at that time.. I hope to go back to those experiments at some point.

orthofield

I think this is a great insight into the Daniel McFarland Cook effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9Kg69cQteg

There is nothing remarkable about those experiments, they both demonstrate some known and accepted EM effects.  In the first demo using just one coil where the parts hang together the steel parts get "permanently" magnetized with some remanence and that holds them.  That remanent magnetization gets destroyed when the keeper is removed, that action moves the steel into the second quadrant of the BH loop where demagnetization takes effect.  The second demo shows that a shorted coil can hold flux.  If it were a superconductor it would hold the flux forever and you would have a SC magnet.  As it is it only holds the flux for a short period of time associated with the L/R time constant, the coil current decays exponentially at that rate.  The shorted coil current builds up rapidly (much faster than that L/R rate) when the battery is removed as the flux initially tries to decay (a tiny amount) and the voltage so produced drives the current.  Shorted coils can be used in association with switches to create a form of magnetic logic.  Graham Gunderson once demonstrated flux build-up in a core in staircase fashion using shorted coils appropriately switched.  It worked rather like the well known voltage multiplier using a chain of diodes and capacitors, but this multiplication occurred in the magnetic domain.

Smudge

Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.03.26, 10:00:34
Isn't that interesting.  So you can create a synthetic remanence in what would otherwise be a non-remanent core, just by the application of a shorted secondary winding...

This is not interesting if the time for which the "synthetic remanence" continues is shorter than five L/R time constants of the shorted coil.
Is it?

Hi Smudge, Matt, Verpies,

Yes, I remember these experiments from Graham, Smudge. I agree that these are known and accepted EM effects, but I still think they may have some importance in energy work.

The shorted turns in these experiments are loads in the sense that they dissipate energy.
High energy efficiency practices suggest you never use thermal dissipation deliberately in an OU system. So why not replace the shorted coil with a real load, for instance a light bulb?

A resistance is in some ways a fiction. There are relatively simple Cuk converters which can appear as a desired resistance at their input terminals, while any power at the input terminals is output-- a virtual resistor. So a simulated resistance creating Graham's stair step pattern may be a whole different thing, because each step of the stair outputs energy from the converter.

I made drawings of a flux switch on paper not too long ago, where a 100 Hz power signal is put into a core with two secondary legs. At a frequency much higher than the power frequency, say 100 KHz, coils around the legs are alternately connected to loads. Each load might be a light bulb for instance. Each loaded coil bucks the AC power flux, and forces it into the other leg, and the process repeats. My theory is that the loads themselves create a flux switching action that can be tapped for power.  These EMF pulses at 100 Khz will resonate a tank at that frequency, while the transformer simply behaves as a reasonably efficient transformer with some voltage noise, supplying alternate light bulbs with pulsed power.
I bet Graham already did something like that, because he explored these ideas thoroughly.

Verpies, I think how long you would hold the 'synthetic remanence' would depend on the system. It could be very useful in magnet motors where most of the motor force is supplied by a 'track' of permanent magnets attracting this coil. This could be many TC of the coil in question, depending more than anything the rate of decay of the remanent flux. In the case of a transformer, my guess is that it would be most useful at some fraction of the TC of the coil involved, because dissipation would quickly outweigh any reduction in losses after that.

Whoops, I just realized I didn't watch the video that started this conversation --better go watch it! :-)

orthofield

Hi A.king,

I've seen the video now, a beautiful and simple demonstration. I don't think it is what is going on in the Cook coil at all, but it is important in itself in all sorts of flux switching applications. The Radus magnetic boot patent develops ideas that were first worked out nearly a hundred years ago now.

To return to the Cook coils, I originally thought they might work due to time delays or hysteresis, but now I think it is exactly the opposite. The Cook coils work because of the relative simultaneity of their magnetic actions.

I start with the presupposition/simplification that it is the *magnetic action between the two cores* that makes this something other than a standard set of induction coils. 

Let's separate the two cores electrically for a moment and just consider one of them. It has a primary and loaded secondary coil, and at any time, the secondary flux will be less than the primary one. As in any transformer, what will be observed is a single flux emanating from the poles of the core, in the same direction of the primary flux.

Now considering the other separated core, it has the identical situation with ultimately only a single flux seen at the ends of the core, always in the direction of the primary flux.

Let us pull back and consider one core as an electromagnet in space, with an oscillating field around it. If we take the other core and put it nearby without energizing it, we will see that core 1 will induce opposite poles on core 2. This is the classic induction of a magnet for a keeper.

Now let us hook the two sets of coils back together, with the secondary coils connected to the primary ends. We can see that although there is some time lag in the circuit-- and certainly between the two ends of a single core-- the primaries in the two circuits are more or less in phase with each other. If we take the current loop of a secondary and the opposite primary it must *in the lumped circuit model* have the same current all the way around it. So simplistically, both actions in both sets of coils are simultaneous, and in phase with each other electrically.

If the circuits are more or less in phase with each other, then what appears simultaneously at the ends of both cores are two N poles or two S poles. Each core tends to magnetize the other one to have the opposite pole. The flux from core 1 that enters into core 2 is opposite its flux. If the flux from core 1 was high enough, it could reduce the flux in core 2 to zero, and core 2 could reduce the flux in core 1 to zero. But in reality the coupling is not complete, and so some small flux from pri and sec mutual action appears in both cores.

I've found in my reading that when you reduce the core flux to zero, you eliminate the reaction of the secondary on the primary, while in no way eliminating the secondary output. This is shown in the Cobb energy conserver patent, where some of the output current is fed back to a coil that bucks the combined primary and secondary flux. This has the effect of increasing the primary reactance, and decreasing the secondary reactance. You would think that adding a new flux that bucks the net pri/sec flux would only reduce the output of the transformer, but it actually substantially enhances the output and reduces magnetic losses.

I see the same principle at work in the Cook coils. The mutual action of the fluxes acts to reduce the load of the secondary on the primary of each coil, as well as to reduce the magnetic field inside the cores to a very low, non lossy state, which further enhances efficiency.

Now I've made a lot of blatant simplifications here, and I'm certainly not sure if this theory stands up, but it is testable by using two separate cores each with working transformers (primary/loaded secondary), then moving them closer together while they are in phase electrically, and out of phase electrically, to see what happens...

orthofield

Dear orthofield.

With regards to the Cobb patent I have done some experiments using a 12-0- 12-0 to 240 Vac torroidal transformer. I used a variable 12 V ac supply and drove windings 20 and 26 from this. Winding 24 was the 240 V ac transformer winding which I connected a 40 W incandescent lamp as first load 14. Second load 27, was a 21 W incandescent automotive lamp.

Now my experience was that following the dot polarity the primary windings fought each other as an almost short circuit and with one primary dot reversed, no fight but, quite obviously the first load 14 was half as bright.

Any suggestions ??

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.03.26, 15:46:38
The shorted turns in these experiments are loads in the sense that they dissipate energy.

Yes, resistance represents an energy leak in inductive circuits.
If there were no resistance in that shorted coil then the current and the "synthetic remanence" in that PMH would persist forever.

If it does not persist when the coil is open or absent but persists longer than 5*L/R when the coil is shorted, then it is an anomaly worth investigating.

Quote from: verpies on 2015.03.26, 18:52:59
Yes, resistance represents an energy leak in inductive circuits.
If there were no resistance in that shorted coil then the current and the "synthetic remanence" in that PMH would persist forever.

If it does not persist when the coil open or absent but persists longer than 5*L/R when the coil is shorted, then it is an anomaly worth investigating.

Dear Verpies.

Does this count ??   ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWXMxAOFW-w

Cheers Grum.

Remember that the PMH can operate in two modes:
Mode R: Operating by the remanent magnetization (a.k.a. residual magnetism) of the core and/or keeper as shown in this video (http://youtu.be/r9Kg69cQteg?t=0m23s).
Mode E: Electromagnet mode in which a shorted coil prevents a change of magnetic flux, as shown in this video (http://youtu.be/r9Kg69cQteg?t=2m2s).

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.03.26, 19:29:53
Does this count ??   ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWXMxAOFW-w

No, because you did not satisfy the first condition in my statement.  I marked it in red below.

Quote
After closing and pulsing the PMH:  If the hold does not persist when the coil is open or absent but persists longer than 5*L/R when the coil is shorted, then it is an anomaly worth investigating.

That first condition ensures that you are operating the PMH in Mode E and that it matters whether the coil is shorted...or not.


Also, it is impossible to calculate the L/R time constant for Mode E if you do not provide the resistance and inductance of the shorted coil.

P.S.
You should supply the coil with DC.  If you are supplying it with a sinewave AC, then you are playing a game of chance, because the PMH in Mode R will hold the keeper only if you do not turn off the AC power supply during a zero-crossing (which happens every 10ms for a 50Hz sinewave).  
Also, in the Mode R, the L/R time constant of the shorted coil is irrelevant, because the remanence is not governed by the coil's parameters - it is indefinite, as it is governed by the core's magnetic properties (just like in a magnetic audio tape)

Hey Grumage

QuoteDoes this count ??  

Nice video and it got me thinking, I did this a long time ago however I have come a long way since then so I found an old laminated "H" core transformer and quickly did new some tests.

On charging the electromagnet holds a 2" x 6" x 1/8" thick piece of iron across the core and it stays in place however it depends on the weight of the iron piece and if it's to heavy it falls off. Next I shorted the secondary and pulsed the primary then I shorted the primary and pulsed the secondary, no difference as expected as the field is dictated by amp/turns.

However I wanted to retest this device because what people are showing and speculating about means nothing because we still don't know why it works. So I added a resistor then a lamp to the shorted coil and wala no difference. However from my own theories concerning nature and how things actually work I decided to try something new. I placed varying thickness of paper between the faces of the pieces and even a thin piece of paper will completely negate the effect... now were getting somewhere.

Now I just happened to look over and see my iron is still stuck to my H core even after 7 hours so why is it stuck there?. Let's try a simple theory that actually explains many phenomena we see in nature. If I charge two metal plates with an insulator between we have a capacitor and the charges want to attract to one another but there is a boundary condition which prevents this. Not unlike two pieces of iron with N and S domains want to attract to one another to complete the loop however they cannot because there is a boundary condition, the very small gap between surfaces, which prevents this. How do we know this?, well if the fields could couple as in a continuous piece of iron then there would be no external field, no N and S pole surfaces and there would be no attraction, it could not work.

We see the same thing when we stack permanent magnets and yes the fields do combine but there is always a portion that cannot because of the boundary condition between the magnets. We may say they are one but they never are as they are separate magnets in and of themselves just as our cores in the PMH are separate. The magnetic fields induce one another and one cannot be any greater or lesser than the other just as the plates of a capacitor cannot be any greater or lesser than the other, equal yet opposite. We cannot have one core with a magnetic field in it and another core right next to it with no field in it, it does not work that way and each must induce an equal and opposite field in the other simultaneously across the boundary condition which is why the keeper holds in place.

Nature Rules not textbooks

AC

Had time for a few more experiments tonight and the first was scoping the primary and secondary and there are no mysterious oscillations of any sort so we can rule out that nonsense. What does matter however is the surface area of the two faces and how smooth they are. Larger smoother contact areas produce progressively larger holding forces on the keeper. I also found something which surprise me which was that the keeper can be a laminate of two or more layers of metal and still hold in place.

Now from the above observations what can we deduce concerning the real effects at play here. I think you will be quite surprised however I will leave it until morning when I can verify the true cause of these effects further, you see I have a test which will prove it conclusively. I will leave you with a hint before I go, we have seen all this before everywhere in nature however nobody can seem to put it into the proper context. Everything you need to know is in the place nobody has bothered to look... the gap.

AC

Hi Grumage,

Yes, the Cobb effect does sound counterintuitive, and may not work in practice the way Cobb describes.
As AllCanadian says, experiment trumps theory every time. (Still, we who only read and write can contribute something too).

I started thinking about feedback amplifiers and such, and wondered if a feedback loop in the proper transformation ratio to a main circuit would have an unusual effect. Cobb specifies pri and sec coils with 120 turns, and a feedback winding of 50 turns, so there is an impedance transform in his patent that isn't in your transformer with equal turns input windings. The Harold Black patent I've discussed in my parametric/noise thread shows how to tap thermal noise energy for power using a negative feedback amplifier through a hybrid transformer with a high turns ratio. True, this is amplified feedback, where in Cobb the feedback is 'au natural'. But it got me thinking about using feedback ratios difference from the main transformer.

In the power combiner patent attached, two synchronous AC currents are combined with no mutual interaction between the currents (the sources do not react on each other) where the second current is made to buck the first before combining with it. The connection point is *after* the bucking action, on the load side, rather than on the source side as in Cobb, and this may be important. The inventor claims that the two currents are added at the connection point, while there is no total flux inside the core.
Such a power combiner is conventional, but interesting because of the lack of mutual interaction of the currents. Since there is no flux in the core, there is no magnetic interaction between them.

But going back to the Cook explanation I'm putting forward, there are some things that seem pretty certain:

--The nature of transformers being what they are, at any time, there will always be one unitive flux at the poles of each Cook core.

--The flux at the poles of one core will induce opposite poles on the other core. Because of the large size and relatively large diameter of the cores relative to the distance between them, there will be considerable interaction between them. This is evidenced in the early induction coil writings, where the interaction between separated cores was known and used. I'll leave it to the experimentalists to say what sort of induction a pri on one big Cook core has on a sec on another one, at typical distance, but I would guess that more than 20% of the flux from core 1 goes to core 2 and vice versa. This flux that is present in the opposite core I'll call the feedback flux in accord with the discussion above.

It's the magnitude and phase of this feedback flux which will be important in determining its effect. The Cobb speculation is based on the idea that the two feedback fluxes must be *bucking* the net fluxes in the cores, but there are other possibilities. The feedback flux could be *adding* to the net flux in a core, or be partially out of phase with it (this would be like as if in your test situation you put a cap between the feedback coil and the rest).

orthofield

A few tests this morning with some interesting results however nothing unexpected.

The fist picture PMH keeper scan through length shows the keeper has a N-S polarity opposite to the S-N polarity of the "H" core as expected as they are attracted.

The second picture PMH keeper on pulse in shows the field measurement on the H core N face as the power is pulsed into the core at regular intervals.

The third picture PMH keeper then no keeper shows the field measurement on the H core N face with a keeper on power up then without a keeper on power up. We can see the field strength is stronger without the keeper as expected because the external field is greater without the keeper shunting the field.

The fourth picture PMH scan over north face and keeper shows a scan over the H core N face with the keeper in place scanning from right to left. We can see the H core face has a N polarity however the Keeper has a S polarity as expected because the H core and keeper are attracted to one another.


So we have established that there are magnetic fields present of opposite polarity N/S in the H core/keeper holding the keeper in place. We could also speculate that the H core and keeper are separate entities otherwise they would have like polarities and not opposite ones and the keeper would not be held in place. It was also noted that while the keeper is in place the primary and secondary coils can be shorted or cross connected in any configuration and this has absolutely no effect on the magnetic field of the H core or keeper.

It would seem to me this is a simple case of Magnetic Induction whereby the two separate magnetic fields of the H core and keeper reinforce one another across the gap to sustain there mutual fields.

AC

@Orthofield

My cook coils turned out okay although these bad boys weigh a ton and from the patent my guesstimate was 450T #16 primary, 7T 3" wide secondary on a 2" x 26" form.

QuoteThe flux at the poles of one core will induce opposite poles on the other core. Because of the large size and relatively large diameter of the cores relative to the distance between them, there will be considerable interaction between them. This is evidenced in the early induction coil writings, where the interaction between separated cores was known and used. I'll leave it to the experimentalists to say what sort of induction a pri on one big Cook core has on a sec on another one, at typical distance, but I would guess that more than 20% of the flux from core 1 goes to core 2 and vice versa. This flux that is present in the opposite core I'll call the feedback flux in accord with the discussion above.

I did some initial testing and confirmed most of what you have said to be fairly accurate however it is a work in progress and there are many variables to consider. Testing continues as I find the time and the hard work has been done... the testing is just plain old fun.

If you can think of some interesting tests give me a shout.

AC

Dear Verpies.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't quite understand what you are saying !!   :-[

Yes the video was done in haste, as per usual !! L was 195.7 micro Henry. R was 0.074 ohms.

What I did not show was that the halves remain together with the input leads fully disconnected and I also tried using a DC pulse which was found much harder to get a hold than with my AC pulse. Another note is that if an excess voltage is used the hold will not occur at all.
4 Vac seems to be the best for that particular coil.

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.03.27, 18:44:42
Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't quite understand what you are saying !!   :-[

Which sentence?

Do you understand the difference between Mode R and Mode E (http://youtu.be/r9Kg69cQteg?t=2m2s) as illustrated by these video clips?

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.03.27, 18:44:42
Yes the video was done in haste, as per usual !! L was 195.7 micro Henry. R was 0.074 ohms.

Is that inductance measured with two core halves pressed together?  (the inductance seems a little low...)
If "yes" then the L/R time constant is 2.6ms and five times that is 13.6ms, so if the PMH holds longer than 13.6ms in Mode E (http://youtu.be/r9Kg69cQteg?t=2m2s), then you have an anomaly.

In Mode R the L/R time constant does not matter and even an indefinite hold time is nothing unusual.

Dear Verpies.

Ok, now understood.

My coil measures  R = 0.074 ohms and  L= 4.44 milli Henry ( halves together )

We still have a locked pair after initial pulse either with or without the identical secondary coil winding being shorted. This condition lasts for minutes, if a steady hand is used !!

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.03.28, 15:41:08
My coil measures  R = 0.074 ohms and  L= 4.44 milli Henry ( halves together )

So that coil would hold the attraction at most for 60ms in Mode E if it was shorted.

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.03.28, 15:41:08
We still have a locked pair after initial pulse either with or without the identical secondary coil winding being shorted.

So it is operating in the Mode R since it does not make any difference whether the coil is shorted or not.
In that mode the L/R time constant does not matter.

In that mode you could get an indefinite hold time with soft steel core and keeper.

Hi Allcanadian,

I'm definitely interested in suggesting some tests for you to try with your giant Cook coils. I've been so busy at work that several lines of research had to be set aside for a little while.
I'm glad to hear that you've confirmed the general idea that considerable flux is transferred back and forth in the Cook cores. I'm convinced that there is really nothing unusual about the cores or their windings--except for the size!-- and it is the mutual interaction that makes it work.

You may have already done some of the things I suggest here, and they are just suggestions in case you are not sure of the answers already.

Start with two electrically and physically isolated Cook cores, at some distance from each other. Then drive both primaries with the same signal (same frequency, V, I, and phase) from two separate signal generators, also as electrically isolated from each other as possible.

Put the same load on the secondaries on each core.

Then move the cores closer together, observing the V on the secondary on one or the other of the cores. Does the secondary V drop or rise as the other core is brought closer?

Then repeat the experiment, starting at some distance from each other, moving them closer together, with the same signal from separate signal generators, but anti-phase this time. Will the anti-phase flux increase or decrease the secondary V, on either secondary?

My theory suggests that the presence of Core 2's in-phase magnetic field will have the effect of increasing the voltage seen across the secondary of Core 1, and vice versa of course.

Then try tuning the phase-- perhaps some phase other than precisely -in or -anti phase gives the most secondary output.

What we are looking for is an enhancement of the output from the secondary on one core, due to the some conditions in the other core. Usually theories are wrong, but they suggest experiments to do.

It's not a given that there will be a smooth increase in the effect of the second core as it is moved closer, since there is a 'drop off' at the cube of the distance, for the evanescent component of the magnetic fields.

I hope these tests are written clear enough to be followed, but if not, I can draw a diagram. The main requirement as I see it is that the cores and their drive oscillators need to be completely isolated from each other except through their mutual magnetic, and possibly electric, fields.

orthofield

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.03.27, 18:25:44
@Orthofield

My cook coils turned out okay although these bad boys weigh a ton and from the patent my guesstimate was 450T #16 primary, 7T 3" wide secondary on a 2" x 26" form.

I did some initial testing and confirmed most of what you have said to be fairly accurate however it is a work in progress and there are many variables to consider. Testing continues as I find the time and the hard work has been done... the testing is just plain old fun.

If you can think of some interesting tests give me a shout.

AC

I post this from overunitydotcom because I believe it is relevant:
NRamaswami
Full Member
***
Posts: 186
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #2082 on: Today at 07:49:20 AM »
Quote
Randy:

I do not understand why feel that a particular mode of doing things is needed. What matters is the principle of operation behind any device.

Look at Figuera's own words as translated and shown at http://www.alpoma.net/tecob/?page_id=8258

I believe this is done by Hanon.
----------------------------------------------BEGIN------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRINCIPLE OF THE INVENTION

Watching closely what happens in a Dynamo in motion, is that the turns of the induced circuit approaches and moves away from the magnetic centers of the inductor magnet or electromagnets, and those turns,  while spinning, go through sections of the magnetic  field of different power, because, while this has its maximum attraction in the center of the core of each electromagnet, this action will weaken as the induced  is separated from the center of the electromagnet, to increase again, when the induced is approaching the center of another electromagnet with opposite sign to the first one.

Because we all know that the effects that are manifested when a closed circuit approaches and moves away from a magnetic center are the same as when, this circuit being still and motionless, the magnetic field is increased and reduced in intensity;  since any variation , occurring in the flow traversing a circuit is producing electrical  induced current .It was considered the possibility of building a machine that would work, not in the principle of movement, as do the current dynamos, but using the principle of increase and decrease, this is the variation of the power of the magnetic field, or the electrical current which produces it.

The voltage from the total current of the current dynamos is the sum of partial induced currents born in each one of the turns of the induced. Therefore it matters little to these induced currents if they were obtained by the turning of the induced, or by the variation of the magnetic flux that runs through them; but in the first case, a greater source of mechanical work than obtained electricity is required, and in the second case, the force necessary to achieve the variation of flux is so insignificant that it can be derived without any inconvenience, from the one supplied by the machine.

Until the present no machine based on this principle has been applied yet to the production of large electrical currents, and which among other advantages, has suppressed any necessity for motion and therefore the force needed to produce it.
In order to privilege the application to the production of large industrial electrical currents, on the principle that says that "there is production of induced electrical current provided that you change in any way the flow of force through the induced circuit," seems that it is enough with the previously exposed; however, as this application need to materialize in a machine, there is need to describe it in order to see how to carry out a practical application of said principle.

This principle is not new since it is just a consequence of the laws of induction stated by Faraday in the year 1831: what it is new and requested to privilege is the application of this principle to a machine which produces large industrial electrical currents which until now cannot be obtained but transforming mechanical work into electricity.

Let's therefore make the description of a machine based on the prior principle which is being privileged; but it must be noted, and what is sought is the patent for the application of this principle, that all machines built based on this principle, will be included in the scope of this patent, whatever the form and way that has been used to make the application.
------------------------------------------END-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now look at what I did. I sent primary current from the first P1 to the P2 and then back to the mains neutral. But It is AC current. Every second it changes direction 50 times. The only difference is I have used quadfilar coils to ensure that the current flows first in the primary four times and then moves to the second Primary where it again rotates four times before it changes its direction.

When the current rotates first in P1 the first primary is stronger than the second primary. But when it rotates in P2 second primary is stronger than P1. Now for every second P1 and P2 alternately becomes stronger and weaker because what we used is AC from the mains.

If you look closely at Figueras circuit it is intended to make the current flow first in one direction let us say from the head to the tail portion in Let us say P1, P3,P5 etc and then in P6,P4 and P2 by using the rotating contact device. He has given the current from a battery and so it is a direct current going one way only and it needs to be pulsed and so the circuit is given.

That arrangement is subject to the wear and tear of the rotary contact or commutator brushes.

I have simplified the whole thing because 1. I did not and could not make commutator brushes that can withstand the sparks that come and 2. as you know well I do not understand the circuits.

But as you can see the principle has been implemented in the modification made by me. We found that the straight pole is the best one.

Actually Figuera hides several trade secrets.

a. What is the pole between the primaries. That has been an intense discussion here and I had to tell that if you show identical poles against each other the result will be zero voltage. Why and how I could say that? Hands on experience without theoretical knowledge. I have tried myself identical poles to face each other and got zero voltage. So I could describe it.

b. Figuera hides what is the method of making the coils.. He simply says coils properly wound...What is the proper winding..We had to figure it out.

C. Figuera hides what is the core size..to be used.

d. Figuera also hides that the secondary has to be wound on the primary core also. Otherwise it goes waste. We are all aware that transformers are the most efficient electrical devices and they are normally about 98% effiecient. So if we wind a secondary coil in Primary core we must get 98% what is supplied. It is simple common sense that if you wind it on two primaries and then use the magnetic flux between the two opposite poles of the two primaries you are going to have more than 100% of the input.

What we did not realize is the fact that if the wires are of identical size in the primary and secondary, doubling the voltage, also doubles the amperage. At 300 volts we could generate 10 amps. At 620 volts it became 20 amps. But 300x10=3000 while 620x20= 12400. An almost four fold increase in power output. Voltage developed is based on the number of turns. Amperage is based on the size of the wire used and the magnetic field strength and (I believe or assume frequency..If the frequency were higher Amperage would have been higher too. I think this is what Don Smith is saying. But he is using very high frequency high voltage units that is frightening to replicate...I cannot confirm it as it is my assumption)

Figuera gives only an indication in the statement that reels and reels of coils.. That alone gives the hint that a lot of wires and turns are needed.

We have determined that the core size matters. You must have a minimum of 1.5 feet of iron rods and bigger the diameter of the primary the better it is. Actually bigger the diameter of the iron and higher the mass and higher the number of parallel wires the lower the input. What I have done at 1540 watts input can also be done with an input of 110 watts. and possibly more output in the secondary may be the result.

What I do not understand is this?

We understand that conducting metals are without any life.

We understand that conducting metals will generate electricity when they are subjected to a rotating magnetic field.

Not otherwise..

Now where is this Electricity coming from? What exactly is this electricity. Why and how a metal knows that it is in the rotating magnetic field and why and how it produces electricity and from where does it come..Answer...We do not know.

Now If we take a permanent magnet near an electromagnet the permanent magnet begins to oscillate violently. It has no life. Nothing. Strangely it does not jump at the electromagnet. it is very agitated but it does not jump at it. To the contrary if you take a permanent magnet near another permanent magnet it immediately changes the poles and dives at the other magnet. We all know this also.

I have checked once by winding some coils on an agitated permanent magnet to see if it produces voltage..I may be wrong here.. For I have done it only once..But there was no voltage.

I do not know if the rotating core of the turbines is given DC current to make them permanent electromagnet. A rotating permanent magnet induces electricity. We know it from the dynamo.

It is not necessary to rotate the core if you are giving it Alternating current. But the core size should be very large and iron should be in the 2.7 to 3.7 Tesla ranges. I preferred a lower range due to heat issues. But even without heat issues by supplying a lower input and having a large core we should be able to generate substantial current.

The secret of the Figuera device is that it used both Lenz law obeying coils and Lenz law denying coils in between the opposite poles and then ensured that the output is higher.

I have tested with smaller cores but I have realized that we add more and more iron around smaller cores output voltage goes up. That was against common sense but then I realized that the size of the core matters.

You can have very large but smaller power electromagnet that avoids the heating issues but still can produce lot of electricity. When we built the very large electromagnet that prevented the current from flowing out there was no heat but the magnetism was significant. 

So you can provide even much smaller input but the core size must be big. Daniel McFarland Cook gives the details of the length and minimum diameter of the iron needed. I would say a L:D ratio of 2:1 may be used to produce the best output for the primary and the secondary can be of the 1:1 size..

Smaller the distance between the two opposite poles higher is the mangetic flux and higher is the output in the secondary.

There was a question last night if I have seen that my device is posted on Patricks website..He is the person who has trained me up and motivated me to do these experiments. He has the moral right to post it. I have not studied it yet. He has all the information with him.

If there are any other questions I will gladly answer them.

I hope we have provided sufficient information now. Please ask if there is a need.

@Grumage

I put up the Figure #1 from the Cobb patent.

Primary 26 is in series with Load 27 and in series with Primary 20. Seems to me the load 27 has to first be tried with a variable resistor with a volt meter across to see if the change in resistance will favor an increase off the Secondary 24 and Load 14. There is a question of balance that will be require there where the load 27 and the primary 20 need to be equal. 

If the size of this transformer was big enough to run on mains, I'd say use a mains Variac with a bulb as Load 27, but I see you are using some small coils so a mains Variac would not be suitable. But some kind of variable resistance thee should show some more effects.

In Cobbs set-up, he takes that Primary 26 which if alone would be a classical dead end and extends it through Primary 20 and Load 27. So now the P26 is getting more of the complete brunt of the AC hot changes while the L27 and P20 are basically left with the loose change left over. So P20 will not really see that much hot AC. But while P26 sees the most, it imparts this most to Secondary 24 and Load 14 but all this is only possible if L27 is balanced to P20.

@Aking21

Thanks for that post.

QuoteWhen the current rotates first in P1 the first primary is stronger than the second primary. But when it rotates in P2 second primary is stronger than P1. Now for every second P1 and P2 alternately becomes stronger and weaker because what we used is AC from the mains.

hahaha. This is what I tried to explain to @Smudge in my last post on the Partnered Output Coils thread and this is what most guys never consider that a coil on its own is basically a half changing dead end. I made a video to show this.

wattsup

I've built 2 trafos based on Cobb and can't get the B****er  to work.
Using an inverter at 240 volts.  Mind you my trafos are ferrite cores, and I try and loop back all the time.
Moved on to other things. At least the trafos are useful.

I think the reason we find it hard to replicate McFarland Cook is explained here:

http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg449151/#msg449151

Kinda humbling isn't it?

Are we missing something ?

I have copied an excerpt from a newspaper article printed in 1886 by the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette.


" Some months later the Cincinnati reporter was invited to Cook's shop where he had to sign an agreement not to reveal the secrets he was to witness.


The writer noted that Cook worked in a stable with a horse in the next room, and continued, "The machine was rudely constructed for Mr. Cook made it all himself with a few old tools that had done too much service already. Parts of it were made of wood and the whole was put together in a not very artistic manner."


"I tested the current in several ways and found it very powerful. Having made electricity somewhat of a study, I was surprised at the simplicity of many of the principles. The manner in which he expects to get the results is theoretically correct and there is no mechanical difficulty which he has not already overcome."


"After examining this machine carefully in all its parts I was conducted to an adjoining room where, on a table, sat a smaller model of more accurate make. It contained a much better arrangement of the parts, and from what he showed me I am compelled to believe all that Mr. Cook had told me." "

By now I think most who have studied this patent, the pairs of coils were probably bought from Davis's.

The reporter mentions machine, obviously there's more to the device than the patent drawing shows.

So, what if we were to put an interrupter in the circuit ? A simple attracted armature that oscillates between the two coils.  Rather like the old telephone bell ringer but substitute the bells for contacts ?   

Just a thought that occurred to me the other day after reading another article on D McF Cook's flying machine.

Cheers Grum.

I think you are correct. It was understood that induction coils came with an interrupter, otherwise they would not work. There was no AC in those days. (1880s). There would be no point in even mentioning the interrupter in the patent.

http://www.sparkmuseum.com/INDUCT.HTM


Going forward to 1915, Benitez DID put an interrupter into his patent because by that time AC was common place.

I've just remembered that when I had my freak result with a MOT the solder joint was dry and it obviously created an interrupter of sorts.

My 2 pennies worth.

I'm glad you found that article and the same conclusions as I found. Unfortunately McFarland patent was tampered not only by removing the missing circuit but also by not mentioning the correct "modus operandi" and so on... Keep digging

Quote from: forest on 2016.06.08, 11:36:27
I'm glad you found that article and the same conclusions as I found. Unfortunately McFarland patent was tampered not only by removing the missing circuit but also by not mentioning the correct "modus operandi" and so on... Keep digging

Dear Forest.

I could do with some kindly soul donating one of these !! " Bell Set No 50 C "

I scrapped hundreds of these along with telephones during my time on the " Comms " section, now amazingly collectible !!

Cheers Grum.

A study of the efficacy of certain types of long coils over short squat coils would be worthwhile in the Cook endeavor. There might be a magnetic cascade effect with small input currents in the long coils.

Long coils were used in early dynamo electric machinery at the turn of the century due to their high efficiency.

The textbook formulas for iron core coils (especially very long ones) does not address the possibility of a domain cascade or avalanche effect, as far as I know.

Quote from: ION on 2016.06.08, 17:42:07
A study of the efficacy of certain types of long coils over short squat coils would be worthwhile in the Cook endeavor. There might be a magnetic cascade effect with small input currents in the long coils.

Long coils were used in early dynamo electric machinery at the turn of the century due to their high efficiency.

The textbook formulas for iron core coils (especially very long ones) does not address the possibility of a domain cascade or avalanche effect, as far as I know.

Dear ION.

Is this the scenario to which you are referring ?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/dlenz/DLE22en.htm

Depending on the operating frequency a number of nodes will appear along the core.

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.06.09, 17:01:49
Dear ION.

Is this the scenario to which you are referring ?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/dlenz/DLE22en.htm

Depending on the operating frequency a number of nodes will appear along the core.

Cheers Grum.

Coils made from insulated iron wires :-)

Quote from: ION on 2016.06.08, 17:42:07
A study of the efficacy of certain types of long coils over short squat coils would be worthwhile in the Cook endeavor. There might be a magnetic cascade effect with small input currents in the long coils.

Long coils were used in early dynamo electric machinery at the turn of the century due to their high efficiency.

The textbook formulas for iron core coils (especially very long ones) does not address the possibility of a domain cascade or avalanche effect, as far as I know.

I was referring to ordinary iron core coils wound with copper wire and the iron core having a large length to diameter ratio, as in early telephone relays or dynamo-electric machinery as in the attached.

With short coils you cannot make use of the high permeability to get high flux at low current.  But with long coils you can.  So if you want maximum flux at the pole face for minimum current, hence minimum resistive loss, you use a long coil.  It all comes down to the demagnetization factor.  My paper "Energy around coils and magnets" tells you how to use Nagaoka's factor as the demagnetization factor for permeable rods.  Don't have it to hand at the moment as I am away in our motorhome (RV if you are American).

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2016.06.16, 15:45:31
With short coils you cannot make use of the high permeability to get high flux at low current.  But with long coils you can.  So if you want maximum flux at the pole face for minimum current, hence minimum resistive loss, you use a long coil.  It all comes down to the demagnetization factor.  My paper "Energy around coils and magnets" tells you how to use Nagaoka's factor as the demagnetization factor for permeable rods.  Don't have it to hand at the moment as I am away in our motorhome (RV if you are American).

Smudge

I was merely musing on the idea that a very long iron core wound over with copper wire in the most efficient way could be very good generator of flux, and as such there could be a domain avalanche effect at some critical size, even with a small current input. Cook's coils were supposedly over three feet long and worked best with a core of small diameter iron rods. In other words, is it possible with such a long magnetic structure that flux would suddenly non-linearly increase  to saturation at some relatively small value of input current?

Quote from: ION on 2016.06.17, 03:35:36
I was merely musing on the idea that a very long iron core wound over with copper wire in the most efficient way could be very good generator of flux, and as such there could be a domain avalanche effect at some critical size, even with a small current input. Cook's coils were supposedly over three feet long and worked best with a core of small diameter iron rods. In other words, is it possible with such a long magnetic structure that flux would suddenly non-linearly increase  to saturation at some relatively small value of input current?

I am sure there is such an effect.  There will be a propagation delay along the core and with a fast enough rise time of the input pulse that delay will be seen in the manner in which the flux rises.  The long core can be considered as a form of transmission line.  But it is a transmission line working in the magnetic domain.  From the classical point of view it is a transmission line having a reactive characteristic impedance.  I have used classical theory to show that such a line, when terminated in a reactance, exhibits negative input resistance that can lead to self oscillation.  So IMO there is something of substance in your musing.

Smudge

I have decided to bump this topic to bring it to the forefront.  It got mentioned in Chet's Private place holding spot and that triggered my interest again.  Having given more thought to the subject I am sure that Cook's long solenoids of many turns of fine wire wound onto very long Fe rods would act like a transmission line or delay line.  And those ferrules at each end of the secondary would act like shorted turns.  A good shorted turn will act to block the passage of flux so now we have a transmission line with blocks at each end, I see there a resonant condition something like a half wavelength transmission line shorted at each end.

Turning my attention to where any excess energy could come from I assumed some AC flux in a core and looked for where there could be some additional flux at a 90 degree phase, and it struck me in a light bulb eureka moment that those pesky ferrules at each end of the secondary could have something to do with it.  I see the two main fluxes in the two cores phased together because of their close proximity, then the currents in those shorted turn ferrules will be at 90 degrees to the flux.  Those currents will create a magnetic field extending out from each ferrule and intersecting part of the opposite core.  Now we have just part of each core having a combination of the main flux flowing along the length of the core plus another flux that is at a 90 degree electrical phase.  And that additional flux flows sideways into the core, along a small section and then sideways out again, it does not add to the main flux along the core.  But it does affect the mmf drop along the core.

Modelling an inductor in the magnetic domain you have an mmf of Ni ampere-turns driving flux through a reluctance R, where for long solenoids R is the reluctance of the Fe core.  Normally mmf and flux are in phase, but if there is some external influence adding some quadrature-phase mmf to just part of that long reluctance we will get a small phase shift between mmf and flux.  Now the phase between current and induced voltage will no longer be 90 degrees, it will be slightly shifted.  Our otherwise perfect inductor will no longer appear as a perfect reactance, it will have a resistive component and that resistance can be either positive or negative depending on which way the phase has shifted.  If a negative resistive component exceeds the actual resistance of the coil we have self oscillation.

I intend to explore this possibility further and if it looks good I'll post it here.  Furthermore I will explain how the anomalous energy actually comes from the atomic dipoles responsible for the ferromagnetic property of the Fe.
Smudge

Smudge

Thanks for taking another look at the Cook device. I had not considered the shorted turn effect of the "ferrules". I assume you are referring to the bands at each end that have the connection posts. This may be the ingredient that was missing from other failed replications.

It seems that this method of drawing some types of coils was common for patents back in the 1800's. Back then DC was commonly used to energize such coils so the shorting effect of the ferrules may have gone unnoticed unless used in an AC system of reasonable frequency such as self interrupted spark coils.

A good starting point for research would be a few empirical experiments where we keep the ampere turns and gauge wire the same but vary the length of an electromagnet, again keeping the overall mass of the core the same in each case and see how this affects the B-H curve and the inductance.

Does it begin to depart from the standard formula at a certain length of core?

Regards

Quote from: ion on 2018.11.26, 17:50:26
Smudge

Thanks for taking another look at the Cook device. I had not considered the shorted turn effect of the "ferrules". I assume you are referring to the bands at each end that have the connection posts. This may be the ingredient that was missing from other failed replications.

Yes, I think those bands and connection posts were a common feature of large wire-wound resistors at that time.  Transformers were virtually unknown.

QuoteA good starting point for research would be a few empirical experiments where we keep the ampere turns and gauge wire the same but vary the length of an electromagnet, again keeping the overall mass of the core the same in each case and see how this affects the B-H curve and the inductance.

Does it begin to depart from the standard formula at a certain length of core?

Not sure what you consider a standard formula for long cores.  The Nagaoka formula for single layer air coils is well known and I extended that to cored coils in my paper attached.  It strikes me that the connections between the coils was as shown in the image attached and any currents induced at start-up would be as shown.  Note there is no transformer action, the primary and secondary currents are in phase and simply give a sum mmf.  The flux in the parallel cores would flow in opposite directions, see the FEMM image showing the flux lines connected through the air.  As such this just acts like a single inductor and without any other connections the induced currents at start up would simply decay exponentially.  I think those added shorted turns really are the things that do the trick so that must be the path for investigation.

Just to whet people's appetites also here is a paper I wrote a long time ago showing that there is considerably more magnetic energy stored in the space between atoms than we supply when we charge a ferromagnetic cored coil with current.

Smudge

A very good read, thank you for that O0

Regards

Mike 8)

This is to show that current induced into a shorted coil will then create flux in an adjacent magnetic circuit.  The first image show the FEMM set-up where I model two C cores each with a single layer winding over the entire core.  I put a shorted turn of copper strip around one coil, then put current through that strip.  FEMM gives the flux linkage into the two coils.  The second image is the FEMM result.  You can see that the flux linkage to the adjacent coil is almost one tenth of that into the main coil, so it is significant.  If the main coil is energised with AC this will induce current into that shorted turn and that will then induce flux into the adjacent circuit.  I maintain that the current in that shorted turn will be 90 degree shifted from the driving flux there, hence the flux induced into that adjacent coil will also have that 90 degree shift.  With two identical coils each having a shorted turn we have the means for inducing 90 degree flux into each, and we can do this such that the system will self oscillate.
Smudge

Here is a suggested experiment where we connect two systems together and resonate with a capacitor.  It is tickled into resonance with say a single turn driven from a signal generator.  With the two coils widely separated we measure the Q or bandwidth.  Then bring them closer together to see whether the Q changes.  We could also invert one of the coils and see what effect that has, we should see a change of Q there.  If the Q goes up with the correct orientation as expected then you have a measure that the effect is real.  If you achieve self oscillation then you are a winner, but beware you don't blow up your sig gen.  Maybe a fuse in the connecting wire would be a good thing.
Smudge

Hi Smudge

Here is an interesting item. By changing R an AC current seems to be induced into the secondary.

This works, was done by me back in the 90's, but I expect the core of the transformer is picking up ambient waves, but are they magnetic or electromagnetic? hum :-\

Regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.11.28, 12:46:09
Hi Smudge

Here is an interesting item. By changing R an AC current seems to be induced into the secondary.

This works, was done by me back in the 90's, but I expect the core of the transformer is picking up ambient waves, but are they magnetic or electromagnetic? hum :-\

Regards

Mike 8)

Not sure what you mean here, all I see is a shorting switch across one half of the winding.  What is the changing R?
Smudge

Lets say the primary coil has 1 ohm resistance at the point where the capacitor is connected. The tap is in the middle, so each half of the coil has 1/2 ohm, so when the switch is open R=1, when closed R=1/2. The inductance will change as well, but not 50% more closer to 25%, eg. full coil 94mH and half 23mH (as tested on a transformer I have here).

The test was done with a reed switch and a magnet oscillating past the reed switch on the end of a piece of plastic.

1.  There could be induction from another source eg house mains, but the output was not 50Hz orientated, nor the oscillation source which was shielded.
2.  Any other electromagnetic wave in the surrounding area of the transformer, but there was no other wave visible at the time.

So what is creating the secondary sine wave output?

Regards

Mike 8)

Was the oscillation in phase with the reed switch opening and closing?  Or did having a closure conjure up some other oscillation while the switch was closed?

OK I have done some more with FEMM by applying current to the shorted turns so as to buck the flux in the cores, see image attached.  The two main coils are in series driven with current and with the flux bucked under the shorted turns the inductance is 1.23x10^-4 H.  I used 1 amp there so the flux linkage from the main coils is 1.23x10^-4 Webers.  The current in the shorts needed to do that bucking was 70 amps, then using the data previously obtained for the cross coupling from those shorted turns of 2.741x10^-7 Webers for 1 amp, this becomes 1.918x10^-5 Webers.  So the expected quadrature flux is about one tenth of the in-phase flux.  That would produce phase shift between input current and induced voltage of about 99 degrees instead of the usual 90 degrees.  Quite significant and enough for self oscillation.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.11.28, 15:38:37
OK I have done some more with FEMM by applying current to the shorted turns so as to buck the flux in the cores, see image attached.  The two main coils are in series driven with current and with the flux bucked under the shorted turns the inductance is 1.23x10^-4 H.  I used 1 amp there so the flux linkage from the main coils is 1.23x10^-4 Webers.  The current in the shorts needed to do that bucking was 70 amps, then using the data previously obtained for the cross coupling from those shorted turns of 2.741x10^-7 Webers for 1 amp, this becomes 1.918x10^-5 Webers.  So the expected quadrature flux is about one tenth of the in-phase flux.  That would produce phase shift between input current and induced voltage of about 99 degrees instead of the usual 90 degrees.  Quite significant and enough for self oscillation.
Smudge

Smudge,

Since the mmf for the rings is 70 ampere turns, could we replace the single turn with 70 turns and drive the "shorts" with the 1 amp main coil current?

Pm

Dear Smudge;

Can you describe why using gapped "C" cores would be better than the 3' to 4' straight cores used by Cook and also why the shorted turns will be better placed at the center of the cores rather than the ends, as you believe Cook did.

I'm enjoying your progression of ideas on this topic, and wonder what a FEMM model of the actual Cook coils would produce.

Also, what gain would be required to allow oscillation with 90 or so degrees of phase shift. My gut feel is that with approx one order of magnitude reduction in gain you could at best get a damped oscillation but not a steadily increasing oscillation as the coils mirror current to each other. How did you reason this out?

Kind regards

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.11.28, 15:20:38
Was the oscillation in phase with the reed switch opening and closing?  Or did having a closure conjure up some other oscillation while the switch was closed?

To be honest I can't remember, it was 20yrs ago, I would have to do the experiment again and I don't have time atm. J.L.Naudin did the same test at the time and got the same results, he said it was parametric but could not point to where the current came from, but possibly the magnet.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, it was just a thought after reading your paper.

Regards

Mike 8)

Good evening gentleman.

May I ask you to look back to here?

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1616.msg46492#msg46492

I'm convinced that DMC probably used " proprietary " made coils as the similarities between the patent drawings and the " Davis " book are uncanny.

There's been a lot of discussion about both the cores ( soft Iron wires ) and the Copper wire itself, probably Silk insulated IMO.

It would be great if we could get access to see an original set of Davis coils wouldn't it? Must be some in a museum somewhere in the states?

Cheers Graham.

All of the known facts indicate that there may be a mechanism as work that has gone undiscovered, or merely unpublished, by main stream scientist who appear in our text books.

My guess is that the location and orientation of the two coils is important. 

Considering the mechanism as a unidirectional inductive pump, the coils should be laid horizontal so as to couple together at the ends. 

The coil orientation should allow for the magnetic field to be opposite in the cores so that N it to S at both ends.

The patent has specific instructions for starting the coils and utilizing the energy without halting the effect.

I'd try an arrangement with the field rotating CCW in the northern hemisphere first.  See if you can get it started first and then see if it builds up.

Some things that may be related are Aspden's virtual intertia effect, Hans Coler device, Hendershot device.  TPU/AVEC uses a rotating electric field but it should have a magnetic analog.

Quote from: partzman on 2018.11.28, 15:57:33
Smudge,

Since the mmf for the rings is 70 ampere turns, could we replace the single turn with 70 turns and drive the "shorts" with the 1 amp main coil current?

Pm

No, the whole point is the current in the short is 90  degrees phase shifted. (or some phase) from the main current.  It is that phase shift that gives the anomalous effect.
Smudge

Quote from: ion on 2018.11.28, 16:14:01
Dear Smudge;

Can you describe why using gapped "C" cores would be better than the 3' to 4' straight cores used by Cook and also why the shorted turns will be better placed at the center of the cores rather than the ends, as you believe Cook did.

I was just trying different things and I felt that it should be possible to use just one shorted coil per solenoid.  Cook's scheme may be better,  time will tell.

Quote
I'm enjoying your progression of ideas on this topic, and wonder what a FEMM model of the actual Cook coils would produce.

I will do that but of course FEMM can't do the dynamics.  We have to do various runs then stitch the data together.  It is likely that my 90 degree shift is not quite true but there has to be some shift.

Quote
Also, what gain would be required to allow oscillation with 90 or so degrees of phase shift. My gut feel is that with approx one order of magnitude reduction in gain you could at best get a damped oscillation but not a steadily increasing oscillation as the coils mirror current to each other. How did you reason this out?

Not sure what you mean by gain.  There is no gain as such, just an unusual phase shift that results in a voltage induced into the main coil that aids the current, and provided that voltage exceeds the drop due to coil resistance then it should oscillate.

Smudge

Smudge:
you said

QuoteNot sure what you mean by gain.  There is no gain as such, just an unusual phase shift that results in a voltage induced into the main coil that aids the current, and provided that voltage exceeds the drop due to coil resistance then it should oscillate.

Okay if I understand correctly, it is the added current that aids input current. I was wrongly thinking in terms of voltage gain.

So agreed.

looking into "Pure" iron wire ?
hopefully wire which could be period correct from Cook's time

Grum mentioned soft iron Florist tie wire
I will see about getting some specs on the wires available today .

https://www.menards.com/main/building-materials/concrete-cement-masonry/concrete-accessories/rebar-tie-wire-roll-340-ft/1831060/p-1444439572991.htm

hard to find specs from early wiring suppliers ,in this case Davis company  [Grum's images attached]

I'll be making some calls today ....any help appreciated

Regarding iron wire, this is a good document with an overview of the nuances of manufacturing iron wire for the music instruments of the early period, an interesting read:

http://fortepianos.com/iron%20wire.pdf

Pure iron and also CuNi (Constantan) can be had from some suppliers e.g:

https://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Pure_Iron_Wire.html

Bailing (Baling) wire of the period may also be interesting, I remember researching this some time ago.

Still looking for more info

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.11.28, 20:48:45
No, the whole point is the current in the short is 90  degrees phase shifted. (or some phase) from the main current.  It is that phase shift that gives the anomalous effect.
Smudge

OK, so a 180 degree phase shift would be too much in the "short" coils at the ends of the main coils I assume.  I'm obviously missing how the bucking flux at the ends can increase the overall main coil flux.

I think I will attempt to simulate the device with GC models which would allow long solenoids to be made and analyzed with various core materials.  The shorted end turns could then be modeled with varying currents, phases, and couplings.

Pm

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.11.29, 13:51:15
looking into "Pure" iron wire ?
hopefully wire which could be period correct from Cook's time

Grum mentioned soft iron Florist tie wire
I will see about getting some specs on the wires available today .

https://www.menards.com/main/building-materials/concrete-cement-masonry/concrete-accessories/rebar-tie-wire-roll-340-ft/1831060/p-1444439572991.htm

hard to find specs from early wiring suppliers ,in this case Davis company  [Grum's images attached]

I'll be making some calls today ....any help appreciated

This device as shown from Davis' book is battery powered and would be equivalent to an isolated flyback transformer.  A rasp file is used for the intermittent primary switch by dragging a wire across it and the recipient of the secondary flyback voltage and current is holding on to the secondary leads!

Pm

Quote from: ion on 2018.11.28, 22:07:15
Smudge:
you said
Okay if I understand correctly, it is the added current that aids input current. I was wrongly thinking in terms of voltage gain.

So agreed.

Not so much added current but added induced voltage.  When we charge a ferro cored inductor with current it is best to consider doing this with a current generator, not a voltage generator.  The rising flux induces a voltage that the current has to fight against, the current generator sees a load that consumes power.  Not only does our current generator see a load, but so do the atomic current circulations that are within the ferro material.  It is that load induced onto those atomic currents circulations (electron spins and/or orbits) that accounts for the magnetic field energy within the inter-atomic space.  Note that on discharge the voltage induced feeds current back to the generator and back to those pesky atomic dipoles.  We only put and get back a tiny amount of energy depending on the mu of the material.  Note that there is now mega-mu material in the form of a metglas with a mu of 1 million!.  There we would only put in one millionth of the energy stored between the atoms.  But I digress.  I think we are onto a method for getting the voltage induction into those atomic circulations, those quantum dynamos, to supply some of their power to us.  And we do this by devising a method whereby the AC voltage induced onto the AC current generator driving our inductor has a phase component that doesn't continually take power from the generator while it alternately charges and discharges the inductor (as a lossy inductor does), but delivers power back to the generator.  That induction component will do the same thing to the atomic dipoles which on aggregate also alternate.  IMO whatever system we come up with would not work with air cores.  So I see this as an added induced voltage component.
Smudge

Quote from: partzman on 2018.11.29, 14:59:32
OK, so a 180 degree phase shift would be too much in the "short" coils at the ends of the main coils I assume.  I'm obviously missing how the bucking flux at the ends can increase the overall main coil flux.

The bucking current (70A in my FEMM run) produces an external magnetic field that couples to the
other coil system.  And there it induces a voltage that aids the current flow in that main coil.  The same applies to that other coil, it's external field couples back to the first coil to induce aiding voltage there.  Does that make sense?

QuoteI think I will attempt to simulate the device with GC models which would allow long solenoids to be made and analyzed with various core materials.  The shorted end turns could then be modeled with varying currents, phases, and couplings.

The problem is our lack of models for solving the magnetic domain dynamics.  I think it is possible to use classical electrical domain Spice models to do magnetic domain analysis, where voltage models mmf and current models flux.  For example my C cores with a shorted turn in the middle of the C could be modeled as in the attached image.  Each R_core is the reluctance of a small section of the core and each Rair is the reluctance of the air path joining them.  R_gap is of course the reluctance of the air gap.  Each Ni is the ampere turns associated with each R_core section, the sum of all the Ni being the input ampere turns.  L_m is the "magnetic inductance" (obeying mmf = -L_m*dPhi/dt) of the shorted turn and has a value of 1/R_short where R_short is the resistance of that short.  It should be possible to model both C cores and then introduce additional coupling to represent the external magnetic coupling that I allude to above.
Smudge

Sorry I used Paint to do quick images.  Here is a better quality image.
Smudge

Dr. Harold Aspden's comments on the Cook device:
http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org-uk/3.html

As an aside, Aspden later tested his capacitor proposal and found it did not work as he thought it would.

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.11.29, 17:26:14
The bucking current (70A in my FEMM run) produces an external magnetic field that couples to the
other coil system.  And there it induces a voltage that aids the current flow in that main coil.  The same applies to that other coil, it's external field couples back to the first coil to induce aiding voltage there.  Does that make sense?

OK, I understand your description above but where I'm still fuzzy is with the energy supplied to the current rings or shorted windings that will generate the magnetic field to aid the main winding.  If this energy is considered, would it not have to be accounted for in any energy increase in the main windings?   

Quote
The problem is our lack of models for solving the magnetic domain dynamics.  I think it is possible to use classical electrical domain Spice models to do magnetic domain analysis, where voltage models mmf and current models flux.  For example my C cores with a shorted turn in the middle of the C could be modeled as in the attached image.  Each R_core is the reluctance of a small section of the core and each Rair is the reluctance of the air path joining them.  R_gap is of course the reluctance of the air gap.  Each Ni is the ampere turns associated with each R_core section, the sum of all the Ni being the input ampere turns.  L_m is the "magnetic inductance" (obeying mmf = -L_m*dPhi/dt) of the shorted turn and has a value of 1/R_short where R_short is the resistance of that short.  It should be possible to model both C cores and then introduce additional coupling to represent the external magnetic coupling that I allude to above.
Smudge

OK, if the reluctance-resistance method for modeling magnetic components will work to solve this device, then the gyrator-capacitor method should work as well from what I can see.  Both can be implemented in LtSpice with some effort, but should be quicker than building physical coil arrangements.

Pm 

Quote from: partzman on 2018.11.29, 19:07:34
OK, I understand your description above but where I'm still fuzzy is with the energy supplied to the current rings or shorted windings that will generate the magnetic field to aid the main winding.  If this energy is considered, would it not have to be accounted for in any energy increase in the main windings?   

I think I answered that question in my reply to Ion.  Any time-changing flux will not only draw energy from the coil current but also from the atomic dipoles.  Normally this goes into the energy hidden in the inter-atomic space but here it gets into the outside world.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.11.29, 20:19:35
I think I answered that question in my reply to Ion.  Any time-changing flux will not only draw energy from the coil current but also from the atomic dipoles.  Normally this goes into the energy hidden in the inter-atomic space but here it gets into the outside world.
Smudge

OK, that clarifies it!   O0

Pm

Further considerations, the first image below shows the bucked flux FEMM result indicating that there is a small amount of flux flowing through the shorted turn but not necessarily at 90 degrees to the main flux and the main current.  FEMM can't show this flux.  It is that invisible (in FEMM) flux that drives the current around the shorted turn.  The next image shows the phases that have to apply, the resultant flux through the shorted turn is at 90 degrees to the shorted current.  Note that for a good short very low resistance short the shorted turn current is almost 180 degrees from the main input current.  That is not what we want since we want to inject a 90 degree component into the opposite system.

The next image shows the situation for a poor high resistance short where now the current in the short is almost 90 degrees to the main input current.  That is fine but now the current in that short is low.  The optimum situation that delivers the maximum 90 degree component to the opposite system is as shown in the final image where the phases form an equilateral triangle.  So this tells me the resistance in that shorted turn is critical, another variable to consider.
Smudge

Smudge, you said:

Quote"That is not what we want since we want to inject a 90 degree component into the opposite system."

What if we put a large value capacitor in series with our shorted turn (open it to insert C)? Also the # of turns could be more than one and some resistance can also be added to tailor phase shift. Would this give too much phase shift?

Also, what if the turn with the phase shift elements inserted also enclosed the opposite coil system ?

Quote from: ion on 2018.11.30, 20:04:21
Smudge, you said:

What if we put a large value capacitor in series with our shorted turn (open it to insert C)? Also the # of turns could be more than one and some resistance can also be added to tailor phase shift. Would this give too much phase shift?

Also, what if the turn with the phase shift elements inserted also enclosed the opposite coil system ?

In the magnetic domain a capacitive load appears as a negative reluctance of value N²C so it should be easy to model this.  What I haven't mastered is coupling two systems as you describe.   I'll think about this some more.
Smudge

Looking at very long systems in FEMM, here I have modeled Fe cores that are 1.8m long and 4mm diameter with full length coils of 100 turns.   In this run these coils are not energized.  I have a pair of shorted turns, one at each end of one of the solenoids.  I put 10 amps in those shorted turns and the first image shows the result.  The shorts couple well to the core they are around, and quite well to the adjacent core.  FEMM tells me that the flux linkages are 1.26015e-005 Webers in the first case and -6.36258e-006 Webers in the second case (the FEMM depth is set to 10mm).  The second image is an expanded view at one end of the system.  What I find surprising is that the external coupling to the adjacent core is as high as one half the internal coupling to their own core.  The third image is an expanded view at one end showing the FEMM data on a 1mm grid.

If as I suspect Cook's coils wound directly onto the Fe act as transmission lines, with the shorted turn at each end acting as terminations, then we can expect a standing wave there where the flux is close to zero at each end and a maxiumum in the centre, but everywhere along the line in the same phase.  That near zero at each and is due to current induced into those shorted turns which in turn then couple extremely well to the adjacent core.   The more I look into this the more likely it seems.
Smudge

Smudge, thanks for your diligent work on this. I am following your endeavor with full attention.

4mm seems a bit thin for the diameter, and modelling with linear iron may mask the domain avalanche effect I suspect may occur in large long cores but i don't know how to prove this outside of an actual test model.

Keep up the good work!

Quote from: ion on 2018.12.03, 15:55:22
4mm seems a bit thin for the diameter, and modelling with linear iron may mask the domain avalanche effect I suspect may occur in large long cores but i don't know how to prove this outside of an actual test model.

FEMM can not model the domain avalanche effect but it does model hysteresis.  Using linear iron takes away hysteresis and speeds up the computation.  I am not trying to model Cook's exact work, I am merely looking for effects.
Smudge

Ion asked about capacitive loading so I have given some though to this.  The attached paper is a hotchpot of some previous musings plus more thoughts that might lead somewhere.  Enjoy!
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.12.16, 19:00:15
Ion asked about capacitive loading so I have given some though to this.  The attached paper is a hotchpot of some previous musings plus more thoughts that might lead somewhere.  Enjoy!
Smudge

Dear Smudge

Thank you for the current paper. I follow what you are saying. In section four (Cook) you consider the capacitance between the winding and the core. Would it be helpful to model this as a transmission line, as each turn has both inductance (increased by the core) as well as the capacitance you mention. This would however require that the core be part of the circuit, and I'm not sure this is part of the Cook apparatus, but who knows?

On a separate note, I think it would also be valuable to explore the recent work and video posts of Melnichenko. I would like to start a separate thread for this and invite comments. He has about 100 videos ( 6 months ago is latest and going back 2 years) all with the same theme of an iron core surrounded with two copper windings, the outer one is loosely fitted. The scope waveforms are interesting. Anyone else find this interesting?

Regards

Quote from: ion on 2018.12.17, 15:22:21
Dear Smudge

Thank you for the current paper. I follow what you are saying. In section four (Cook) you consider the capacitance between the winding and the core. Would it be helpful to model this as a transmission line, as each turn has both inductance (increased by the core) as well as the capacitance you mention. This would however require that the core be part of the circuit, and I'm not sure this is part of the Cook apparatus, but who knows?

On a separate note, I think it would also be valuable to explore the recent work and video posts of Melnichenko. I would like to start a separate thread for this and invite comments. He has about 100 videos ( 6 months ago is latest and going back 2 years) all with the same theme of an iron core surrounded with two copper windings, the outer one is loosely fitted. The scope waveforms are interesting. Anyone else find this interesting?

Regards

Yes, I do.  I've been translating Melnichenko's posts on his website but I'm not able to find the videos you mention Ion.  Could you give us a link for these? 

I would also like to see a dedicated thread for Melnichenko's work.

Pm

Edit:  Whoops!  :-[  I already see that you have answered my question and taken care of the new thread!  Thanks!

Quote from: ion on 2018.12.17, 15:22:21
Dear Smudge

Thank you for the current paper. I follow what you are saying. In section four (Cook) you consider the capacitance between the winding and the core. Would it be helpful to model this as a transmission line, as each turn has both inductance (increased by the core) as well as the capacitance you mention. This would however require that the core be part of the circuit, and I'm not sure this is part of the Cook apparatus, but who knows?

I have looked into magnetic transmission lines elsewhere and would be happy to contribute more.  I do think this is part of the Cook apparatus but I am sure Cook didn't know this.

Quote
On a separate note, I think it would also be valuable to explore the recent work and video posts of Melnichenko. I would like to start a separate thread for this and invite comments. He has about 100 videos ( 6 months ago is latest and going back 2 years) all with the same theme of an iron core surrounded with two copper windings, the outer one is loosely fitted. The scope waveforms are interesting. Anyone else find this interesting?

I would find it interesting, could someone start this thread?  If anyone is interested in following up on that "Could this work" paper I would be pleased to contribute to a thread on that, it need not be tied to the cook thread.
Smudge

Dear Smudge and all:

For now I have started the Melnichenko thread on my bench here:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3683.msg70506;topicseen#msg70506

Peter can move it to an appropriate place if it gathers momentum.

Hope it is visible. Post any papers regarding his work there for now until it is moved.

Regards

This may help:  Some Mcfarland Cook terminology explained.  If any trained person could give present names to the terminology used, it would increase our understanding of what DMC actually meant. O0

Induction coil:  Note the battery and morse key can be omitted from the circuit.  The spark gap is also optional and the experiment can be attempted with both configurations.

In this illustration (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1616.0;attach=30252) he is describing:

(235)  The Magnetizing Helix would today be called an
ElectroMagnet or an Iron core of small diameter with
several layers of Copper Wire wound over it as we wind
our coils today.  He is making in essence the primary winding
of a Transformer to study Induced Currents in nearby other
coils or secondary windings by using the common source of
electrical current in those days for experimenters which was
the Electro-chemical Cell or Battery.

It was known then that when DC Current was switched ON to
energize a coil that there was a Back or Counter EMF induced
to oppose the Battery Voltage as the coil energized and
again, that a voltage was induced in the coil when the current
was switched OFF which was much greater and of the opposite
polarity.

(236)  The Momentary Waves of electricity excited by electro
dynamic induction in a conductor conveying a current, or in
a neighboring one describes voltages induced in a secondary
winding placed in close proximity to the primary coil.  A voltage
impulse (wave) is induced when the current switch is Closed to
initiate current flow and another impulse (wave) when the switch is
Opened to interrupt current flow.  The voltage impulse (wave)
induced with a switch closure is called the initial Counter
EMF and the voltage impulse (wave) induced with a switch opening
is called the terminal CEMF.

He is here describing how switching the DC current in the primary of
a transformer will induce in the secondary winding what could be
called Alternating Voltage and Alternating Current.

(237)  Figure 95 illustrates an Air Core Step Up transformer which
is powered by a sustaining battery and a switching scheme consisting
of a rasp and a zinc plate to produce a stream of rapid ON and OFF
switching of current to the primary winding.  A sustaining battery would
be a large galvanic battery assembly capable of supplying current for
a prolonged period of time.  In those days experimenters made their
own electro-chemical batteries in small sizes for certain experiments
and also in large sizes of multiple cells when high current was needed for
longer duration of current flow.  Inexpensive batteries then were current
limited by polarization of the Positive Plates and a special more expensive
type of battery was needed for sustained current applications.

(238)  Here he describes how initial and terminal shocks may be felt
as a result of the induced impulses (waves) when current is switched ON and
OFF.  Today we use Oscillator controlled switching transistors in place of the
Rasp and Zinc Plate to switch current rapidly or a single pole single throw
switch in place of the cup of mercury with wire immersed to make and break
contact for current flow.

(239)  Here he tells us that with a single cell battery the initial shock felt
when current is switched ON is not as intense as the terminal shock felt
when the current is switched OFF.  The voltage induced in the secondary
winding when current is switched ON is not as great as the Back EMF impulse
generated when the current is switched OFF.  In those days there were no
oscilloscopes to evaluate and analyze impulse voltages so experimenters
took shocks in their hands to determine which impulse was the stronger one.
Fortunately, with small electro-chemical batteries, those shocks were not
hazardous.

(262)  Higher order currents are induced impulses produced by repeated
closings and openings of the switch to produce a stream of pulses to the
coils and demonstrate that the stream of DC current pulses produces in
the secondary a stream of AC pulses.

He may be here referring to additional secondary coils of the transformer
and the voltages induced in those windings.  The transformer at that time
had not yet been perfected and a transformer with multiple coils or
secondary windings was yet in the future.

It is also possible that here he is referring to Harmonics of Oscillation but
without amplifying data it is difficult to discern what is truly meant.  He may
make reference to this in other areas of his writings.

(263)  Here he elaborates on the process of producing alternations in the
induced secondary winding voltages by switched DC current into the primary
winding.

(264)  Here he tells us that Electro-Static Generators may be used to
energize the transformer as well with their very high voltage output
and a spark gap to accomplish the switching.  Most experimenters
then did make some sort of frictional electricity producing machine
which was hand cranked to generate the sparks needed for experiments.
Leyden Jar condensers (capacitors) were also hand made.

Just a note of gratitude to Aking and others here
I see the Document provided By AKing recommends a specific Gauge [22"B.S." gauge ,Is that similar to AWG ?] and a country of origin Sweden and Russia .
   Glad I have not yet taken the Cutter to the spool of soft Iron Rod I Dug out from the Pile last week .
For Clarity we have a commitment from a member here to Run some "Cook Tests" once the proper
material is shipped to him.

I suppose I will need to qualify the Quality of the wire I have here since the Data from AKing infers a quite particular quality  :-\ [hopefully not unobtainium from years gone by]??
and My soft iron wire [actually bald rod ] is much bigger at .250 Dia. [approx 600 Ft]

for additional Clarity the diameter of the wire form or cardboard cylinder is approx 3 inches and the length is between 3-4 feet.
pretty Big core to fill with 22guage wire ,sourcing from Vendors here has been surprisingly expensive [for 99% pure]

what could the wire from Sweden and Russia have as ingredients [besides an assumption of quality control of purity ?
I believe the reason I am getting such high price quotes is due to insurance of purity to lab grade mil specs .
My Scrappy spool picture below [prior to "treatment for Cooking

and AKing21's Document again

Ps to add
Happy birthday to Centraflow {Mike N} ,and may you have many many more  O0

Hi Chet.

I would think that 22 B.S. would equate to British Standard Wire gague, perhaps before your country adopted its own standard of AWG?

Your other concern about country of origin, these days we can make " Electrical Steel " anywhere, they were the best available at the time for their properties.

Cheers Graham.

Build your own coil and interrupter for  $25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To333_6Jemk

The Tribune  Sept 18186  -  Interview with DMC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2285&v=1bUeARhGJnM   This is brilliant.

AKing
much to ponder ,one thing is certain ,these suggestions or ideas will be investigated in the coming weeks,
as there is a commitment to Build this here and post all results .

thank you
Chet

With the new printer I can get up to 400mm lengths with iron PLA.  I think if I print 30 x 5mm rods  I'll get a 50mm diameter core.

Has anyone made any progress here?

With winter approaching I want to tinker with something that can be done inside the house. I've studied the Cook coil battery and induction coils for a long time and I think I may have a unique perspective on it, so ... from what I have seen, nobody has tried a build with actual induction coils constructed as they were in the 19th century.

Drawing out the coils and connections, there is a resemblance to a joule thief. Both work on induction and both use that to trigger a magnetic collapse that in turn induces a separate winding. The difference with the Cook coils is there are three induced windings, two of which are on a separate core, and the output is oscillatory like a Tesla coil. There is a cap involved that everyone says is to prevent arcing across the interrupter but never seem to acknowledge that it plays a critical role in obtaining the oscillatory discharge at each interruption.

Two coils on a separate core may be enough to recharge the first coil with the inductive discharge. Or would it really be recharging the cap? (I didn't watch the RF video so apologies if this was covered)

Then, there is the missing circuit D. Could that be as simple as two terminal connections on the outer loop?

What do you think?

BUMP

Does anyone in the US know where we could find " actual " Davis coils on display to get a "feel " of the dimensions?

DMC's patent drawings look remarkably similar.

Cheers Grum.

Grum
Daniel Davis coil
americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1083190

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2020.10.21, 04:24:18
Grum
Daniel Davis coil
americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1083190

They appear on the antiques market, at auction, but at a huge price. It would be
easier to wind one.

Thanks for the link.  O0

Paul, that wasn't the point of the question. I was interested to know the physical dimensions with a view to winding. From the link that AC provided it suggests that the secondary coil might measure between 9"&10" long.

I have my own ideas about a " possible " switching arrangement, something on the lines of the old bell ringers from a telephone.  ( attracted ( seesaw) armature )

Cheers Grum.

Grum

QuoteThanks for the link.

No problem, if you have problems finding info on something let me know. If it's on the net I can find it, it's all about keywords and how there arranged to fall in line with the algorithms. If you want to find all the old stuff include the keyword "archive" in your search.

QuoteI have my own ideas about a " possible " switching arrangement, something on the lines of the old bell ringers from a telephone.  ( attracted ( seesaw) armature )

On my Cook coil setup I used the standard induction coil interrupter which is basically a self-activating relay. I also tried high speed, disk type multi-pole interrupters like Tesla which are good for high voltage up to around 30kV. What many people don't understand is that mechanical contacts arc creating ionization in the gap acting similar to a vacuum tube. They also produce a wide spectrum of frequencies at high voltage which electronic switching could never achieve. So when people use mosfets and transistors and get no results there is a tangible reason why.

My theory was to build a given device as the inventor intended then once we learn what's going on refine the process as we see fit. So far as dimensions are concerned Cook claimed it could be one coil or a pair of coils ranging from 24" out to 72". He also claimed bigger is better however the dimension ratio was fairly standard with respect to width versus length.

Regards

bump

Came across this site which I have visited in the past and excellent video...
https://www.richlandsource.com/area_history/mansfields-d-m-cook-and-his-enduring-energy-idea/article_fbac1344-779e-11e3-8a2f-10604b9f7e7e.html

https://vimeo.com/31399217

A repost from OU.com
The video is really good, here we have a man in 1859 who not only invented the light bulb years before Edison but also free energy and antigravity. Like most FE inventors of the time we can see his time line of progress...
1)He was researching telluric currents and atmospheric anomalies.
2)From this research he invented FE motor-generators.
3)After inventing FE motor-generators he learned how to build motionless FE generators.
4)The research from motionless FE generators eventually led to the discovery of anti-gravity phenomena.

It's mind boggling that so many people from as early as the mid 1800's discovered what still eludes us today. With all our technology, supposed intelligence and theory we still cannot do what a man from 1859 did with basic hand tools in a wooden shed.

There is another common thread between all these FE inventors of the past. Above all else they were curious about nature and how it works. Why the stuff we see all around us acts like it does. No global communications or internet, hell they would be hard pressed to even find a book let alone one that explained basic electrical theory. All these great men did hands on experiments with basic tools learning as they went along to find the truth of the matter.

I find Daniel McFarland Cook's story truly inspirational in this respect...

Regards
AC