Resonant Tesla Bifilar Coils capability used as a primary of a transformer

[Daenny]

Have anyone ever tried resonating a Bifilar pancake coil and placing a normal pancake coil in front of it? What was your experience? Was more power drawn from the resonant bifilar coil when the normal coil was on load?

Also can anyone help me with the schematics of finding the resonant frequency of a bifilar coil? Something like this https://youtu.be/MgAF8MxS7Rg

I'm new to resonance but from the little I could gather, I believe over unity can be gotten if resonance is applied correctly.

[Allcanadian]

Daenny

I'm new to resonance but from the little I could gather, I believe over unity can be gotten if resonance is applied correctly.

We could think of resonance being like a swinging pendulum. It can have no more energy as motion than that which was given to it unless acted on by an external force. We can also understand that any number of forces could act on the pendulum however only those acting in the right direction at the right time matter. In this respect most are barking up the wrong tree supposing resonance applies directly to free energy.

However, if a resonant condition changes a condition or material property within the system then yes the energy state can change. Nikola Tesla described this concept in his lecture on "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy". Think of it this way, the energy within a system is dependent on the properties or qualities of said system remaining constant. For example, if the system was all apples and one transformed into an orange we have problems. As such the energy within any system is dependent on everything acting as it should and responding in a specific way.

For example, if we could deconstruct an apple into a gas it could rise to a given height. If we reconstructed the apple at said height it could then fall due to the force of gravity and perform work. Here we could think of a resonant condition as the thing which could deconstruct and reconstruct the apple but is not the force which moved it up nor down. Thus there is no mechanism for gain to be found in resonance but it can change the properties of something within a system to produce a gain using an external force.

This is why most of the greatest FE inventors often spoke of the qualities or properties of things. They understood that action and reaction are dependent on the properties something has and if the properties change then so must the reaction to any given action. In effect something no longer acts the way we expect it to similar to a machine producing energy for reasons we cannot explain. In this respect we should not believe, think or act as others do because we already know it cannot produce the changes we want. Only real change can invoke real change and if nothing changes then it must remain the same...

Regards
AC

[DaveL]

"This is why most of the greatest FE inventors often spoke of the qualities or properties of things."

With the pendulum we can in fact change the properties at various points of the swing, such that it may produce an eternal motion.

We build a pendulum with a Bismuth ball at the bottom of the arm or string.
We set up a vibration element at the bottom of the swing that will alter the inertia of the mass reducing it.
We set up another at both ends of the swing to take this vibration field back down.

The bismuth ball then falls with full inertia, and accelerates past the bottom point now with less inertial drag on it's way back up.

Gravity powers the system, but altering how the ball responds to it simply reduces its effect at one segment of the motion.

With Bismuth we must do this from the Isotope level of all its atoms, and thus we need to know what frequencies to use in our resonant vibration elements. A math problem that we could now face with intelligence.

This problem will require comprehension of a system that can be used to alter the inertial resistance of the bismuth element.
-------------------------------------

I can think of 2 methods right off to experiment with.

The first is simple Isotope alignment, in this case all three elements are the same frequency.
Mass looses inertial drag along the spin plane of its Isotopes in a coherent vibration field that entrains them.
We only need turn the alignment of the dual cone systems to create the frisbee effect, then turn the spin direction as it hits the three different locations.

In the second method we use the 89/50 ratio against the Isotope frequency to reduce its inertia at the bottom then crash the field at the top of each swing with the 1/9  or  1/3 operator to add the inertial response back to normal.

Bismuth is a material of flying saucers, because it is diamagnetic, and as well has only one Isotope for all the atoms found on earth. It is much easier to manipulate at the isotope level.  Due to it high mass, it also has a lot of internal energy.
-------------------------------------------------

The electric field however for coils can be set up to draw energy from the E/P vibration ratio, present in all matter, as the E/P ratio creates rotation.

Dave L

[DaveL]

Have anyone ever tried resonating a Bifilar pancake coil and placing a normal pancake coil in front of it? What was your experience? Was more power drawn from the resonant bifilar coil when the normal coil was on load?

Also can anyone help me with the schematics of finding the resonant frequency of a bifilar coil? Something like this https://youtu.be/MgAF8MxS7Rg

I'm new to resonance but from the little I could gather, I believe over unity can be gotten if resonance is applied correctly.

Surprised you are not getting more responses here. These guys should be experts in EM resonance work.

When you add a load off a resonant circuit it creates a phase shift between voltage and current pushing the circuit out of resonance and dropping the power level again. So the resonant powering circuit must be retuned each time you change the load current.

This problem however can be corrected using geometry rather then capacitance tuning.
This is the purpose of coils appearing at 90 degrees to one another. If wired in series they will realign the out of phase components and put them back together. The 90 degree phase shift can be corrected without capacitance losses.

Further more if the ratio of turns between the two coils at 90 degrees matches a fractal of the Electron Proton ratio we can inject added energy into the circuit, drawing its power from the E/P interaction of nature that creates and sustains the Hydrogen atom.

It is probably good to take a course in electronics, you will find sections on DC circuits, then AC circuits and resonance and be introduced to all the classical formulas. At this point then you can take the technology further to include vibration energy from the Quantum Field Fabric.

It is however important to realize when you are seeing something new, as opposed to what is already well known.
In your experiments there, it may appear you are getting free energy, but that is not likely the case at this point.
The large mass of copper resonating with the capacitor will always change the wave into a nice sine wave, and a scope would be used to measure this.
It is critical to use a scope to tell exactly what your circuit is doing to the EM energy. Nature always attempts to restore the wave to a sine wave at a frequency of natural resonance in copper medium.

However as I stated if you begin to change the load current you will quickly discover the problem with trying to keep powering circuits running at resonance. The best one can get is a 1 to 1 cop using normal circuits.

The spherical transformer, opens the door to adding a Tempic field vibration component that can boost voltage by 4x by adding energy to the T field at 90 degrees to the E and M fields. Increase the power, and use "mechanical or geometric resonance."

The electrical grid is designed to work with power applied to it externally, and the design is always entropic with no knowledge of mass vibration, or geometric phase correction.

Good luck, your work is great! And your curiosity is the correct path to get outside the box.

Dave L

[Magluvin]

We could think of resonance being like a swinging pendulum. It can have no more energy as motion than that which was given to it unless acted on by an external force. We can also understand that any number of forces could act on the pendulum however only those acting in the right direction at the right time matter. In this respect most are barking up the wrong tree supposing resonance applies directly to free energy.

However, if a resonant condition changes a condition or material property within the system then yes the energy state can change. Nikola Tesla described this concept in his lecture on "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy". Think of it this way, the energy within a system is dependent on the properties or qualities of said system remaining constant. For example, if the system was all apples and one transformed into an orange we have problems. As such the energy within any system is dependent on everything acting as it should and responding in a specific way.

For example, if we could deconstruct an apple into a gas it could rise to a given height. If we reconstructed the apple at said height it could then fall due to the force of gravity and perform work. Here we could think of a resonant condition as the thing which could deconstruct and reconstruct the apple but is not the force which moved it up nor down. Thus there is no mechanism for gain to be found in resonance but it can change the properties of something within a system to produce a gain using an external force.

This is why most of the greatest FE inventors often spoke of the qualities or properties of things. They understood that action and reaction are dependent on the properties something has and if the properties change then so must the reaction to any given action. In effect something no longer acts the way we expect it to similar to a machine producing energy for reasons we cannot explain. In this respect we should not believe, think or act as others do because we already know it cannot produce the changes we want. Only real change can invoke real change and if nothing changes then it must remain the same...

Regards
AC

If we have a speaker in an enclosure and measure its output compared to its input, then we can calculate and measure the amount of losses. If that speaker in that box is at its most efficient point, and we measure that, then we put that speaker in a vented enclosure instead and tune it to a particular freq, we will see a large increase in output at and around that tuned freq. depending on the box and freq tuned to, you can get gobs of output for the same input as was used in the sealed enclosure.

There is a bandpass enclosure called a 6th order enclosure.  1 box divided into 2 chambers. Usually 2/3 and 1/3 and the driver is in the wall that separates the 2 chambers and each chamber has a tuned port that ports the chambers to the outside.  Typically the small chamber is tuned high and the larger tuned low.  Lets say 60hz and 30hz. There will be a slight dip in response between the 2 tuned freq, but will be at a level also higher than the driver just in a sealed enclosure.  But if we tune each enclosure to freq closer to each other, say 40hz and 50hz, the previous dip will be more of a peak output between those 2 freq.  Now we tune to 43hz and 47 hz. That peak will now be very prominent.

In my example graph below, all of the same speaker with the same input applied, the yellow trace is the sealed enclosure, green vented tuned to 21hz, violet 6th order at 30hz and 60hz and the lt blue is 6th order tuned to 43hz and 47hz.

To increase output of a speaker 3db, the power input needs to double. 3db more, double input again.  The peak of the lt blue trace is nearly 15db more at 44hz than the simple sealed speaker yellow trace.   If the speaker is capable of 90db @ 1w, which is the sensitivity of the speaker in the graph, then it would take 256w of input to the yellow trace sealed enclosure to just get to 115db. 

Now, are we not obtaining a considerable gain by applying 1w to a speaker that is stimulating 2 resonant enclosures that are tuned very close to one another in freq??

In electronics, we would need to design a circuit that would apply the same principals.

Mags

[Magluvin]

And here we just shifted the tune to 57hz and 60hz in the same 6th order enclosure.  peak is at 123db @ 1w input.   

It would take 2kw applied to the sealed enclosure to get these marks.

Mags

[Magluvin]

Speaker sensitivity is its rated efficiency spec.   

90db sens @1w is .63%

96db sens @1w is 2.5%

There are some speakers that are 112db..  Guess what that eff is....   100%   

So, that 90db @ 1w with an efficiency of .63% is well capable of exceeding 112db @ 1w

So we calc the output peak of the 6th order tuned to 57hz and 60hz.  123db @ 1w is 1258% eff of sound output, which is measured in watts, just like any other energy.  Now, what is the output in watts compared to the input of 1w???   

Mags

Mags

[Magluvin]

Tito at OU said a few times, "many many coils"   So lets say we had a transformer that had a spider style core where the primary was in the center and each of the leg loops had a resonant secondary, as many as possible, then if those secondaries were all applied to the output, there should be more current output vs just having 1 secondary. Similar to the 6th order subwoofer enclosure, the 2 chambers have more output than just 1.  What if there were 3 tuned chambers? How about 8?  Regular vented enclosure, even if we tuned it to 60hz, of similar freq as the last 6th order Ive shown, can not produce that high of a peak as the 6th order. Ive seen some complex enclosures, even ones with separate chambers that only have 1 port and no speaker.  What if I built a simple sealed enclosure and around that square box we add 8 dummy enclosures tuned to say 60hz. So 3 boxes by 3 boxes. If we drive the single speaker at 60hz, will those other 8 tuned enclosures help to produce more output than the single speaker alone? The tuned enclosures only get stimulated by the output of the single speaker in the middle. Just a simple idea that may coincide with what Tito was saying. may need some work and experimentation as to maybe how the tuned boxes are arranged around the single driver.

I think there should be more focus on resonance.  But its hard to stick to it when others say its just a pendulum and nothing to gain from that.    As shown in the graphs, the higher the freq, the more output obtained.  So a slow moving pendulum would be a loser when comparing the figures of a faster pendulum. A faster pendulum would even stimulated into full oscilation faster also. So if the pendulum were oscillating at 60hz, there should be more gain than a slow pen

Mags

[Allcanadian]

Magluvin

I think there should be more focus on resonance.  But its hard to stick to it when others say its just a pendulum and nothing to gain from that.    As shown in the graphs, the higher the freq, the more output obtained.  So a slow moving pendulum would be a loser when comparing the figures of a faster pendulum. A faster pendulum would even stimulated into full oscilation faster also. So if the pendulum were oscillating at 60hz, there should be more gain than a slow pen

There are many problems with these kinds of systems...

If we compare thing A moving fast to thing B moving slow and thing A has more energy then it must have required more energy to move it faster. As well, resonance is not a mechanism for gain it is the most efficient way to add energy to an oscillating system.

Resonance: the quality or state of being resonant. b(1) : a vibration of large amplitude in a mechanical or electrical system caused by a relatively small periodic stimulus of the same or nearly the same period as the natural vibration period of the system.

I liked what Tito had to say and it was really entertaining even if it was somewhat incoherent. What Tito said also correlated with what many other inventors have claimed in the past. The Hubbard and Moray devices are good examples of the "many coils are better" concept. We could think of resonance as the most efficient way to move energy and many coils as the most efficient way to transform it. However as I pointed out above this does not explain the mechanism for gain in the system.

I suspect Tito was trying to sell the technology and probably succeeded which is why he went off the grid. Most FE inventors make some public claims, are approached by the boys in suits with money, sign some contracts/NDA's and retire.

Regards
AC

[partzman]

Tito at OU said a few times, "many many coils"   So lets say we had a transformer that had a spider style core where the primary was in the center and each of the leg loops had a resonant secondary, as many as possible, then if those secondaries were all applied to the output, there should be more current output vs just having 1 secondary. Similar to the 6th order subwoofer enclosure, the 2 chambers have more output than just 1.  What if there were 3 tuned chambers? How about 8?  Regular vented enclosure, even if we tuned it to 60hz, of similar freq as the last 6th order Ive shown, can not produce that high of a peak as the 6th order. Ive seen some complex enclosures, even ones with separate chambers that only have 1 port and no speaker.  What if I built a simple sealed enclosure and around that square box we add 8 dummy enclosures tuned to say 60hz. So 3 boxes by 3 boxes. If we drive the single speaker at 60hz, will those other 8 tuned enclosures help to produce more output than the single speaker alone? The tuned enclosures only get stimulated by the output of the single speaker in the middle. Just a simple idea that may coincide with what Tito was saying. may need some work and experimentation as to maybe how the tuned boxes are arranged around the single driver.

I think there should be more focus on resonance.  But its hard to stick to it when others say its just a pendulum and nothing to gain from that.    As shown in the graphs, the higher the freq, the more output obtained.  So a slow moving pendulum would be a loser when comparing the figures of a faster pendulum. A faster pendulum would even stimulated into full oscilation faster also. So if the pendulum were oscillating at 60hz, there should be more gain than a slow pen

Mags

Mags,

I don't know if you remember or know but back in the 60's, Fender built a 2-15" enclosure for bass that had one JBL hi efficiency 15" speaker and one passive driver of the same size.  I don't remember the overall performance but I played thru one and it was really close to the two driven speaker system.

Regards,
Jon

[Magluvin]

Mags,

I don't know if you remember or know but back in the 60's, Fender built a 2-15" enclosure for bass that had one JBL hi efficiency 15" speaker and one passive driver of the same size.  I don't remember the overall performance but I played thru one and it was really close to the two driven speaker system.

Regards,
Jon

Hey Jon
a passive radiator acts just like a tuned length of port..   So at the lower freq where a speaker typically unloads, meaning it reaches full max excursion, and it cannot move any further even with more power, the ported or tuned passive radiator take on most all of the output and the driver seems to not move at all at the tuned freq.  So now the driver can accept more power to increase stimulation of the resonant effect.

A port or vent does not have the physical restriction of a radiator as the air vibrating in the port has no mechanical limits to how much air can move.

Here is the page with the simple formula and calculator to convert speaker sensitivity spec to actual efficiency.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-efficiency.htm

You can just run some numbers in there and get a grip on what Ive been saying.   The eff is logarithmic to the db sensitivity spec, not linear.  So the eff number become staggering as the sensitivity numbers increase.

Here is a chart below from the site.  They must realize that 112db@1w speakers exist, but the chart only shows up to 105db@1w.  Remember 112db @ 1w is 100% eff.  Site could possibly get shut down for showing a possible rating that would be 100%eff.  And, just think...  Could those 112db speakers be just absolutely thee best that can be made, as in possibly higher eff?  Is even just 114db@1w be possible?  Could it be that speaker factories are restricted to only 112db@1w??   

Mags

[DaveL]

Mass Resonance versus EM resonance

More copper, more mass, more power.

It should become self evident that EM resonance, having no mass, and always attempting to stabilize on the outside of an atom, is not a Source of power. EM resonance is a load, and if we shut off the transmitter the antenna goes dead instantly no matter how high the Q of our circuits.

In the atoms, power enters from the convergent Field Fabric at a harmonic of the background field resonance frequencies. It then powers the nuclear core of the atom generating the strong force, and only then can it begin to trap electrons in orbits around it. The electron shells are then sustained and fully recover over and over no matter what we do to disturb them.

We cannot breech the atoms nuclear core to release protons, using EM fields because it is 137 times more powerful then EM fields can become.
The nuclear core is designed to hold those electrons in their orbits, and only in special elements, mainly metals with specific arrangement of E/P ratios, can we develop an EM technology, where electron bonds can change on the other orbits, and we see the phenomena of free electrons.

When the electrons are ripped off the copper atoms, they go through a transition in velocity, from near light velocity to a very slow velocity proportional to the current in the circuit, and there is very little chance of stopping them from generating heat in this process.
Graphene layering can achieve a zero resistance, but that is not yet wide spread and available unless we want to become chemists.

If we rotate the EM field on a copper atom, the nuclear forces attempt to fight us, pulling the atom back into it's stability. We recognize this force as countering the EM but few realize it is not a magnetic force, but an inertial force. A result of the mass resonance inside the atoms core at very specific frequencies for each element on the table of elements.

If we could spin up the nucleus of the atom, rather then merely rotating the electron shells, the mass of the atom would then power the spin on the electron shells and not only start it spinning but compensate for any load we place on it. It would begin to self regulate as we add more load, exactly as atoms do with their own electron shells.

What is the field force we use to manipulate the nuclear core of the atom, where is the strongest power of the atom, these are the correct questions.

The more copper mass when you hit on this with a tweak, the more power is available, because the power is not coming from the electron shells but the mass of the copper in the circuit.

What wind on a coil can increase the flux density of a normal coil?
What wind on a coil can access the mass of the atom?
Why?

Dave L

[muDped]

Very interesting thoughts Dave L.

And, quite correct too.

Resonance is a very useful phenomenon which has limitations.