PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-01-17, 06:57:26
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Author Topic: Daniel McFarland Cook Generator  (Read 185099 times)

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2228


Buy me a cigar
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.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
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
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi All,

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

orthofield
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
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.
« Last Edit: 2015-02-20, 02:28:29 by Aking.21 »


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
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.


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 45
In that case, it cannot be iron. Iron doesn't rust.

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

Posts: 45
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.  

« Last Edit: 2015-02-20, 03:39:54 by Jeg »
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
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
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
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

 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1623
@orthofield
Quote
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.


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:
Quote
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.

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



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
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?


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2228


Buy me a cigar
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.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3543
It's turtles all the way down
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.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 869
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.
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2228


Buy me a cigar
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.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@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



---------------------------
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 325
wattsup

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

Posts: 520
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



---------------------------
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2228


Buy me a cigar
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.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@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



---------------------------
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2228


Buy me a cigar

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


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
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
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2228


Buy me a cigar
Dear Wattsup and all.

Recognise these ??

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

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
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.
« Last Edit: 2015-02-23, 02:42:30 by Aking.21 »


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-01-17, 06:57:26