PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-04-13, 03:02:10
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13
Author Topic: Daniel McFarland Cook Generator  (Read 188082 times)

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2349


Buy me a cigar
Hmmm....

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

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: Guest
Hi Grumage,

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


orthofield

   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 816
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      

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
   
Group: Guest
HI Gyula,

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

orthofield
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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
 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@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



---------------------------
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1351
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. 
   
Group: Guest
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



 




 

   
Group: Guest
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


   
Group: Guest
whoops, here is the coil detail from the Slaughter patent...

orthofield
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@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



---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
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

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 331
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.

   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
Orthofield; Well done in finding these old patents. Brilliant work Sir.


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
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.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
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

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
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



---------------------------
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
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.


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

Posts: 520
@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


---------------------------
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 60
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
   
Group: Guest
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



   
Group: Guest

>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

   
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 2021-04-13, 03:02:10