tesla coil

A New Look at Tesla BiFilar Coil

Tesla_thinker

Telsla’s BiFilar Coil appears in many of his patents.

When you look at the patent it just seems like a clever way to double the turns in the coil without making more turns manually. This could all just be a ruse  by Tesla to hide it’s true power as some kind of aetheric harvester/ capacitor. …

patentfig2

this wiring just doubles it’s turn length without having to make more turns…. could this be the extent of Tesla’s idea… I don’t think so

Currently Nasa claims that researchers at Caltech have created a new device to “view the quantum world” ironically it looks just like Tesla’s BiFilar coil except…. it is wired differently, where the electrical currents would run in opposite directions parallel to each other.tesla coil

 

  • July 5, 2013 at 5:39 am #60891
    AetherForce EditorAetherForce Editor
    Key Master

    Telsla’s BiFilar Coil appears in many of his patents. When you look at the patent it just seems like a clever way to double the turns in the coil with
    [See the full post at: http://aetherforce.com/a-new-look-at-tesla-bifilar-coil/]

    July 5, 2013 at 11:39 am #60892
    Nicholas Slamons

    There may be special properties to connecting the coil so as to neutralise magnetic fields but I do not think this was teslas intention.
    I quite believe it is as his patent states, to raise the capacity of the coil. Why?
    Well if you look at the work of Thane Heins it demonstrates that if you raise the frequency of the inducing field the so that the coils inductance essentially stops the EM current flowing. Essentially the EM energy wave can’t go fast enough to get to the other end of the coil in time before it reverses. You instead get energy out though as the dielectric wave or LMD between the windings does travel fast enough and the windings capacity stores the energy which is released without causing extra energy to be drawn from the device providing the alternating field. So if you increase the capacitance of the coil you get more out for free. And his winding arrangement gives the maximum capacity for a winding you can induce with a magnetic field. Tesla may have stopped using is as he wanted extreme voltage and the limit of this coil is the breakdown from one coils wire to the other coils wire. Between the two is the entire voltage difference of one of the windings and thats far greater than with a conventionally would coil where its one turn to another or one layer to the next at the worst. So it would fail at much lower voltages.

    Just my thoughts. Keep up the good work.

    July 5, 2013 at 1:42 pm #60893
    AetherForce EditorAetherForce Editor
    Key Master

    excellent analysis!

    July 5, 2013 at 4:12 pm #60894
    Jay

    In this video, are they not demonstrating at the end one of the coil designs being used to strengthen a radio signal? Is that not exactly what the NASA device is effectively being used for (improving/amplifying a given signal)?

    July 6, 2013 at 8:04 am #60895
    Arto Heino

    Hi Tech,

    Yes this coil geometry reveals that the topology of mufti-stranded coils have unique properties. Tesla revealed how to think about this in a very simple and direct way. Here is a diagram from one of my chapters I am still working on, this will help to understand the door Tesla opened, regards Arto

    http://artojheino.yolasite.com/resources/BifilarABCD-1.jpg.opt1554x1410o0%2C0s1554x1410.jpg.

    July 6, 2013 at 2:57 pm #60896
    Profile photo of Anonymous

    Cool diagram Arto. Thank you. So the coil in the patent is a type D and the JPL/Caltech coil is a type A. That gives one a greater ability to think about these winding topologies.

    I’m wondering, does that list of yours exhaust all the possibilities for bifilar coils, just four, or are there others?

    July 6, 2013 at 3:32 pm #60897
    Profile photo of Anonymous

    Fascinating, here is some more information on the nasa picture.
    New Kind of Amplifier, from caltech.

    Response to d.c. current and amplifier design, an image from an article about the amplifier in the journal Nature Physics.

    July 6, 2013 at 4:17 pm #60898
    Profile photo of Anonymous

    By the way, Arto, I took the liberty of adapting your type C to get a “type E.” Could you tell me if it is the same or different (evil grin):

    July 6, 2013 at 4:18 pm #60899
    Profile photo of Anonymous

    (sigh, let’s try again)

    http://i44.tinypic.com/2w1tmaw.png

    July 6, 2013 at 9:47 pm #60900
    Arto Heino

    Hi Robert,
    There are more possibilities, these are just the ones that can be made into basic passive elements. Imagine you use one passive element and create circuits based on it, you only wire each slightly differently. The other types are less passive and act as transformers, one which I am still working on will act as a form of magnetically induced reluctance switch. This will become the basis for the active elements required to create complete circuits. These simple designs are gleaned from original research inspired by Tesla, I will release all my findings in my books, the first volume soon to be finished. Regards Arto

    July 6, 2013 at 11:39 pm #60901
    Profile photo of Anonymous

    I shall read them with great interest. I had not imagined that mere coils of wire could be made to perform such tricks. I had previously thought of, and been taught at school, to think of the passive elements as “black boxes,” each with a particular mathematical property. This opens up the black boxes.

    July 6, 2013 at 11:48 pm #60902
    Profile photo of Anonymous

    Oh, I just found your blog, https://artojh.wordpress.com/ Astounding!

    July 7, 2013 at 1:14 am #60903
    Profile photo of Anonymous

    On your blog you do an excellent job of providing a conceptual framework for enumerating all the coil geometries. Then you go on to describe an hypothetical project of using a range of different gauges of wire, and the combinations to be “tested” (geometries and wire gauges) becomes impractical.

    But there’s another approach to finding useful devices:

    It is to start from the goal and work backwards down the combinatiorial tree.

    Going up the combinatorial tree, like a vast maze, has impossibly many combinations, if you don’t know what you’re looking for.

    But notice that both Tesla and Vassilatos describe a number of wondrous effects. Each of those can be considered a goal, if we make the assumption that their accounts are honest, from which one might incrementally work DOWN the tree.

    Going up the tree has an astronomical number of paths, while going down has much fewer paths, perhaps only one.

    Does this make sense?

    I used to use such an approach to do maths proofs and solve differential equations, but when my tutor and professor gave me zeros, for such “cheating,” I knew I wasn’t cut out for academia, being too pragmatic to play their games and only interested in solving real world problems.

    It works like this: Imagine the final state you want to arrive at, formulate it as a relation of some kind, then imagine what the prior relation might be “just before” (i.e., one step back towards your starting conditions) you reached your desired final relation. Iterate until arrive at your starting conditions. Finally, write the whole path out in the “correct” direction, from starting conditions through to final proof. Proof as in pudding, the thing you want.

    July 7, 2013 at 2:33 am #60904
    Arto Heino

    Hi Robert,
    Well understood, I commend you on seeing the problem in the reverse order, I would give you top marks, those maths tutors cannot teach you to think. The tree as you call it (well understood) has numerous paths that have been enumerated by standard coil geometries, it is the untraveled path we are interested in, these things can be mapped and many unknowns then can be explored.

    When I am not so financially strapped, I will begin the process to unravel the whole tree, the data being usable for all experimenters. Thanks for your interest in what I have expressed here. I just needed to let everybody know somebody is working on the answers to practical solutions not just theoretical ideas. Regards Arto.

    August 19, 2013 at 6:00 pm #60905
    Profile photo of CoruscantCoruscant
    Participant

    I use the type C but in a more “imbalanced” way tho on the same axis of alignment. I can’t see any difference between the Type C and type E, don’t think which end you take out the shorted coil matters, because any point where the short occurs is outside the main inductance and thus not being choked by said inductance, regardless of if its at one end or the other. Course I am powering my imbalanced type C coil set at 2.6mhz and some 4-6000vdc input. This is the Bellerian apparatus.

    August 19, 2013 at 8:13 pm #60906
    Profile photo of BeefydogBeefydog
    Participant

    OK – I just see a magnetic field-cancelling bifilar coil (the NASA pic) if used w/ A/C ,and not a very efficient one.
    Am I seeing this right?
    Tesla’s bifilar coil is not wound to cancel anything but to take advantage of a capacitive effect (something modern electrical engineers try to avoid).

    November 10, 2013 at 1:21 pm #60907
    Kairu

    Bifilar series connected coils produce a stronger magnetic field (upwards of 75%) than a single wire coil for the exact same dimensions and applied power.

    March 23, 2014 at 5:55 pm #60908
    Carl Faber

    “This could all just be a ruse by Tesla to hide it’s true power as some kind of aetheric harvester/ capacitor. …”

    You and others who promote the woo-woo garbage about him, defile the memory of Tesla.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Topic Tags