Ideas for Bifilar and nonreciprocal coil windings

2 posts here:
First, his later explanation of the second post:

From MEG email list.
Mon Oct 1, 2001
Dave S, below, writes:
>…the appearance of “apparent” poles. The true polarity is one of flow direction. If you create a more concentrated flow at one end of a magnet you have what we normally call a “pole”. Outward flow of this collection of flux is called a “north” pole and inward flow is a “south” pole.
It would be wise, though to make a distinction between what is conventional wisdom and what is happening, so far as we can prove.
There is no physical experiment that proves or has ever proven the axiom of flux arrows. Quickfield, for example as a freebie magnetics analyzer, gives a display option of arrows representing polarity of the magnetic gradient, that is pointing from a North pole to a South pole or indicating flow of magnetic lines in that direction. There is no corresponding one-way material flow, though, that has ever been measured. The idea of N->S direction is an assumption that is unproven. We still have yet to answer the question, “flow… of what?”
A simple case given in textbooks is a conductor, leaving the circle of its cross section on the page in its imaginary passage through it. Magnetic lines of force, drawn in ink, encircle the conductor at some arbitrary spacing sometimes with arrows indicating sense of flow, CW or CCW.
Since the arrows represent no evidence, all we can say is that circles of magnetic force emanate from the conductor outward, spreading in an always-circular wave front (assuming empty space), at the speed of light. The magnetic circles spreading outward do not have a rotational sense in favor of clockwise or counter that. When you drop a pebble in a pond to make the old example, it is not inferred that the circles that ripple outward propagate clockwise or counterclockwise, or that they have any rotational sense whatsoever. They are circles from the start, spreading outward at the propagation velocity given by water’s surface inertia. Quite the same as magnetism, when looking past the mediums. Why can’t we view magnetism this way?
Theory has it that Cooper pairs of electrons within active, cold superconductor materials travel bidirectionally, or consist of two components (electrons, in this case) whose paths ride each other, or phase conjugate (i.e., maintain each other’s form, or path, as two halves of a whole). The result is a new formation with new properties – in this case it is superconductive electron flow.
Perhaps the force we know as magnetism is similar, with “lines of force”, or components of flow winding in both ways at once; it is all speculation, all we can say for now is that no rotational sense preference has yet been verified in the nature of magnetic induction. Perhaps there is a null angular sum of numerous components. At any rate: no measurable beginnings, and no ends, for no lines with no sources… no verification of these… only loops of (nearly all-permeating) influence having variable diameter, intensity, path. Rather like a big bubble machine, a magnet in your hand is the source of a ever-expanding bubbles (or wave fronts) of quantum electromagnetic influence spreading away from your hand (or whatever holds the magnet) at velocity c. The magnet is an electromagnetic wavefront generator, glowing like a light in space time.
A neodymium magnet manufactured in 1996, for example has a quantum trail, or bubble of influence that is about 10 light years in diameter relative to Earth (2001-1996 = ~5 light years’ radius), whose electromagnetic fluctuations have recorded (and continue to record) every motion of that magnet from its magnetization at the factory, to its trip to your location and the present journey in your hands or wherever it may lie. Motion of the magnet in your hand (casually walking across the room) generates a wavefront of electric and magnetic charge propagating to the ends of existence, and to the limits of dilution.
That much we can prove, it is perhaps self evident given the verifiable rules of electromagnetic wave behavior. So the real picture ventures far  oustide constricted lines of force with arrows. We are dealing with a force that, even with the puny 1″ magnet sizes we have, creates ripples of electromagnetic quanta soon extending through and eventually well past our solar system. Magnetism is a universal force growing present everywhere that it has existed since. It affects, while being affected by, all things involving electric charge. It would naturally spread out across all space in all time, diffusing back into its medium. This nature is hardly conveyed within the confines of an 8-1/2″ X 11″ page! The beauty in these kinds of forces, I feel, is so often masked by assumptions of what they are.
The effective point of all this is nearly mundane for some folks devoted to OU – as the perception that magnetism itself is a dynamo, an engine existing in, using, and made of spacetime – in each case manifest as available energy with endurance. A simple hand held magnet adds order (fields) to space everywhere within the space of its lifetime (a bubble, of sorts, expanding at the local velocity c); that organizing influence, immense in its complexity and degree of interaction, polarizes a much larger amount of raw quantum energy than the impulse itself carries – just as is the case, in a compressed sense, in a ferromagnetic material. (Some may say, well the refrigerator door or the permeability of the Earth captures flux before it gets beyond the diameter of the kitchen or the planet, off into space. But that “capture” is incomplete, flux leaks everywhere and other quantities like A remain present polarizing the vacuum in any case, beyond sheilding).
Amplified influence is the case in the presence of ferromagnetic domains, or materials which will polarize easily. Their organizing influence, or the action of the polarization, represents the modulation of a far larger amount of [domain] energy than the excitation organizing it necessarily contains. In this sense, ferromagnetic materials compactly do what spacetime does on a much larger scale: allow a single force to influence many interactions, gating a larger amount of energy around than present in the gating signal. In some sense this activity can be viewed as energy gain, and from a correct magnetic perspective this energy gain can be electrically realized. There surely remain financial and technological challenges to doing this in a truly economical manner, but the available energy and methods used to transduce it already exist. Now it is a matter of time?
There was some frustration for me in the beginning. I knew the energy is there but I had no idea, of how to tap it. I had ideas but they didn’t work. I tried all sorts of crap, starting with some embarrasing experiments proving mostly my lack of foundation. Ideas came, though, and come like a gentle rain from heaven :) I think they fall over people. All anyone has to do, I suspect, is catch one. Your bucket is as wide as your mind is open!
I think that there are as many ways to tap ambient electromagnetic energy, as we can ultimately develop an ability to see. I have discovered, or innovated a few repeatable mechanisms. I was lucky enough to have the time, over a few years of 24/7 devotion to it. Time for mistakes is expensive. To eliminate dead time, it pays to remember that magnetic polarization, and presence of magnetism whatsoever is a free event. There are losses (electromagnetic radiation, hysteresis, conductive etc) but magnetism as an eventful force allows you to organize and prepare a far larger amount of electromagnetic energy than the original magnetic influence necessarily contains. Tapping the extra energy that gets involved can be done without loading the original source that causes the involvement originally – and this rolls out the carpet for OU.
On that foundation, the pursuit of a nonreciprocal transduction method can be more productively sustained. Magnetism, in all manifestations unlocks an amount of available energy that is at first equal to, and eventually greater than the original energy. Compact systems which organize a greater amount of energy than the gating signal contains are ferromagnetic. Devices which tap the free excess energy without destroying the source invoking the process are nonreciprocal; Nonreciprocal devices contain some pattern of imbalance or asymmetry in construction, in the force fields within, and often both.
Cancellation, nonlinearity, time separation, dimensional asymmetry and force redirection are common methods of approach for nonreciprocity. The dragless generator I mentioned uses cancellation and dimensional asymmetry (drive is temporal, reacton is spatial). The alnico motor uses nonlinearity and force redirection. I suspect the MEG may use up to all of the above mentioned methods, perhaps and then some, to do what it does if it does what it does.
Here are some practical ideas, involving some of these principles, for deriving nonloading output.
For the sake of familiarity, let’s refer to a core like the MEG. This is the fancy “nano” material core which is shifting the huge flux from the central magnet around with only a puny energy expense from the driving coils. How do we tap that moving behemoth without hampering the marionette’s strings?
1) How about winding bifilar output coils with high voltage (a thick silicone coating?) wire. The bifilar windings would be like a Smith coil, one wire is wound CW and the other is simultaneously wound CCW so that for a 4-sided core length, 2 sides have alternating conductors running flat and parallel and the other 2 sides have alternating conductors crossing over each other (like the winding crossover points in-line across the diameter, along a Smith coil).
    At the completion of each single layer of winding this way, the two wires head together out of their final turns to meet, and are twisted into a twisted-pair, returning through a small plastic tube to the starting (bottom?) end of the winding former for the start of another layer, wound in the same direction and with the same winding sense (CW/CCW) as the first layer. The winding former is made to a close tolerance, so the wire stacks up evenly and turns of a given polarity or winding sense dead-on-overlap each other. Several, or many layers are wound this way.
    Start and end wires are taken from the start of the first layer, and the end of the last. This places the start and end wires at opposite ends (top and bottom, like) of the coil former, or displaces them the coil’s length apart on the core. Each prodtruding set contains 2 wires, of course, in a twisted pair.
    The HF output is taken between wire “CW” at one (say, the “top”) protruding pair, and wire “CCW” at the other (the “bottom”) pair, through a DC-blocking capacitor. There is no DC pathway between these separate coil windings, or through the output decoupling capacitor. 
    A kV-level DC potential is introduced between paired wires CW and CCW at one end of the coil (preferably the pair connecting to the innermost, lowest AC-potential layer). Now there can be a surplus of electrons on the CW winding, and a defecit on the CCW winding, or vise versa. (If well-insulated wire is wound on a large core, differences of 40 kV or more can be had between conductors, through many turns.)
    This is a break in symmetry between what the CW and CCW wires contain, in terms of charged particles that can be moved forming current. Because the A-B effect states you can affect electrons with A-potential as well as familiar magnetic B, the A-potentials mentioned in connection with the MEG and other devices may now have an asymmetric effect on the two winding senses CW and CCW, because of their differing charge content. B may still cancel, though A may not under these (or other) somewhat unusual circumstances.
    The disadvantage in this scenario is that the output must be taken as AC across a 40 kV DC bias, necessitating a capacitor equal to the task. The advantage is that any return current (back emf) generated by the DC offset’s action subject to dAL/dt (or dAc/dt), if connected as mentioned above, sees the coilwork as substantially noninductive. It has the same counter-sensed current path as common noninductive resistors and noninductive coils (a la Smith). Without any substantial inductance, the back emf cannot return to act against the source in accordance with Lenz’s law. So, any output energy cannot affect B or E, since B is noninductive and E is an open circuit made of insulators trapping DC: the output energy is therefore free.
2) What kind of shield could we use? What if the MEG coils were wound with small-diameter shielded cable?
    Some kinds of guitar cable, for instance have an outer shield layer that is a single-sense (cw OR ccw) helical winding of copper strands around the inner wire. Most coaxial cable has shield strands wound in both senses into a mesh, but some extra flexible cable has strands wound only one way. This winding in only one sense leaves the outer shield with some inductance, since it is now wound like a very long solenoidal coil around the central conductor.
    In 1997 when I was starting out I made a strange wire like this.
    I took a #22 gauge section of copper wire a few feet long, and wound #28 gauge wire around and around it so it got to looking like a guitar string – a small wire wrapped around a bigger one.
    Now, the alleged difference between potentials Ac and AL in the MEG device is that Ac is circular and AL is longitudinal, in other words one is straight and the other is round and together they are helical or something. If so, why not use 2-conductor wire that bears this same distinction between conductors – one is helical, one runs straight? That gives the form of one wire wound around the other, guitar wire made of enameled metal.
    Now, used in series bifilar (one end open or short circuited, hanging free; the other common end loaded), one conductor has inductance along a substantially closed, or generally pole-less path, with an eddy loss that occurs as circular current in the other conductor. A-potential is said to change the spin state of electrons, so this kind of wire may be responsive to that alteration of spin state in a nonreciprocal way since its conductors follow such different, yet to some extent conjugate, paths. Regular loops of B-flux will cancel, but any “twist”, or vortice in the flux lines will not. 
    Again, the returned load current or back-emf is impressed on a coil made of this wire from one end of the coil only, travelling along the coil in both directions, so the net B is going to cancel as it will in any other bifilar winding, leaving no change in the magnetic state of the core and no loading of the primary excitation. As in the above example, any developed energy is delivered for free.
3) Wavelength: Nikola Tesla describes, in patents and other writings the capabilities of a transformer whose secondary winding lengths are quarter wavelengths of the transformer’s intended operating frequency. Quarter wave lines are generally known, and Tesla gave some examples of what they are capable of at certain extremes.
     Building high potential quarter wave coils takes finesse as the actual length of the conductors is unpredictable given the complexity of electrostatic coupling and the generally loose tolerance of handmade experiments. To tune the coil(s), their conductor length is overestimated and trimmed to size, that is, to resonance. (This is not so difficult or guessy as it once was, since we now have calibrated and controllable frequency generators and instrumentation).
    The idea this time is dependent on at least two MEG output coils, wound as standard inductors on opposite sides of the core but carefully trimmed to each the same resonant frequency and physical conductor length (turns). For this method, two carefully matched coils must be used having the same self-resonant frequency and number of turns. Otherwise the source will be loaded (back emf cannot cancel, or redirect.)
    Two similar ways to load the coils end up with the same result: current flowing through the load path between them causes the coils to share flux  not circularly around the core, but diametrally across the core (in the direction of the magnet). The coils “buck” over this high reluctance path; reactive impedance drops from what they’d exhibit alone. Because the drive excitation causes circular flux, this development of radial flux in response to any back emf cannot directly load the exciter. The self resonant frequency and turns of both coils are equal, so the phase and amplitude of the back emf from each will buck mutually and simultaneously across the biasing magnet (across the primary source of polarization), not around the core in the sense of the drive directing the polarization.
    While it may be said that the developed emfs of both coils are prone to cancel when connected like this, it is also true that any emf that does not cancel out may be used without reflecting back into the device as electrical or magnetic load.
    Since each coil is wound around a separate half of the core, it may be possible to cause an asymmetry of drive between them that induces emf that cannot reflect as back emf. Some ideas:
    If using two drive coils, perhaps one is triggered at a given voltage V for a certain time T… and the other is pulsed with a voltage V*(1+h) for a time T*(1-h). H is an arbitrary scaling factor, meaning a pulse directing flux to the “right side” coil is maybe somewhat less energetic but longer lasting, while the “left side” drive coil sees an exciter pulse at a higher voltage for a shorter time. The (Voltage X Current X Time) product of both coils’ excitation is made to be equal, even though the drive pulses will look a bit different on a scope, not matching.
    This may instigate some difference between the coils’ emfs that can be used without loading anything down, because the load induction cancels wrt the exciter coils as mentioned above.
    A small offset in the timing can be explored, seeking a similar effect. Perhaps exciter coil A fires at 0 degrees of a cycle and coil B fires at 178 degrees, slightly advanced. There will be some phase difference between the two output coils, showing up as a “resonant” sine wave, that is not necessarily reflected to the exciter given the simultenaity of load-emf cancellation between the two coils for a substantially (but not necessarily perfectly?) symmetrical drive.
4) Flux Holding – began as an idea of Cyril’s.
    If we start with the picture of the MEG as it was originally presented us, the exciter coils are near the magnet’s input of flux to the core, outside one pole. The output coils are squarely in the middle of the core, away from the magnet along the center of the core’s length in each hemi-circular flux path.
    With a sharp pulse applied to an exciter coil, we can push magnetic flux away from the half path that coil encloses, across the magnet’s flux-input site, down the other side. This redirection by ‘blockage’ of flux travels as a wavefront at a given speed (perhaps slowable by the delay mechanism Cyril proposed), so by the time it travels across the top of the MEG, and down the arm en route to the output coil, there is some delay or finite transit time.
    If a coil is wound on this arm, it can be left “open” while the redirected flux travels through it. Then, after the flux wavefront has travelled through the coil polarizing the core, the coil can be shorted, resisting any further change in magnetic flux down that path and essentially “holding” the magnet’s flux in that path of travel, even after the pulse on the original exciter coil is gone. Because the extra flux is persisting through the output coil for free (it doesn’t necessarily cost anything to get a short circuit), we can fight against that flux for longer, perhaps drawing more power from the ensuing Lenz conflict than the excitation originally contained. Because the holding inductor is shorted, no back emf from the output coil immediately returns back across it to the exciter coils in any substantial amount. 
    It may be said that the original MEG allegedly using a cooked resistor performed this automatically; flux through an output coil would easily rise to a high level, with the resistor not conducting, that broke down the output resistor and made it conductive. This sudden conduction resisted the natural decay of core polarization through the coil that would otherwise be occuring, squeezing power from the redireced PM flux (since there’s a lot for Lenz to magnetically fight against, and fighting forces = power) in excess of, and long after, the exciter’s amount of influence pushing the concentrated flux there in the first place. This would NOT happen with a resistive load, but it could happen with a nonlinear load that suddenly switched into conduction at the instantaneous peak of magnetic flux through the coil powering that load – holding that peak there into overtime.
These are some ideas, some maybe familiar by now, to think about or build.
There are other interesting things to try, like insulating, winding and electrifying the core as itself an inductor, or annealing not with DC but with AC having the frequency of operation as the annealing force. Perhaps AC riding on DC, who knows; perhaps more than one orthogonal axis of annealing mmf. Perhaps a bifilar output coil where one conductor is aluminum, the other iron; or one bismuth, and one silver. All of it, who knows, could be great use or a total waste of time. These are things we cannot effectively discuss, without experimental data to start from. We don’t have that data.
As far as copper-only, core-as-delivered attempts are concerned, we can look at odd windings or charge asymmetry to begin with, each time keeping the device carefully balanced so that ANY back emf CANNOT load the source (in other words, inputting something on the output terminals produces nothing across the open exciter terminals – but obviously not vise versa). Whatever output we observe, we can be more sure it is coming for free, instead of being some echo of the drive or artifact of measurement, since there is no reaction (induction) from current across the output terminals in any case. That is the cleanest and fastest approach to use while searching, I feel – it is directly nonreciprocal, from the start.
The approaches I have mentioned may not sound like the greatest ways to get emf out of a transformer; they may appear cumbersome or inefficient to use. Efficiency, though, need not be the most important point, when the system is constructed to operate over the 100% mark from the beginning. What becomes most important, in this case, is the presence of anything – because whatever it is, it is free.
I am writing this much because any emf these methods do produce is free for the taking by design, and if the developed emf proves to be anything beyond trivial then the design can be improved upon, rethought and reworked into something of use. That was the mode of evolution for the inventions I have like the dragless generator or the alnico motor, so it has been a productive approach for me.
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire! Hopefully these ideas or others with an unconventional twist can give some experimental evidence of “smoke” other than the “crap that was my last mosfet” kind! ;)

E = V * B. Normally while discussing that we assume fixed V.

Quantity V is the electron drift velocity in a metal, am I right?

Quantity V may be the key to tapping what we want to tap here.
(I wrote about a number of other possible nonreciprocal keys in
message 348. Comments?)

Drift velocity is, to first order anyways, inversely proportional to
conductivity. Electron drift velocity in copper is literally slower
than molasses, while the drift velocity in a 10 Meg-ohm resistor can
be faster than one may legally drive (in the US at least!).

As far as magnet wire is concerned, we can get enameled standard
gauges in Aluminum and in Copper, easily ordered online (example: carries both)

Wires of either metal, in the same gauge and enamel style may be
similar in appearance, but each has a different quantity V, a
different drift velocity therefore a different behavior given E = V *

Therefore if we wind identical coils, one of copper and one of
aluminum, both sharing the same gauge size shape and technique, they
do not share the same factor between E and B. If we make these coils
oppose so as to minimize their mutual inductance, quantities except V
begin to cancel out.

So, how about winding a canceling bifilar coil, where one of the two
windings is copper, and the other winding is aluminum? We connect the
two different metals together at one end, and seek output between
them on the other end.

Since the coil is bifilar, it makes sense that any magnetic flux
related to current passing through it (including back-emf current
from an attached load, which will invoke Lenz’s theorem for COP < 1
if it at all can) is going to cancel, since the counter-driven copper
and aluminum windings are identical, opposing an identical value of
inductance. Effective cancellation means that current in the bifilar
coil cannot modulate magnetic flux in its bore, so the coil cannot
load any core flux, altering its course or density.

But, the electron drift velocity is not equal in both magnetically
cancelling bifilar coil wires. Therefore E = V * B does not cancel
between both coils as it would if everything were wound of copper.
Dissimilar metals let us cancel B (and any liability of tapping it)
while taking full advantage of the uncancelled effects of V.

Practically speaking, as an example, electrons travelling slowly CW
through copper wire “into” the coil turn around at the end and travel
faster CCW “out of” the coil through aluminum. Although the
solenoidal magnetic induction may cancel turn-for-turn, there remains
an overall CCW surplus of electronic angular velocity due to the
higher V in aluminum. What effect does this have?

If anything is induced this way, it can’t invoke Lenz’s theorem, and
is likely to be free energy (as is the case with other ideas in post




This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s