Tweet
John Bedini in a recent thread mentioned something about people need to learn what is going on with the radiant spike, at least I think he may have been saying something along those lines, eruh, not really sure would have to go back and look. But I thought I would start a thread on this. I will start with something I am fairly confident on and after that throw spaghetti at the wall and perhaps people can chime in.
So we know from Faraday, if I am not mistaken, that the power of electricity developed is dependant upon the strength of the magnetic field (B field) and the instantaneous rate of change, ie the change in magnetic flux. So if you have a given magnet moving across an inductor at right angles if you double the velocity of the magnet the electrical power will double, likewise if you force a twice as strong magnet across at the original speed the power will double.
Now for an inductor with the power suddenly cut off, from the core's point of view this is entirely analogous to a magnet passing by, i.e. it experiences a change in magnetic flux. This does present different engineering opportunities than the pick-up coil however as the power produced is in part dependent solely on the rate of collapse of the coil. If a coil truly collapsed instantaneously it would generate infinite power, therefore there are variables governing the rate of collapse of a magnetic field in a coil. What are they?
Alright, for the spaghetti fling, for the first is the resistance in the wire. I don't think this is generally that significant, I am missing the engineering background but I really think a coil drawn out to a straight line would have much less resistance. There is also Tesla's patent about his bifilar odd hook-up pancake coil where he is saying for some frequencies there is only the resistance in the wire remaining, this implies to me that wire resistance is not a real big variable. Second is the core, a permeable core greatly increases the B field however my guess is it resists change. So an iron core will be more powerful but collapse more slowly is my take. There are likely then ideal geometries of coil core to windings to maximize B field while still allowing for a rapid collapse of core. The concept of magnetic reluctance comes into play here however are we concerned about the reluctance of the iron core or the reluctance of the air gap between the male and female poles? As a (perhaps somewhat relevant) aside there is the Leedskalin based experiment where one powers a horseshoe magnet then bridges the poles with iron and magnetic force remains after the power is turned off, what does this mean if one briefly pulses a toroid? Also, I tried winding a coil, pulsed, looked at power into a cap, then doubled the length of the core, everything else equal, used the same wire on the twice as long core, spike decreased in power, this despite the fact that with the longer core there are more winds, closer to the core, again magnetic reluctance but iron core or air gap?
So, wire resistance, core resistance, third is wind to wind resistance. My guess is important. I think there is resistance to magnetic change and each wire as it collapses influences its neighbors, this might be why Litz wire is often seen in these approaches (anyone tried a Litz wire Tesla coil?). Beyond this, except to say maybe one layer is best, again Tesla coil, I got nothing else.
Last is one I am also thinking about and that is voltage. I still don't really understand voltage and current. However it seems to me if you had a coil at 20V and 0.1 amps and it collapsed it would collapse faster then one at 2V and 1 amp. The voltage is the height of the waterfall right? Problem is it generally costs a lot to transform voltage. But more philosophically can voltage exist without amperage? If you have a million volt difference across a perfect insulator will any ions move on the other side? It may be, that voltage follows a square rule while amperage is one to one.
As another aside, as Bedini has mentioned (I think) much of the interesting stuff with his battery charging is going on within the battery. I don't think this is solely from the spike but also from the idea that water being a polar molecule will line up in a certain direction then cause adjacent water molecules to line up in the same direction so on and so forth. How much is this process voltage versus current dependent? Also, this alignment of water molecules is self annealing to a certain extent, possibly even to the extent that some current can be drawn off while the polar molecules seek to reestablish their orientation, i.e. cap rebound, i.e. captret. If one wished to optimize this environment the ideas that come to mind are 1) two concentric +/- circles (Joe Cell) or 2) a circular insulator across a voltage potential (biologic cell). I think I"ve thown enough, uh "spaghetti" around for one post, but would really enjoy other's thoughts on the inductive/radiant spike.
So we know from Faraday, if I am not mistaken, that the power of electricity developed is dependant upon the strength of the magnetic field (B field) and the instantaneous rate of change, ie the change in magnetic flux. So if you have a given magnet moving across an inductor at right angles if you double the velocity of the magnet the electrical power will double, likewise if you force a twice as strong magnet across at the original speed the power will double.
Now for an inductor with the power suddenly cut off, from the core's point of view this is entirely analogous to a magnet passing by, i.e. it experiences a change in magnetic flux. This does present different engineering opportunities than the pick-up coil however as the power produced is in part dependent solely on the rate of collapse of the coil. If a coil truly collapsed instantaneously it would generate infinite power, therefore there are variables governing the rate of collapse of a magnetic field in a coil. What are they?
Alright, for the spaghetti fling, for the first is the resistance in the wire. I don't think this is generally that significant, I am missing the engineering background but I really think a coil drawn out to a straight line would have much less resistance. There is also Tesla's patent about his bifilar odd hook-up pancake coil where he is saying for some frequencies there is only the resistance in the wire remaining, this implies to me that wire resistance is not a real big variable. Second is the core, a permeable core greatly increases the B field however my guess is it resists change. So an iron core will be more powerful but collapse more slowly is my take. There are likely then ideal geometries of coil core to windings to maximize B field while still allowing for a rapid collapse of core. The concept of magnetic reluctance comes into play here however are we concerned about the reluctance of the iron core or the reluctance of the air gap between the male and female poles? As a (perhaps somewhat relevant) aside there is the Leedskalin based experiment where one powers a horseshoe magnet then bridges the poles with iron and magnetic force remains after the power is turned off, what does this mean if one briefly pulses a toroid? Also, I tried winding a coil, pulsed, looked at power into a cap, then doubled the length of the core, everything else equal, used the same wire on the twice as long core, spike decreased in power, this despite the fact that with the longer core there are more winds, closer to the core, again magnetic reluctance but iron core or air gap?
So, wire resistance, core resistance, third is wind to wind resistance. My guess is important. I think there is resistance to magnetic change and each wire as it collapses influences its neighbors, this might be why Litz wire is often seen in these approaches (anyone tried a Litz wire Tesla coil?). Beyond this, except to say maybe one layer is best, again Tesla coil, I got nothing else.
Last is one I am also thinking about and that is voltage. I still don't really understand voltage and current. However it seems to me if you had a coil at 20V and 0.1 amps and it collapsed it would collapse faster then one at 2V and 1 amp. The voltage is the height of the waterfall right? Problem is it generally costs a lot to transform voltage. But more philosophically can voltage exist without amperage? If you have a million volt difference across a perfect insulator will any ions move on the other side? It may be, that voltage follows a square rule while amperage is one to one.
As another aside, as Bedini has mentioned (I think) much of the interesting stuff with his battery charging is going on within the battery. I don't think this is solely from the spike but also from the idea that water being a polar molecule will line up in a certain direction then cause adjacent water molecules to line up in the same direction so on and so forth. How much is this process voltage versus current dependent? Also, this alignment of water molecules is self annealing to a certain extent, possibly even to the extent that some current can be drawn off while the polar molecules seek to reestablish their orientation, i.e. cap rebound, i.e. captret. If one wished to optimize this environment the ideas that come to mind are 1) two concentric +/- circles (Joe Cell) or 2) a circular insulator across a voltage potential (biologic cell). I think I"ve thown enough, uh "spaghetti" around for one post, but would really enjoy other's thoughts on the inductive/radiant spike.
Comment