Many things have been discussed that are worth a second read.  The capacitance is insignificant, should be ignored.  No special effects related to capacitance will be observed and it's the wrong investigative path to go down.  You don't discuss voltage excitation for coils in the context of this test - what counts is current and the number of turns.  Different gauges of wire with the same number of turns will give you the same strength of electromagnet as long as you ensure that the current flow is the same.  That obviously will not be the same case if you connect them to the same voltage source.

"Neutralizing the self inductance" is an awkward and misleading use of 19th century phrasing.  All it means is that when the SB coil resonates that when the capacitive voltage is at it's max, the current in the coil is zero, and the inductance is "neutralized."  The property of inductance is still there.

As an exercise for anybody that is interested go back to Farmhand's coil measurements where I showed that in a typical example the coil's inductive energy storage is 17,000 times the capacitive energy storage.  Calculate the resonance frequency.  Then, with the same initial conditions that I stated, calculate the peak voltage in the coil due to the self-capacitance when it resonates.

Basically what I see is, some people are making claims on Tesla's behalf that he did not make, or just making claims that are not
entirely correct ect. and that brings in people who try to discredit Tesla based on the errant claims other people imply he made.

I'm here to try to clarify what Tesla actually claimed, and see if it is true or false. Simple. I see myself as being in the middle.
I'm no expert but I think too many people attribute claims to Tesla he did not make. And too many people try to discredit Tesla based on those
claims made by others not by Tesla. I'm not infallible, but I seek the truth.

Cheers

All this dubious claims and pseudo skeptic discrediting of Tesla is unnecessary. All it does is put down a great inventor and fill pages with rubbish.

It also creates more confusion and more dubious claims as well as divide people and cause tension.


Who else is in the middle with me ? Anyone ?

..

If the "COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS" did anything like produce anomalous energy and Tesla noticed it he would have said so I believe.

As far as I know of the only claims he made for the arrangement was the two claims at the end of the patent.
As far as patents go they are fairly clear cut and reasonably easy to understand.

Some patents make claims that are difficult to even read not to mention understand what they are trying to claim. 

...

Farmhand:

Yes they are true.  The big mistake is to think that this 19th century patent is automatically applicable to pulse motors.

One other point I forgot to mention.  It's possible that the pancake spiral design for the coil is what relates back to the "electromagnet" angle.  I think most big electromagnets like for scrap metal applications (one sided) are formed like this.  The reason being is that then you have a more even distribution of magnetic field strength across the entire surface of the disk.

It's actually hard to visualize that in your head when you look at the individual loops.  There is a lot of magnetic field cancellation going on between adjacent loops like that, it's very complicated.  So you close your eyes and just visualize the entire disk as a "swirling disk of current" and ignore the individual loops, i.e.; no individual conductors.

MileHigh

If the "COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS" did anything like produce anomalous energy and Tesla noticed it he would have said so I believe.

I follow that line also. Never said anything about OU. But I will look for the differences, as Tesla stated there is.  And I get what MH is saying about the capacitance being small. But they are way more significant than what a normal coil has, because of the voltage differences. Every wire turn has a wire next to it that is 50% of the total input voltage, no matter how many turns. A normal coil, the more turns makes for less difference in potential between adjacent turns.

Imagine a coil made of 8000 turns of 26awg wire, in layers on a spool, and another coil wound bifilar, 26awg 4000 turns. This will have the same amount of copper on each spool. Imagine the small amount of voltage difference between adjacent turns of the singlefi coil. It would have to be 8000v to have 1 v between adjacent turns. But the bifi will have 4000v between turns. That is not an insignificant difference in no way shape or form. Or if we have only 8v applied to the coil, turn for turn would only be .001v. The bifi would be 4v. This is big. The reason its big is, the higher the voltage for one, the more the attraction to be charged and more current in order to do so. Tesla said that there is lots of power in a tiny capacitor. 

I have to look it up, there was an article that talked about a large coil of say 60H and a cap of  I believe it was 40pf, in that range anyways, and it rings at 60hz. It caught me a bit as I never imagined using a 40pf cap for any involvement in resonance with any coil and ring that low. I gave me a sense of perspective.

Also there are ways of increasing that capacitance greatly as I had described and shown a diagram of the other day.

As for the DC use subject, this is what the guy used with the nails. So far nobody here has shown the experiment repeated as it was prescribed. Putting them in series kills the ability for the bifi to charge up as it would alone. That test only proves that the coils running full tilt produce approximately the same magnetic field while constant DC current  is running through them.

Tesla does mention alternating current there. So maybe he doesnt intend it as an ELECTROMAGNET.     

Mags

"@all


Hi , i know that one i used to have a pdf copy of a old book called AC electromagnet , and it could pick up any thing plastic you name it .

I will see it i could find it again i tried before without succes.

Mark

Check out this amazing pulse motor!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsmehZrqsPM

MileHigh
thank you for this sophisticated piece of technological experiment, could not stop laughing for a good half  an hour !!
cheers

Hi Folks,

Synchro1 and Magluvin objected the series connection of the two coils to be compared so I repeated the tests separately.
OF course I used 0.75 V DC voltage from my variable supply to have about 430 mA DC current into any one of the (separated) coils, I used the same coils as yesterday. (DC resistance for both is 1.6 Ohm.)
(Synchro1 also objected that the two bolts were too close to each other so they influenced magnetically each other. Well, as I held them in my hand I did not feel any such interaction (nor attraction, nor repulsion). IF these electromagnets had the force of an equivalent Neo cylinder magnet I surely was not able to keep them in my palm like that, they would either jump away or snap together for sure. What I felt was as if they were weak BaFe ceramic magnets.)

This time I used small nuts as objects to be lifted because I thought they fit here better than paper clips for picking them up. I sorted out 50 - 50 nuts to make two separate groups, 50 for the single and 50 for the bifilar coil tests.
I started with the single wire coil, I pushed the head of the single wire bolt into the pile of 50 nuts, switched on the supply (430mA) and slowly lifted up the bolt and moved to a clear area to separate the nuts from the pile and count how many were lifted. I repeated this till all the 50 nuts were used up from that pile.
Then I did the same test with the bifilar wire electromagnet, using the other pile of 50 nuts.  Here are the results:

Single wire coil test        Bifilar wire coil test

first lift     11 nuts                   12 nuts
second lift  8 nuts                     9 nuts
third lift    13 nuts                    11 nuts
fourth lift    9 nuts                    10 nuts
fifth lift        9 nuts                     8 nuts

This shows the performance of the two electromagnets practically the same.

Gyula