Hello, I’m looking for a Patent on a Inductor winding method that I saw but can’t now find..

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
From the recollection I have is that it was from the 1980’s period registered USA

Specially speaking it was a patent on a method of winding transformers and inductors

How I think the design outlined was {visually} two inductors on the same core in series but then linked in a parallel configuration

I specifically remember in the images an example A and B being a standard induction motor like which would be found in a microwave oven {or other} fan in the A example the comments stated that it was a common induction motor and required no other comments
In the B was explained the alternate winding scheme , there were also other examples.

The example gave the two winding methods from A to B and claimed due to the opposing induction {I think}
That less wire could be used

That’s the reason I’m looking for the patent, because I’m not sure if the series inductors were mutual or opposing, regardless I did see the patent but unless I wrote the number in one of my rambling books {haven’t looked yet} I cannot seem to find it again.

Anyone that knows of it or a link or a method to help find it would be greatly appreciated

Regards.
 

ebeowulf17

Joined Aug 12, 2014
3,274
Have you tried using Google patent search? Pretty handy tool. Way easier than others patent searches I've tried in the past.

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&sxsrf=ALeKk02rldF6K1Muvs1AiQQPaCQ5xvvEKA:1584249700442&source=hp&ei=ZLttXuLWGNnN0PEPnuKz4AE&q=inductor+winding+series+parallel&oq=inductor+winding+series+parallel&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..33i160.6912.16771..17172...1.0..2.162.886.8j2......0....1.......8..35i362i39j0j0i22i30j33i10.uc38oCnLoHw

One of the items in the first page of results kind of sounds like what you described, and it's from around 1980, but I'm not well versed in inductors, much less in motor windings, so I may be way off base.
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
Thanks for the reply, yes it’s always about trying to find the correct terms , I’ll have a scan through thanks for the advice.

my plan was to wind two alternate identical windings using same wire and same core , then test each for self resonance F , to either prove or disprove the patent, but I want to be sure of it’s configuration, in the end it can really only be one of two ways but it’s just about the method one takes to conduct the experiment.

I guess {and my guess is} that the configuration in the patent has amplified Tractor force due to the complimentary field vortex from the 0 vector in parallel configuration, that would probably also explain why the patent is ‘difficult’ to find, but that is just a guess until I test it.

If I cannot find the patent I’ll post my test results here regardless.

Ty
 

ebeowulf17

Joined Aug 12, 2014
3,274
Sounds very interesting, and also way over my head! Maybe someone else will jump in with more relevant insights. Either way, good luck with your experiments!
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
A pop up appeared, I don’t accept cookies and have singed it off , just to be clear. Lol {no pun}
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
I conducted the test and the results are quite interesting however inconclusive :

I will outline verbally to my best ability each test, the wire length and core size only determine the self resonance so are not important aspects as in each test I unwound the same length and reconfigured it on the same core.

image.jpg

Linked image above just indicates that 1k R is a non reactive device so to determine self resonance one has to find a 0 phase angle between probe 1 and probe 2

Test A

Was wound as a Tesla two wire winding and connected in normal Tesla fashion
Inductive inertia capacity was measured at 745 mh

0 phase angle was found at ~ 9660 hz

Test B

This length was unwound from the core then doubled to make a 4 wire T4 Tesla winding
So 4 wires wound simultaneously but same wire length
The ends were clipped where they were doubled as all tests from here can be conducted in this format from here.
Once wound then tested for continuity to form {2} Tesla windings the in ‘normal’ Tesla fashion connected these two Tesla windings so that is to say from ‘left to right’ or normal ‘inverse’ connection

Inductive inertia capacity was 707mh tested
0 phase angle was found at 8900hz
{so less inertia for more net tractor force}

Test C

I simply then just brought the two ends that I have been testing together being careful to note which was the 0 tap of the two Tesla windings and made a parallel ‘inductor’
The surprising result here is that created a resistor, this is inverse to the single wire version so that is to say when the inductor was made parallel, it was the two inverse sides that were connected

0 phase angle at all frequencies non reactive, a resistor.
7.14 ohms

So failing at finding the patent my next guess is to wind the two inductors in a genuine NotC and C direction from the vectors at which they meet.

Then conduct more tests.

Regards.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
7,857
I have what maybe a very dumb question on that patent. I was always told you had to watch polarity of a transformer, winding one like shown in the patent would make it less effective wouldn't it? Being it would use two different winding directions(mirror image winding).
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
Cool, glad you found it! It is, of course, far beyond my understanding, but interesting reading nonetheless. Are you going to try making and testing some of these ideas?
Thanks for the reply yes I’m looking at doing some rudimentary tests but I want to be clear with the patent im not trying to disprove it, im just trying to analyze different configurations for the most T force the incommensurable force to inductive inertia.

In fact the patent it refers to in that patent is very interesting the transducer I think that might be a point where something like that would be very effective.
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
I have what maybe a very dumb question on that patent. I was always told you had to watch polarity of a transformer, winding one like shown in the patent would make it less effective wouldn't it? Being it would use two different winding directions(mirror image winding).
I’ve learned there are no dumb questions, because I think I’ve asked them all.

I think you could be correct in terms of testing a single piece weight, or length of inductor wire, I can’t make claims because I can only do tests inside the scope of my ability, but when in the Patent where the analysis was conducted, I did notice that the analysis focused on ‘resistance’ it’s not really clear so I think it means wire resistance? which I think most would agree isn’t possibly an optimal way to reference a rotational field. So I don’t fully understand this aspect I guess?

Also from the point of an inductor being in this case effectively in parallel the small tests I conducted showed that T force was not increased over say a single wire, however, I cannot account for some possibility of A nonlinear amplification? The only way to know I guess is to reproduce the tests in the patent?
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
I
Cool, glad you found it! It is, of course, far beyond my understanding, but interesting reading nonetheless. Are you going to try making and testing some of these ideas?
can post the rudimentary results if you would like?
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
Sure! No pressure either way, but I'd be interested in seeing your results. Experiments are always fun!
Thanks yes indeed, well I’m focused just now on learning a lot about vacuum tubes, so I’ll build an amplifier that can hopefully allow me to conduct a simple test over a range of potentials and frequencies {inputting it just with a generator} , so that I may {for myself} see the results of what Tesla stated was a casual fact {in his patent on electromagnets}

Patent
512340

His quote :

‘It is well-known that the higher the frequency or potential difference of the current the smaller the capacity required to counteract the self-induction’

And that is that as potential applied force rises, the T force rises because of the action that there is simply more charge on the ‘plates’ seen as potential difference between turns.

His invention being that there is always a division of the input potential difference between the turns by using two inverted wires {bifilar Tesla configuration}


However the aim of the amplifier device is simply to see what the self resonance of A] example inductor is at say a common potential difference like 240v and at a range of frequencies.

This can then allow me to test say a squared configuration, that is to say if we assume one pair of wires {commonly called a Tesla bifilar} is one set, then two pairs is two sets {four wires}

If we square two{2} (squaring 1 is a bit redundant) the answer is 4

= 4 sets { 8 wires}

So testing an 8 wire Tesla configured inductor on a fixed known core at certain X grams of wire at 240v etc is my aim.

Regards
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
Sure! No pressure either way, but I'd be interested in seeing your results. Experiments are always fun!
Here is a ‘old skool’ type experiment I’m going to conduct so I will outline it so anyone can follow along

The Question to disprove is :


Can Tractor force offset mass under inertia ?

So I’ll outline one test I’m doing

Start with a simple cheap modified sine wave inverter which is 240v output at 50~hz

At this output we have an amplified modified sine wave with an ‘active’ rotation and an equalization

I will then pass the rotational field through a large inductor, I have used a microwave oven primary.

{incidentally anyone doing this at home the ‘+’ and the plate of the 2000v + primary is connected to the microwave chassis, which is then connected to Earth ground potential the reason people don’t get a surprise when touching the case is because they are also at ground potential which is interesting, but worth mentioning because this mean in this use case above, the core is ‘live’ so worth noting but any large inductor can be used}

The inductor I have used is ~ 34.7 Henry ~
The reason for this is part of the question, it has an amount of inertia potential and some mass which could be under inerta.

Then from the output of that inductor I connect a ‘condenser’ a tractor force device which then connects to the equalization of the rotational field.
The device can change but I will start at about

1uf

Which based on

1 / 2*pi*sqrtL*C is about

27 hz.

So this is well below the 50hz operating frequency


Here are the IFs

IF the applied force at the node from the inductor output and the equalization point has risen significantly that would for me be an indicator that some mass has been offset

An argument against this might go like :

‘Well a 34.7H inductor based on 2*pi*F*L at 50hz has about 10.9 kohm of impedance {Z} so this impedance has essentially created an interesting boost converter

To which a counter argument could go

‘ impedance is a per polarity event, it is not resistance, so whatever impedance is occurring on one polarity is being returned on the next inverse polarity so I would believe the net effect should be a 240v applied force if there is no mass offset

^ this applies equally to XC as to XL Z ‘impedance’

If the applied force ranges due to the size of the tractor device {and equivalent frequency resonance} then an idealistic outcome would to be to target 2400v ~ and input this output into a second {number 2 device a second microwave oven transformer} that is reversed.
An ‘output’ microwave oven transformer.

So the node from the output of the inductor and the node which is the equalization, >into to the secondary 2000v+ of the second {number 2 device} microwave oven transformer , then with any test probes on the primary of this device to see what the applied force measurements are in ‘V’

Because any tester would probably not want to connect a standard meter to 2400 v {possibly} or touch it {like I believe I did one time}




These microwave oven transformers incidentally have a 10:1 ratio and are inversely efficient run backward as they are inefficient run in the normal operation in a microwave, that is to say if input of 240v into a secondary the output will be 24v~ Without violence humming or shaking.

So inputting {the alleged} 2400v~ into this secondary if that yields 240 ~v output at the ‘primary’ , that would indicate that mass was offset to the 3D plain by Tractor force which was then actualized back into the 3D plain at 240v output at the second transformer ‘primary’

I just have to wait for a charge controller now because I built it all on a wall and was inputting it with a small solar panel just for the starting of the inverter but the one I was using has seemingly stopped now?

Incidentally I only built it on a wall because even if the question is disproven that is to say a ‘no’ i can still target under the 3rd Harmonic with the L C at the output of the inverter {so under 150hz} which should at least make the sine wave actually useful as opposed to say just breaking things when it’s input to devices.

I’ll just have to add more solar panels .

Regards

Note : if you use microwave oven transformers the core will be ‘live’ and you’ll be ‘earthed’ so probably don’t do the tongue test.
 
Last edited:

ebeowulf17

Joined Aug 12, 2014
3,274
Here is a ‘old skool’ type experiment I’m going to conduct so I will outline it so anyone can follow along

The Question to disprove is :


Can Tractor force offset mass under inertia ?

So I’ll outline one test I’m doing

Start with a simple cheap modified sine wave inverter which is 240v output at 50~hz

At this output we have an amplified modified sine wave with an ‘active’ rotation and an equalization

I will then pass the rotational field through a large inductor, I have used a microwave oven primary.

{incidentally anyone doing this at home the ‘+’ and the plate of the 2000v + primary is connected to the microwave chassis, which is then connected to Earth ground potential the reason people don’t get a surprise when touching the case is because they are also at ground potential which is interesting, but worth mentioning because this mean in this use case above, the core is ‘live’ so worth noting but any large inductor can be used}

The inductor I have used is ~ 34.7 Henry ~
The reason for this is part of the question, it has an amount of inertia potential and some mass which could be under inerta.

Then from the output of that inductor I connect a ‘condenser’ a tractor force device which then connects to the equalization of the rotational field.
The device can change but I will start at about

1uf

Which based on

1 / 2*pi*sqrtL*C is about

27 hz.

So this is well below the 50hz operating frequency


Here are the IFs

IF the applied force at the node from the inductor output and the equalization point has risen significantly that would for me be an indicator that some mass has been offset

An argument against this might go like :

‘Well a 34.7H inductor based on 2*pi*F*L at 50hz has about 10.9 kohm of impedance {Z} so this impedance has essentially created an interesting boost converter

To which a counter argument could go

‘ impedance is a per polarity event, it is not resistance, so whatever impedance is occurring on one polarity is being returned on the next inverse polarity so I would believe the net effect should be a 240v applied force if there is no mass offset

^ this applies equally to XC as to XL Z ‘impedance’

If the applied force ranges due to the size of the tractor device then an idealistic outcome would to be to target 2400v ~ and input this output into a second reversed microwave oven transformer, which incidentally have a 10:1 ratio and are inversely efficient run backward as they are inefficient run in the normal operation in a microwave, that is to say if input of 240v into a secondary the output will be 24v~ Without violence humming or shaking.

So inputting {the alleged} 2400v~ into this secondary if that yields 240 ~v output at the ‘primary’ would indicate that mass was offset to the 3D plain by Tractor force which was then actualized back into the 3D plain at 240v output at the second transformer ‘primary’

I just have to wait for a charge controller now because I built it all on a wall and was inputting it with a small solar panel just for the starting of the inverter but the one I was using has seemingly stopped now?

Incidentally I only built it on a wall because even if the question is disproven that is to say a ‘no’ i can still target under the 3rd Harmonic with the L C at the output of the inverter {so under 150hz} which should at least make the sine wave actually useful as opposed to say just breaking things when it’s input to devices.

I’ll just have to add more solar panels .

Regards

Note : if you use microwave oven transformers the core will be ‘live’ and you’ll be ‘earthed’ so probably don’t do the tongue test.
I must confess that this is all way over my head. I hope that the experiments go well (whether that means getting a working device out of it, or just learning something useful from the experiments,) but I don't think I'm going to be able to follow along. Best of luck though!
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
I must confess that this is all way over my head. I hope that the experiments go well (whether that means getting a working device out of it, or just learning something useful from the experiments,) but I don't think I'm going to be able to follow along. Best of luck though!
Ok certainly, I’ll tell you about the failure points I have along the way , and what the results were, but I have to say if you want to try just grab a piece of paper and just draw the outputs and inputs, feel free to ask anything on clarification, my language isn’t all that useful, but there are only 4 devices {assuming there is a high applied force in which case you don’t want to put a probe or a meter on }
Hence you want to measure at the last output.

I’ll review what I wrote re inputs outputs.
 

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
I must confess that this is all way over my head. I hope that the experiments go well (whether that means getting a working device out of it, or just learning something useful from the experiments,) but I don't think I'm going to be able to follow along. Best of luck though!
I can do a basic update, despite all things failing {not to be dramatic}

The microwave oven primary was not ‘optimal’ due to an equation somewhere that probably says:

> the more mass > the more inertia would be needed and consequently > the more tractor force needed to offset that mass.

So for this preliminary test I scaled back to a old Vacuum tube television power transformer primary
Which is about :

5.5 Henry

then to degrees as my poor meter was failing I connected a 240v lightbulb {living the dream} to the output of that transformer throughput and to the equalization, without any Tractor device.

The bulb lit up in a rather dim way, however this is to be expected due to the Z this is essentially a ‘choke’ , and this gave me something to work with.

So then in degrees I connected the Tractor device and I started to raise the capacity of the Tractor device, as I had them {the T devices} all connected in circuit I could just connect the wire back along and the capacity would raise

I’m using a bunch of ‘10uf’ {actual measurement 8uf} 350v which were pulled from some trashed solar to grid inverters

{tension violins }

As I raised the capacity the bulb was getting brighter

I ended the experiment for today at 580v output at the {now very bright} bulb and I then input that to the secondary reversed microwave oven transformer and was able to meter 58~ V at that output.

I haven’t measured that output frequency yet.

So it would seem that mass was offset unless someone can explain to me where I have gone wrong or am in error, I would value that explanation as helpful, as I have other useful things to do and as humans we have relatively short lives.

Other details

The wire resistance of the 5.5H inductor is about 8ohm~ {I think}
The final capacity of the tractor device was 8uf ~

So the LC resonance was
23.9 hz~

The XL Z of the inductor is ~ 1727 ohms {50 hz}

The Xc Z of 8uf T device is ~ 397ohms {50 hz}

The phase angle of the inductor is :

Arctan Xl / R
= 89.7 deg {very actualized}

The phase angle of the T device 8uf is

Arctan { 1 / 2*pi*50*0.000008*8}

Which is an offset deg number so a ‘negative’

88.8 deg ~
The theoretical offset of that phase angle is with T devices as stated {8 uf}

Arctan XL - XC / R

Which is , you guessed it 89.6 deg ~

The phase angle of the 34.7 H primary which had about 117~ ohms was {50hz}

Was also 89.3 deg but with a larger Z of 10.9 kohm

^^ so somewhere in there is the answer or equation that states the ratio of inertia to T force .
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

K.e

Joined May 7, 2017
81
In retrospect this could still just be an ‘A.C. boost conversion’ because of the change at the peak of each V rotation down to the 0 then inverse polarity in respect to time, so the only way to prove an offset would be to try to do some measurements.
 
Top