IS 240VAC two-phase / bifilar and 3 phase paradoxes

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: Harvey Norris <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com> 


--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > so how does a single phase get "split" via a center
 > tap transformer to
 > produce the opposed phases ???
 >
 > Scot D
I dont see any one mentioning the "bifilar" aspect.
Probably the most misunderstood word in technical
usage. Even the dictionary definition does not seem to
give the necessary connotation. First we have the
transformer core containing a coherent flux change.
(my choice of words may also be lacking) Then we have
windings around that flux change. The middle of these
two windings, commonly grounded is a neutral point.
The quintessential question becomes ; are the two
windings in the same direction, meaning clockwise or
counterclockwise? From my thinking or understanding
each of these two windings must be windings of
opposite directions on the actual winds. (But I could
be wrong!) It gets kind of complicated trying to
visualize this, but it is not the worst case scenario
which is the inverse of this; take two oppositely
wound coils and interact them in mutual induction to
produce a magnetic field in unison. To do this a
double negative must be employed, since the coils are
wound oppositely, the currents must also be opposite
directions in each coil to make a magnetic field in
mutual inductance in unity. Perhaps looking at the
second example offers a light at the end of the
tunnel. If that is the case perhaps some more
confusion needs to be added.  This one really has me
baffled. Lets just say for the second case example we
are just using coils, (no iron core), and then we wish
to resonate them at source frequency in a bifilar
manner. (I have done this procedure at 60 hz using
large induction coils in the same way this is
described, which gives a paradox) First we make the
coils reactively contribute to a magnetic field in
unison. This again is done in a bifilar manner, where
both the the winding directions AND the enter/exit
points of BOTH coils are reversed, to employ net
magnetic fields in unison. Now for these coil pairs in
parallel: to resonate we can also add capacities in
series on both of these branches, but by logic if we
still want both magnetic fields to act in unison, each
of these series capacities should be added in the same
manner, and no "inversely" phased series resonances
are being employed. The complication that resonance
adds to the equation is that formerly we had two
parameters for determining the polarity of the
magnetic field, and these are the winding and current
directions. Those first two parameters in turn
determine the inductive reactance current that the
individual coils will see, both by self induction, and
mutual induction, and the coils reactive current is
the net effect of both of these. If the coils are in
magnetic unity, they have more reactance and less
current, and oppositely if the fields are in
opposition we will have more current and less
reactance. But now when we additionally resonate these
coils, we now have a third parameter for changing the
polarity. We can also now change the polarity by
"inversely phasing" the series resonances with respect
to each other. But then they should be producing
magnetic fields in opposition, not unity. So the VERY
PUZZLING result that I see in this procedure is
A) The capacities that are used for resonance are
based on using cancelling reactances,[ie inductive and
capacitive X(L) and X(C)]
B) We determine the reactance from the existing
conditions of mutual induction
C) The conditions of mutual inductance to show each
coils individual reactance are based on the bifilar
set up where the reactive magnetic fields are in
unity.
D) We now give each coil the cancelling reactance
based on the reactance figures for bifilar unity, BUT
we instead add those values as inversely made phasings
of the resonances, meaning that the magnetic fields
should be opposing each other, and not aiding each
other.

CONCLUSION:
Since the reactive currents where the tuning was made
from mutual magnetic unity; in turn when resonated
instead (should) produce a magnetic opposition,(having
inversely series resonated each of these halves) it
seems utmost logically that those capacitive values
based on the tuning for magnetic unity, are in fact
the WRONG values to be employed. The correct C values
that should be used should be based on the reactance
values found when the coils are instead reacted in
reactive magnetic opposition, since we also suppose
that the end result of the resonances will also be
magnetic fields in opposition. What this seems to
imply is that this must be a very unique case, since
all other cases can be brought to correct resonance by
simply initially finding the experienced reactance,
and then adding the C value to be assumed by that C
value containing the cancelling reactance. Here it
seems that the circuit should be tuned instead to a
reactance value that is NOT the value found in the
reactance test, or thats how the logic seems to
dictate it.

MYSTERY: The above conclusion made by logic means that
if we tune a coil pair in this manner it should not be
fully resonant, yet the conditions of the circuit seem
to say that it IS the correct tuning. (based on 60 hz
high induction coil readings)

EPITAPH: To more fully investigate this seeming
paradox it would be good to first use coils that have
a high mutual inductance. Radio Shack MegaCable
speaker wire Spirals at alternator frequencies seem to
satisfy that preliminary requirement. The question of
WHICH polarity regimen is useful has already been
found to be one of magnetic opposition. This is
because those are the currents that would ordinarily
occur (or be induced) by Lenz law. In setting up
alternator coil systems of resonance, a suspected 120
phase angle source, (two differently phased inputs of
resonance from the delta 3 phase alternator source)
then instead appears as 180 phased actions when the
coil systems are adjacent to each other. A 100 volt
relative difference of internal voltage rises of
oppositely phased resonances is noted between making
them in unity vs making them in opposition.(For .15
henry branches -at- 480 hz)  The magnetic opposition
method makes for a better voltage rise between the
systems. When we add a third system of resonance to
the remaining three phase input, and allow that system
to also have a small mutual induction, there are also
baffling results, such as over 360 degrees of phase
angle difference between all the resonant voltage
rises. This of course should also be impossible, but
we have to deal with one paradox at a time..., or
perhaps this is better voiced as a paradox of time
itself! It will be very interesting to see what occurs
when three different phased source frequency
resonances are tightly coupled in mutual induction, as
these preliminary testings are not. Here are some
Yahoo references to this second  three phasing
problem...
3 phase Interphasal Voltage Measurements of Triple
DSR's.
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/message/841
Drawing of Triple DSR Phase Angles
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/message/851

Jpegs;
13 meter reading of 3 DSR's/ showing interphasal
voltage differences between phasings.
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00509.jpg
Drawing of Triple DSR Phase Angles
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/3D.jpg

One may need to sign on to
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/
to view these jpegs

Sincerely HDN