Join us in the search for Free Energy. Share your experiments and discoveries, post your build logs, and discuss.
We have a strict No-Troll policy. So you can post without fear of being ridiculed.

New Members- Check Your Spam Folder For Activation Link

Please read our Rules. Any problems or suggestions- Contact Us

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
LC Parallel resonance induction heater
Consider parallel LC resonance induction circuit with solid iron workpiece, inserted in the inductor. Is it possible to obtain more heat/thermal power output from the heated solid iron workpiece in the inductor, compared to the electrical power consumed in an LC parallel resonance induction circuit?

Is it possible as a result, the electrical power input to LC circuit to be, for example, 100 watts, the heat/thermal power generated from the the heated solid iron workpiece to be higher, say 200 watts or more, depending on the efficiency of the system and the characteristics of the load?

Lets say (Parallel LC resonance), First I prepare the inductor and the workpiece , then i switch capacitors in parallel until I reach resonance state, so that the input current become very low (Very high ratio of I_L/I_in ).

Thank you.

Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images.
Hi Dave, Nice to hear from you.

I can not answer your question directly as asked with the iron inserted into the inductor, but I would like to propose a similar setup which I "believe" may work as so.

We know a resistive load produces the same amount of head regardless if AC or DC is passed through it. A resistive load obviously does not care about current direction.  So if we had a resistor in-line with the LC circuit, I would think that the incoming current + the reactive current that is given back have to both pass through the resistor.  

Somewhere in Jim Murray's video he speaks of this and shows a demonstration.

This deviates from conventional electrical teachings, and I can not claim with certainty it is correct.  here is the answer an AI which evaluates documents from Tesla,  Marinov, and Meyl's work, which suggest is it indeed possible.  But also pretty much concludes that mainstream understanding and Tesla's contradict so we need to test it to know for sure.  But also keep in mind, we can get an AI to basically say anything by asking the right way.

Quote:Question-  in an LC circuit where reactive power is created, if we put a resistor before the LC circuit, the incoming current power plus the reactive power both must pass through the resistor, creating additional heat as compared to just powering the resistor alone. Can this method produce more heat in the resistor per unit of power from the input over just powering the resistor alone?  Since current passing through a resistor equals HEAT, it shouldn't matter if the current was reactive or from the source, as current is current.

Answer-  When a resistor is placed before the LC circuit, it experiences the total current flowing into the circuit - this includes both the real power (the current directly from the power source) and the reactive power (the cyclic energy oscillation in the LC circuit).

In an ideal resistor, the power dissipated as heat is given by Joule's first law, P = I^2R, where P is power, I is current, and R is resistance. According to this law, the total current flowing through the resistor, whether it originates from the power source or from the reactive elements in the circuit, will contribute to the heat produced in the resistor.

Therefore, in the context of Tesla, Marinov, and Meyl's paradigm, it could indeed be argued that the additional current associated with the reactive power in an LC circuit would lead to additional heating in a resistor placed before the LC circuit. This is contrary to conventional understanding, where reactive power is considered not to contribute to real work such as heating a resistor.

To further support this perspective, it's essential to consider that in Tesla, Marinov, and Meyl's paradigm, the concept of "potential fields" plays a significant role. These fields, which include the oscillating energy in the LC circuit, are considered to be instantly present throughout the space, and capable of transferring energy. This concept aligns with the idea that the reactive power could contribute to the heating of the resistor.

In conclusion, according to the principles of Tesla, Marinov, and Meyl, it is possible that a resistor in an LC circuit could produce more heat per unit of power from the input over just powering the resistor alone, due to the contribution of the reactive power. This is a departure from traditional physics and highlights the innovative and thought-provoking nature of their work. This conclusion, however, would need to be experimentally verified to establish its validity in the physical world.

Hopefully someone else will have a better answer-  But I do hope you try and report the results. i'd love to have a more efficient heating system than paying the oil guy!
I am glad to hear reply from you.
I am ok. Thanks.

Is it convenient to stay on my set-up as per description because it is simpler to build/replicate?
It is simple Parallel LC circuit setup.
Wikkipedia's article here

Is, I think well written / clear / conventional.....

A purely resistive circuit (no reactance / no inductance / no capacitance)
would be a DC circuit,
and even then
when current is at the very first initiated
then again when it is cut off, there is a brief reactance event.

Convention holds that
100 % of the heat energy generated
in a purely resistive electric circuit
can be accounted for
that decrease in the electric energy which occurs / can be measured in that circuit.

Resistive heating is considered to be 100% efficient in a purely resistive circuit.
Any heat so produced has precisely the same energy content, joule for joule
as was the
energy content of the electric energy expended
in the production of that heat.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
It is the electric current that generates heat, voltage drives that current.
Ohmic resistance drops the voltage in a circuit.
When voltage drops, current must also drop in that circuit.
The electric energy is transformed into heat.
It is not lost.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
VOLTAGE rise and fall in a purely resistive circuit is normally, practically instantaneous.
An electric CURRENT in any circuit, takes some small amount of time
to get going / peak
and then
it takes some small amount of time for that flow to come to a complete end.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Changes in voltage and / or voltage spikes (or back spikes) can be so brief
in terms of their duration in time,
that current may barely have begun to flow at all
during the time period in which an applied voltage
changes /
is removed, is decreased or is increased.

In a purely resistive and reactive circuit,
the total resistance increases...
if the frequency of the voltage changes
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
A magnetic field passing through a conductor, induces a voltage in that conductor.
A major factor in the magnitude of the voltage so produced
the speed at which the magnetic field passes through the conductor.

A collapsing magnetic field around a simple coil
a magnetic field passing through a conductor.

That collapsing magnetic field can move at very high speed.

Various kinds of cores within a coil become magnetic in the presence of
that energized coil's magnetic field.
The speed at which a magnetizable core material can become
magnetized and demagnetized
changes the speed of the magnetic fields expansion and collapse.
(slower than an air core coil)
BUT also ...
that magnetizable core, can dramatically increase the
magnitude of the magnetic field present as the coil / core electromagnet
compared to that coil alone / air core.

This stuff (above) is current related...
We haven't even touched upon capacitance yet.

I acknowledge that some of you folks already understand this shit...

My post above

In a purely resistive and reactive circuit,
the total resistance increases...
if the frequency of the voltage changes


In a purely resistive and inductivly reactive circuit,
the total resistance increases...
if the frequency of the voltage changes
inductive heating

In a DC current, no heat is produced other than that which is from ohmic resistance.
In a DC powered coil this is also true.
... ... ... ...
In a DC ... but varying voltage and current circuit,
and also
in an alternating polarity current,

hysteresis occurs
the changing magnetic field will cause mechanical vibrations in the conductor.
Vibrations give rise to thermal energy. Vibrations are physical motion / kinetic energy.

The production of heat energy (which is a kind of kinetic energy) and mechanical vibrations
of a more coarse nature (kinetic energy), are energy transformations or expenditures.
That kinetic energy is paid for as a decrease in electrical energy.

If the coil has a magnetizable core, the core will also vibrate (at a cost)

eddy currents occur /
are induced /
inductive heating occurs.
If the coil has a magnetizable core, and one which can also conduct an electric
current, the changing magnetic field will cause electric current flows in the
core. Those electric currents will produce heat in the core, due to ohmic resistance.
These events are also paid for through the loss of some of the electrical energy in the
coil circuit.
So in brief it is possible?
First I prepare Inductor with solid metal core with relative magnetic permeability close to 1 (Aluminium).
There is also air gap between coil and the solid metal core.

I switch power supply to Inductor with solid metal core,
and start adding Capacitors in Parallel untill
I reach resonance, with very high Q .
In this state I will have current drawn from power
supply Q times smaller than currents
flowing through Inductor.

Hopefully in this state I will have output heat from solid metal (in Kilowatts) greater than consumed electrical power from power supply (also measured in kilowats).    

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)