Re: TC Electrostatics
At 05:35 AM 12/2/96 +0000, you wrote:
>>From rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com Sun Dec 1 22:30:16 1996
>Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:29:05 -0800
>From: Richard Wayne Wall <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
>Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
Big snip -------------->
>My experimental data strongly indicates positive charging for my
>system. This does not invalidate R. Hull's findings of negative
>charging on another system. There are endless variables in these
>systems. These TCs emit an explosive scalar wave. They are also
>scalar translators and these scalar waves are immediately reconverted
>back to EM. At this point our knowledge is limited and no one knows
>for sure how this is accomplished and what all the variables are.
>Bert you are correct that for a positively charging system, electrons
>are not likely to be the charge vector. The fan air stream is
>perpendicular to the path from the TC terminal to target. The idea of
>the fan is to remove any ions or charged particals. Ozone and ions
>move more slowly, but electrons are accelerated much easier and
>probably won't be affected by the air stream. However, since the
>target is being charged more positively, electrons should be moving
>from a flat 14" x 14" surface to a point surface (actually a 1 1/2"
>brass ball). Not likely. If charging negatively, electrons would be a
>more approriate vector.
>R. Hull does your Keithly electrometer measure both positive and
>negative charges. Coulombs may have either positive or negative
My physics book says that one coulomb equals about 6 x 10^18 electrons,
all negative charges. So how do you explain the positive charges? Tesla made
several remarks in the CSNotes about the situation mentioned above.