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>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-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.

Jack Couture