Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)

    [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

> From rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com Tue Dec 10 21:52:55 1996
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:28:11 -0800
> From: Richard Wayne Wall <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> >Well that's great! But I have a question: How does your meter seperate
> >the AC and DC components? Are you sure that the majority of the
> >current in the TC secondary output is DC --- NOT AC? It seems 
> >unlikely that the "rectified" currents swamp the AC currents which
> >produce them.
> >
> >-Ed Harris
> >
> The thermo-galvanometer converts both AC, -DC and +DC currents to heat 
> resistively which drives a thermo couple producing DC current.  This 
> resistance conversion of currents integrates all currents to rms 
> energy.  Wave form doesn't matter with this meter.  The meter doesn't 
> separate AC and DC.  Separation and measurement of EM and electrostatic 
> electricity is up to us.  That's the emphasis of the of the last three 
> series of my experiments: measuring TC output with ESVM, measuring base 
> current with a thermo-galvanometer shunted with various components and 
> measuring base current with a thermo-galvanometer in series with 
> various components.

Fine. But have you calibrated this measurement for a "known" signal say
using a signal generator with a small DC offset.

> The advantage of measuring base currents is that the charge vector from 
> the top terminal becomes irrelevant.  A dependant variable has been 
> eliminated in our experiments for the time being at least.    
> You are falling into the trap of assuming there is "rectification"
> of AC into DC current that swamps the AC current. 

Once again:
If you say you are putting AC power into the tesla coil and are getting DC
then by definition some rectification is going on -- by whatever mechanism.
It may not be complete or efficent recification, but it's still

Did you not claim to measure DC currents at the base? And did you not
attribute the source of the DC currents at the base to some action
in the coil?

 There is probably 
> little if any rectification.  There are two types of electricity and 
> two distinct types of current in a classic TC.

Electrostatic charge then cannot be measured by a galvanometer since
a galvanometer only measures currents not static charges. You can 
destructively measure electrostatic charge with a galvanometer; however.
If the galvanometer deflection is only transient for a continuous run of
coil, then I'd agree that the charge was "electrostatic " in nature. But, 
on the other habd, if the galvanometer deflects during the coil run
a DC current, then you have rectification.