Re: TC Electrostatics

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:45:38 -0800
Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net Mon Dec  2 22:25:43 1996
> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:39:20 +0000
> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: 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
> >charge.
> >
> >RWW
> >
> >----------------------------------------------
> 
>   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


Jack,

By the strictest definition you are correct, but the defecit of electrons 
in ionic form can account for positive charge (same number of ions 
required).  This is not a coulomb of positive charge by absolute 
definition, but a coulomb of "effective" positive charge, nonetheless.  


An interesitng note.  Rydberg atoms are considered bi-polar in nature and 
can align electrostatically like magnets creating a larger structured 
positive and negative entity.

 Positrons (as some have suggested) are not suitable for a positive 
charge scenario in our world.  They just don't exist here.

Richard Hull, TCBOR