Re: TC Electrostatics
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
> 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
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