Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)

Tesla List wrote:
> > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> >From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Mon Dec  9 21:21:13 1996
> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:04:27 -0800
> From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Cc: caydsi-at-aol-dot-com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> Tesla List wrote:
> >
> Tesla's original distinction in difference between the equivalent
> capacitance of micro thin wires (radio antenna) which attain there large
> capacities via electric field line concentration and that of huge
> elevated, large area, isotrpoic capacities which attain their capacity
> via interaction with space itself, is no trivial extension.  I feel this
> is the salient point in the exercise.  On is intrensically
> electromagnetic and the other electrostatic.  Naturally, I will keep all
> posted.  Richard Wall has recently posted on his findings as well.
> Finally, all coilers worth there salt have experienced the hard shock
> which occurs just outside the spark radius of of small systems when
> holding a metallic object.  As the sparks just lap at the tip of the
> object, each hit yields a sharp shock.  You were at a DC potential
> (charged up isotropically via emitted ions) while not in contact with the
> spark which found its ground path back through the coil. (you were
> discharged)  As you approch the terminal and the discharge is continuous,
> all sensation of shock ceases as you are now part of the resonant circuit
> via a plasma connection and the RF passes harmlessly over the skin.  You
> are no longer isolated as a capacity and can't accept a DC charge via the
> "ion bridge".
> Finally, try this with a small coil.  take a piece of .0005" mylar strip
> and place it next to a metal plate about 1" away and insulated from same.
> if the plate is placed just out of spark range and itself insulated, the
> mylar immediately slams into the plate on power up showing DC charging of
> the plate.  Or you could just use a simple electroscope attached to it.
> Hope this helps in understanding where I am coming from on this matter.
> More later.
> Richard Hull, TCBOR


The overall explantion certainly sounds plausible. However, most
disruptive coils build up to a peak output voltage over a number of
half-cycles once the gap fires. Once the peak is reached (or breakdown
occurs) then subsequent peaks will decline as energy is lost from the
secondary/toroid system. The secondary voltage should rapidly build
during each primary half-cycle until no more primary energy can be
transferred. The very first Vout peak is NOT the biggest one - typically
the its the 4th - 6th one that peaks in a 2-coil system. Even in a
maggie, won't it still take about 2-3 half-cycles before the primary
energy transfer has completed? It's not clear that this difference would
make any major change in your overall explanation.

You are absolutely correct that the DC supply/thyratron should introduce
a MUCH greater level of control and repeatability in these measurements!
I suspect you're also right about the negative polarity being
preferential, if for no other reason than breakdown/streamer formation
is probably initiated more easily when the toroid is at a negative
polarity. During voltage peaks, I'd also hazard that the streamer output
current is virtually _independent_ of resonator base current, being
supplied instead by the DC energy stored in the combined coil self-C and
toroid isotropic capacitance. 

I eagerly look forward to the results of your future experiments!  Very
excellent work, Richard!!

Safe coilin' to ya!

-- Bert --