Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)

Tesla List wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> >From bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com Tue Dec 10 21:49:59 1996
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:27:18 -0800
> From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: 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:
> > >
> >
> Richard,
> 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 --


In your first paragraph....  I don't believe the build up (resonator fill 
time) would have any real effect on the electrostatic output of the 
system one way or the other.  From careful experiment, I find that the 
bulk of the ionic action (DC hard power out of the system) only occurs 
with the onset of spark emission anyway.

I am letting a cat of a bag here which I have held close to my chest for 
a while.  

Even with no spark emission....(heavy toroid load), I can instantly bury 
the electrometer needle with a negative DC component (in coulometer mode 
at 10^-7 coulombs range) connected to a 12" sphere 10 FEET from the 12 
watt coil!!  Now 10^-7 coulombs is a very definitive and non-casual 
charge to instantly transfer to such an isolated capacitor! (~100 billion 
surplus electron charges are just suddenly there!!!!)  This is not likely 
an ionic thing (still out on this, though)

  I cannot, however, power a 200 gram rotor DC capacitor motor with the 
same isolated sphere connected to the motor through ground at 1 foot from 
the system!  (Remember, this is a non-spark emissive system)

If I now place a tungsten tip on a 2" ball on the large toroid of the, 
otherwise, unaltered 12 watt system, up to 5" sparks issue and miss 
hitting the collecting sphere by 3-6 inches.  (note* no visible corona 
bridge is seen with dark adapted eyes).  This can now bring the heavy 
rotored DC capacitor motor up to 2000 rpm or DC charge a 15 joule HV cap 
over a minute or so. (Real energy doing real kenetic stuff!) I think this 
latter effect is a 100%, purely, ionic transferal!

There are far more questions than answers based on emperical findings. 
Unfortunately, this is the way of most experimental science.   There 
seems to be no end of speculations, though.  I  note that much of the 
speculation comes from book learnin' rather than real experience with the 
system.  This is not a dig at you or any person.  Hell, I have to try and 
relate it to what I was taught, too! (or I'm no better than the 
"Alternate list" freaks)  I'm saying, there are a lot of armchair 
theorists who have never experienced 1/10 of the mechanics and actual 
dynamics of what is discussed here!  They appear safe in the cannonical 
authority of what is in their books!  I often muse at whether many of 
these "armchair guys" just consider "hands on" a keyboard related thing!

>From the firing line...

Richard Hull, TCBOR