[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Secondary Coil Electrostatic Charge
-
To: tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com
-
Subject: Re: Secondary Coil Electrostatic Charge
-
From: jim.fosse-at-bdt-dot-com (Jim Fosse)
-
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 07:03:59 GMT
-
>Received: from bdt.bdt-dot-com (root-at-bdt-dot-com [140.174.173.10]) by uucp-1.csn-dot-net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05195 for <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:06:13 -0700
tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 20:02:50 +0700, you
wrote:
>>From SROYS-at-radiology.ab.umd.edu Thu Mar 21 15:11 MST 1996
Steven,
More food-for-thought, As soon as I get my TC tuned/finished,
I am going to have to build a field-mill and find out.
>
>Could charged particle mass/mobility also contribute to this affect?
>One of the first things we learned in EE is that even though current is
>defined like it's the protons that make it all happen, thatt's simply a
>convention and it's really the electrons that are flowing. Given that an
>electron's mass is a few orders of magnitude smaller than a that of a
>proton, it would seem reasonable that the electrons would be much
>easier to "project" so that a negative charge would be more likely to
>accumulate on an object? Have the DC charges you measured been
>positive or negative?
>
>Along the same lines, is the discharge from a Tesla coil essentially
>electrons or does it cycle between electrons and protons?
at a 1800:1 mass ratio, I don't think so.
> I had assumed that it was essentially electrons and that, again, the protons
>were relatively immobile.
>
>
>Steven Roys (sroys-at-radiology.ab.umd.edu)
>
>
jim