Re: TC Electrostatics

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 07:11:30 -0800
Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-comSun Nov 24 22:34:16 1996
> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:40:18 -0800
> From: Richard Wayne Wall <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: TC Electrostatics
> 
> 11/23/96
> 
> The following are electrostatic voltages (kV) produced by a small TC
> and collected on a movable aluminum target.   A 14" x 14" flat aluminum
> sheet target was suspended vertically by the corners with  monofiliment
> line.  A 15 kV neon wire was attached to the back with tape and run to
> the ES voltmeter which was grounded to the system ground.  A fan was
> directed upward, blowing air between the TC terminal and Al target.
> 
> The TC is 4" x 22" wound with #23 enameled wire and with a flat spiral
> primary.  The cap is 20 nF and there are two static tungsten gaps.
> Power by a 12/60 neon.  A 20" toroid was initially used, but a 1 1/2"
> brass ball was finally settled upon.
> 
> After setting R (distance from ball trerminal to Al target) the TC was
> allowed to run until the voltage on the ES voltmeter stabilized.  Three
> series were done using R from 1' to 5' in each and input voltages from
> the variac of 50v, 60v and 70v.
> 
>         R               50V             60V             70V
> 
>         1'              8.25kV          8.6kV           9.9kV
>         2'              4.4             4.6             4.75
>         3'              2.2             3.0             3.25
>         4'              1.7             2.2             2.35
>         5'              1.3             1.6             1.8
> 
> Grafting R vs. voltage produces a linear plot with voltage proportional
> to 1/R, within experimental error.
> 
> Conventional EM theory expresses an exponential decay proportional to
> 1/R^2.  Conventional EM predicts about 79 volts for the 1.8 kV at 5'
> (70V column).
> 
> Clearly, something in addition to EM is taking place in this system.
> Without doubt, electrostatics are involved and are produced by the TC.
> Are not scalar electromagnetics supposed to follow 1/R attenuation?
> 
> RWW

Richard,

Nice experiment, Richard!! Conventional EM theory predicts a 1/r^2
amplitude decrease for radiated EM energy (i.e., radio frequency AC).
The electrostatic voltmeter was measuring a DC potential buildup, which
is not expected. However, your results appear to be consistent with
earlier DC experiments done by many in this group (although the
phenomenon is certainly not well understood as yet). The fact that your
measured values scaled as 1/r would be consistent with the way potential
(i.e., the magnitude of an electric field in volts/unit distance) scales
linearly from a point source (similar to a small sphere). However, its
also not clear that this consistency is directly related to the
phenomonon!

The great mystery is exactly why the high voltage AC at the top of the
coil ends up creating a DC potential buildup on the pickup plate which
also seems to scale linearly (from a spherical source). There's
certainly strong evidence that ions and/or free electrons in the area
surrounding the coil are at work. The Richards (and many of us
afterwards) have shown that this effect is enhanced by making the
"emitting surface" from the coil have a smaller radius. There's also
strong empirical evidence that disruptive (but not CW) coils
electrostatically "charge up" operators in a similar fashion, so there
also appears to be some interaction(s) associated with the higher peaks,
relatively low duty cycle, or damped wavetrains. But just how does this
all fit together?? This is really interesting stuff!!

BTW, could you determine if the plate became positively or negatively
charged? 

Safe coilin' and DC generatin' to ya!

-- Bert --