Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 17:10:43 -0800
Subscriber: hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Mon Jan 6 22:17:22 1997
Tesla List wrote:
> 
> Subscriber: lod-at-pacbell-dot-net Sat Jan  4 21:53:33 1997
> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 21:21:45 -0800
> From: lod-at-pacbell-dot-net
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> 
> Richard Hull wrote:
> 
> [ka-snip]
> 
> > Ed,
> >
> > Thoughtful post, I must cogitate on it a bit.  I will note a nice
> > experiment just performed over the Xmas holidays.
> >
> > I took my gaussmeter (FW BEll 700) and my Keithley electrometer and set
> > up a 10 foot loop of wire (broken in the center) and connected it to a
> > 150 watt 10kv DC supply.  With a 1 megohm resistor in the middle of the
> > loop. I noted only about .1 guass mag field (near the limit of
> > discernment with the meter).  The E-field near the wires was very weak
> > too (~1^10-11 coulomb).  Next I took a ten meg resistor and the mag field
> > effectively went away.  The E filed tripled around the wires. finally I
> > installed a 300 megohm resistor and the e field was every where - 10^-5
> > coulomb near the wire- (nearly an open).  Needless to say the mag field
> > was just at a vanishing point.
> >
> > It would appear that a macroscopic mag field capable of doing real
> > pondermotive work and a macroscopic E field capable of doing pondermotive
> > things are 100% mutually exclusive to conductive circuiry.  They just are
> > not friendly to one another and will only be mutually present in tiny
> > amounts if equally potent. (whatever equally potent will mean to the
> > pensive mind).  It seems that current, the producer of mag fields and
> > voltage the producer of E fields are not normally found in a wire
> > together.
> [snip]
> > Richard Hull, TCBOR
> 
> Very interesting, indeed.  Did you measure the actual voltage across the
> resistor in each of the three cases?
> 
> -GL


Gary,

I did measure across the lowest ohm resistor (1 meg) , as I thought the 
supply might drop a lot of the voltage, (internal impedance), but it was 
about 90% of the set voltage.  All the higher ohm resistors had effectly 
100% of the supplly voltages on them.  The e fields around the resistors 
were not all that different from the wires, either.  Note, I had to use 
corona putty on the naked ends of the leads and resistor leads to avoid 
corona which would fake e field readings. (including when the wires were 
held open in the final part of the test where the E field went through 
the roof.

		Richard Hull, TCBOR