Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
From: lod-at-pacbell-dot-net
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 21:21:45 -0800
Subscriber: lod-at-pacbell-dot-net Sat Jan 4 21:53:33 1997

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