[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)



    [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

Hi Richard,
This is very interesting. I would never had thought that the electric field
would be different, as long as the potential remained the same.
Dave

----------
> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
> To: Tesla-list-subscribers-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> Date: Monday, January 06, 1997 11:25 PM
> 
> > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> 
> Subscriber: hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Mon Jan  6 22:17:22 1997
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 17:10:43 -0800
> From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> 
> 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
>