[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NASA's Tethered Generator
Subject: Re: NASA's Tethered Generator
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 07:16:49 +0000
From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
At 04:38 AM 5/19/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Subject: Re: NASA's Tethered Generator
> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 09:33:27 +1200
> From: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>Organization: Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>
>
>HI John,
> Well I would define an electric current as a number of
>electrons flowing past some arbitrary point/location. Why should it
>need a return path?? I hardly think it matters that it will leave a
>nett charge on the emitter (or be serving to reduce charge on the
>emitter).
>
>Malcolm
>
----------------------------------------------------
Malcolm -
In the above you defined the COULOMB as it pertains to current flow.
However, an electrical current is considered to have a return path in
the
engineering literature. This is why I was trying to establish how a one
way
current would be defined in an electrical dictionary.
In another post DW Pierson pointed out that there is still some
misunderstanding regarding electrons and positive ions ejected from the
sun.
It should be noted that these particles are matter from the sun and not
charges.
Particles from the sun are insignificant (current?) energy compared to
the
electromagnetic (radiation) energy from the sun. This dual nature of
electrons or is it triple nature of electrons can be confusing.
Tesla coils would use currents with a return path and not radiation or
one
way currents (matter).
John Couture
>