[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
TC Electrosattics Revisited II
From: Richard Wayne Wall[SMTP:rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 1:27 PM
To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
Subject: TC Electrosattics Revisited II
>From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Thu Dec 5 00:16:18 1996
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 23:58:26 -0800
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
snip
> Back on point, could you or R. Hull elaborate on Tesla's CSN thoughts
> on charges produced by TCs?
>
> RWW
Richard,
Tesla had little or nothing to say in the CSN about actual DC charge
and TCs, His best thoughts on the matter are better stated in his 1934
(think it was the April or May issue) Scientific American article
regarding the Van degraff generator. It is obvious that Tesla
ultimately knew of the electrostatic potentials associated with Tesla
coils. He tended to hold many of his best cards tightly to his chest!
It is important to note that the electrostatic coulomb and the
electrodynamic coulomb (as defining current) are different beasts. The
1 ampere coulomb for electrodynamics is the "effective passage of
relative charges" and not the real passage of electrons. The coulomb
of static electricity is real held charge represented by static charge
units.
One coulomb of electrostatic charge has the potential for vastly more
effective work than one ampere flowing in a circuit. The electrostatic
unit concerns itself with scalar potential or voltage, while the other
value links the coulomb to current in metallic circuits only with no
voltage equivalence.
Richard Hull, TCBOR