[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: coulomb madness!
From: richard hull[SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 6:35 PM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: coulomb madness!
At 08:42 AM 9/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>From: bmack[SMTP:bmack-at-frontiernet-dot-net]
>Sent: Monday, September 15, 1997 11:27 PM
>To: tesla list
>Subject: coulomb madness!
>
>RH,RWW,John Couture,
>
>Accurate test methodology is very important indeed!
>
>Thats why I have been trying to nail down this coulomb
>business (es vs em?). As I have stated in various posts,
>the coulomb is a scalar ES quantity. No references (that I can find)
>cite any other point of view. If you guys have better information,
>please share it with us.
>
>As near as I can decern, your premise of "different coulombs" is based
>on the method of measurement. In this I refer to the same torsion balance
>but one method using ES (coloumbs law) and the other solving for charge
>via the current flowing in the conductor(EM).
>
>If this is the case case, who did these experiments, and were they
>verified? When? All that was posted were vauge statements with no
>specifics.
>
>As far as the international standards are concerned, again who changed
>or disputed the coulomb? when? Please be specific or reference where
>and when this occurred. No one so far has stated EXACTLY what the
>difference (if any) is.
>
>
>The two major systems cgs and mks stand for Centimeter-Gram-Second
>and meter-kilogram-Second respectively. Conversions can be performed
>readily between the two. Perhaps the problem is the specific data such
>as the latest and greatest best measurement of the speed of light.
>
>I'm not trying to be a crank, just trying to clear up this very murky
>stuff in my own mind (and others) who have not found closure in this
>matter.
>
>Baffled and befuddled
>Jim M
I have not logged one single post in this current debate. I have been
quoted from old posts, however.
The original coulomb was defined as the amount of separated E.S. charge
which would give a specific amount of force at a given distance. This is
STATIC, POTENTIAL ENERGY.
Following this, the coulomb has been linked, coupled and cajoled through a
number of contortions to make it a dynamic living thing instead of the
static potential energy from whence it originated. Once the electron was
discovered, they even gave a specific number of electrons (charge units) to
the venerable old coulomb). It is a mess at best and I am sure a million
references to numerous linkages can be found and a small book could be
written (and should be) on the history of the gloroius union of the ES with
the EM. Suffice it to say we live in a current carrying wire wound world
with magnetic forces doing almost 100% of our work.
To most, the ES world is a dead study. A backwater morrass of units and
themes which don't play well in today's world. All real world, day to day
engineering is built around whirling wires in magnetic fields. I'll let it
rest there and let those who want to gone out on their own in the ES world
either do it or not.
If it is embarked on with the idea that it might be a snipe hunt, then that
is what it will be. If one is willing to demand more than what one is
taught in the matter, then there is a chance for understanding. If one puts
all of his eggs in this basket then the risk of sliping over the edge into
the nether world of the "looneys" is a very real possiblility.
I often find myself astride the extremes of having been taught how it is (EM
schooling) and seeing with wide eyed school boy wonder some amazing things
which might lead me too far afield.
I recently saw a Farnsworth/Hirsch fusor multipacting ions within the simple
electrostatic field control of a rectified 30ma Neon sign transformer.
There are more jobs for ES in the future than we could possibly imagine. I
look at Xerography as the modern awakening of this sleeping giant.
Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>