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

Re: coulomb madness!


From: 	John H. Couture[SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent: 	Thursday, September 18, 1997 2:54 AM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: coulomb madness!

At 01:42 PM 9/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>From: 	bmack[SMTP:bmack-at-frontiernet-dot-net]
>Sent: 	Monday, September 15, 1997 11:27 PM
>To: 	tesla list
>Subject: 	coulomb madness!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

   Jim M. and All -

  I cannot speak for others but I do not believe in "different coulombs". I
believe the coulomb is a quantity of 6 x 10^18 electrons or unit charges and
is the same for both the electrostatic (static charges) or electromagnetic
(moving charges) systems. This is a  relationship accepted by all of the
electrical engineers and scientists of the world.

 The coulomb is the same for both the CGS (electrostatic) and the MKS
(electromagnetic) syatems. I have never heard of anyone who has "changed or
disputed the coulomb". Some coilers appear to feel uncomfortable with the
coulomb and the es and em systems.

  Your suspicions about the conversion ratios between the CGS and MKS
systems are well founded. Some of these conversion ratios have values of
about 3 x 10^9 . These were ratios that involved velocities between the two
systems. When Clerk Maxwell was working on his great Treatise and noted that
the speed of light was also about 3 x 10^9  he was prompted to state that
light waves appeared to be the same as electromagnetic waves. Hundreds of
experiments and years of research later by others proved him to be correct.

  The science of measurements and standards is more complex than Tesla coils
and warrants it's own "List". I believe for the Tesla List we should
continue as we are doing, that is, discussing  TC design, building, and
testing of coils. As far as units are concerned, however, we should only
concern ourselves with using the proper terminology and concepts that are
accepted by today's engineers and scientists. This is best done by also
making use of simple equations to illustrate the point being discussed. 

  John Couture

-----------------------------------------------------------------

>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