RE: Vortex gap loss measurements

```
>Original poster: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>
>Gary -
>
>I assume the top was positive and the bottom is negative.

Or perhaps vice-versa.  Since I was dealing with an AC waveform, I made no
attempt to note which way was positive.

>Your photo shows the positive to be logarithmic and the negative to be
linear.

You're seeing something that I'm not.  To me, both sides of the envelope
appear identically linear, with minor deviations due to sampling errors.  I
don't even believe that it's possible for one side of an envelope to ramp
linearly and the other logarithmically.  The linear side clearly hits zero
at a well defined point in time.  How can the other "log" side then approach
zero asymptotically?

>This is
>interesting because Tesla said the dampened wave was not symetrical and
this
>is why the terminal appears to have a negative charge during ooperation.

Perhaps he may have thought differently if he had a digital storage scope at
his disposal?  Nineteenth century test equipment was largely stone knives
and bear skins.

>Because the waveform is varying so much only one sample should be taken at
a
>time. This should then show samples that are both symetrical and
asymetrical
>with the asymetrical in the majority.

I don't follow you.  Only one sample can be taken at a time (?)  I don't
understand samples that are both symetrical and unsymetrical.  Are you
suggesting a DC bias?

Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA

>John Couture

Original poster: "Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau-at-compaq-dot-com>

Hi John:

By top and bottom, do you really mean the positive and negative voltage
excursions?  I can't imagine any possible way for the gap to be more lossy
in one polarity than the other, and even so, the envelope would still be
symmetrical about the x axis.  As I mentioned, the digital nature of the
scope means it takes discrete samples of the waveforms so the true peaks of
each cycle may not be accurately captured.  The second waveform is taken at
a faster sweep speed and sample rate than the first waveform and clearly
shows a more regular ramp to the envelope.  I think what you observed may
just be a sampling rate anomaly.

Regards, Gary

```