RE: Experimental results? RE: Stop the nonsense

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>

Hi Steve,

>I'm asking you for details. Saying you waved your 500V digital meter (full
of diodes and other nonlinear devices) around near a few hundred thousand
volts and consider the results meaningful means nothing. Another brand of
DMM or an analog meter
may give entirely different results as it is very likely you are seeing
unpredictable effects due to leakage and reverse breakdown under
tremendously high voltage and high frequency.

I appreciate your consideration.  Just as you're not saying I'm not wrong,
I'm not saying I'm right.  I'm merely describing my coil with the means I
currently have available.  I wish I had the 40KV Volstik I sold a couple
years ago, but I'm not sure that was enough voltage in a meter anyway.

I know that the minimum dielectric rating for the separation between my
primary and secondary is 225,000 V.  I calculated this by using the
dielectric strength of the Plexiglas which is 900 V per mil and multiplying
it by 250.  The Plexiglas still has the original plastic paper on both
sides, which adds just a little more to the dielectric strength.  Then there
is the 1/4 inch of hot glue.  The hot glue has some bubbles in it, but there
is a lot of glue compared to bubbles.  I know from past readings that hot
glue has a high dielectric strength.  I can't remember what it is, so I
figure I can safely guess 1/4 of the Plexiglas rating and this gives me
roughly 300,000 volts dielectric.  The coil has no trouble squeezing
electrons through all of this.  So I know the terminal has got to be putting
out the pressure.

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I recall bright white arcs are associated
with high voltage.  Even without the high capacitance top load, I get
numerous bright white arcs between my acrylic coated aluminum plate
capacitors when one plate is connected to the terminal and the other plate
is connected to the outer lead.  I think you will agree that without an
instrument that will give me an exact voltage reading, that I can safely
assume I have very high voltage in my coil?  And this is scientific enough
for the purpose of conveying to others the statement that my coil puts out
very high voltage.

I know the limitations of various voltmeters.  I also know my voltmeter
quite well as I use it frequently.  I've been working with electrostatic
charges for about two years now.  After a while, due to my experience with
this particular piece of equipment, I feel confident that I can use it
outside of its intended range to indicate AC and DC electrical movement.  I
know this isn't NASA standard equipment.  I'm not saying it is.  I'm not
trying to portray it as such.  But it's all I have at this time to determine
(at the voltages I'm working with) whether an electrical movement is DC or
AC.  I felt confident with the indications I saw and, considering all the
other factors involved, I felt it was proper to acknowledge that I had a
fixed electrostatic charge between the poles of my flat spiral secondary.
As it turned out, Dave P. confirmed this.  It won't be long, now that
several others are building flat spiral coils, when this will confirmed or
not by other coilers.

I think it is appropriate, considering we are working with a surprisingly
unknown type of coil, that we get as much preliminary information as soon as
possible to assist in designing and preparing tests for our new spiral
coils.  So the details I gave you were the best I could do.  Let's hope that
what details I have given are enough to direct our efforts to a quick
discovery of the properties of flat spiral coils.

>A BW television and a computer are hardly what I would call reliable
instruments for measuring "interference". They are specifically shielded (to
some extent) and designed so as to be resistant to interference
off-frequency.

I'm not presenting a finished product ready for market.  I'm presenting an
unknown type of coil for experimentation and study.  A TV is not a reliable
scientific instrument.  I'm aware of that.  But it is better than having no
instrument at all in that it can offer me clues to the operating
characteristics of the coil.  I realize that if this coil is in fact
producing radiation but at a much higher frequency, I'm not likely to notice
it on a TV set.  But my primary interest in tracking radiation is to know if
I'm messing up my neighbor's TV reception.  Since I'm located at ground
zero, a small black and white TV, that cost me five bucks at a tag sale, is
as good an instrument as any that I can afford right now.

I doubt these TVs are as shielded as you say considering the large number of
complaints I here about solenoid coils.  I doubt the shielding would be any
good sitting 10 feet from a 900 Watt Tesla coil in operation at full power.

There are times, Steve, when improvisation is OK and acceptable.  As long as
everyone is aware of the "equipment" that I'm using and what I'm reading
from it, it serves a legitimate purpose.  Most engineers will immediately
recognize the limitations of my "equipment" and adjust the level of quality
of my data accordingly.  Once Terry successfully models the flat spiral, it
would be silly to mention TV interference as an indication of operating
characteristic.  But when there is nothing to go by, the effects the coil
has on a black and white TV can be more revealing than having no information
at all.

What is the link again to your C^2 website, the one with the link to Nasa's
pictures of a supernova in progress, as it appears from your picture?
http://www.tesla-coil-builder-dot-com/c2_and_longitudinal_waves.htm

>George Lucas added the ring explosion because it looks cool and he could.

That's not what I read.  He added it because it looked more real.  Nothing
that size explodes in a sphere.  It's physically impossible.  If all the
matter were radiating outward, what is replacing the space in the middle?
You can't just blow everything outward as a sphere and be left with a vacuum
or empty space.  Even a nuclear explosion explodes according to c^2.  You
don't see a nuclear bomb going of in a spherical pattern, right?  In fact, a
nuclear explosion has a vertical pulse and all its damage is done in a
plane, just as c^2 predicts.

>I'll try and find Gary's website.

Thanks

>I do not think that I am required to test every assertion that any one
makes in order to question it. I think I'm asking fair and reasonable
questions such as how you are measuring things and what evidence you are
using as proof of your conclusions.

I agree.  You are not required to test any assertion.  But that does limit
your credibility as a skeptic when it comes to new ideas.  If you can't show
a flaw in the math, or a real world example of why it can't work, then you
have no basis for making a skepticism.  Merely saying something can't work
because nobody else has done it, is not a good critique.

I think I have been fair and honest in representing and qualifying my
statements and theories.  It would be ideal if I could simply hand you my
published manuscript complete with peer review and precision data the day
after I discovered a new idea.  It would still be ideal if I could develop
the whole theory on my own and present it to you in 3 years or so.  But,
alas, I'm poor, I don't have the equipment that would speed the development
of my theory as quick as I would like, and I simply lack the complete
technical and mathematical expertise that this theory demands.  So, in a
rational effort to develop this idea that I fully think is revolutionary,
simple, and real, I have to improvise.  And I have to call on the efforts of
people in several areas of science and mathematics to see if this idea will
really solve problems.  Wouldn't it be a shame if this happened to be the
theory that led to the Unified Field Theory and I simply kept it to myself
out of shame for my poverty and incomplete education?  Not to compare myself
with great minds, but you are aware that Einstein was in the exact same
predicament I am currently in when he presented his Theory of Relativity
while working as a patent clerk with no formal degree?  The irony is that I
am presenting a theory that is directly related to Einstein's work and that
will actually improve our understanding of e=mc^2.  What I'm presenting will
not harm e=mc^2, for if it did, my theory would be useless.  I need e=mc^2
to make c^2 theory valid.

But you must also be aware that nobody can agree on many EM basics simply
because too many ideas have "dualistic" nature.  The photon immediately
comes to mind, as does the quarterwave theory, or the DC component of a
Tesla coil.  The reason there is "duality" is because the picture is fuzzy.
There is something missing in our current understanding of e=mc^2.  It's not
that Einstein was wrong, but because of certain assumptions, a key aspect of
natural physics remains hidden.  I believe I have found this key aspect.
And what simpler and more obvious place would this hidden aspect be except
in c^2?  We can poke at atoms and look at light on oscilloscopes all we
want, but if we ignore the intricacy of their relationship through c^2, we
will naturally have a fuzzy picture of reality.

I agree, if someone told me that the Theory of Everything rested on the
discovery of a Higgs Boson particle, I would immediately react with
skepticism, as I have.  Because Higgs Boson doesn't show any connection to
the fundamental relationship of mass and energy.  It is an attempt at
redefining physics.  This is where skepticism belongs, but Higgs Boson
researchers received millions of dollars for research only to find out there
is no Higgs Boson, as I expected.  But c^2, now that is already a part of
Relativity.  If I say I have found a clear explanation to modern physics
within e=mc^2, the world should be beating a path to my door to find out
what I'm talking about.  It should seem very obvious that any improvement in
physics will occur within the known knowledge of physics and not without.

Yeah, so I'm working with an old B&W TV set, metaphysical sounding spiral
coils, and a seriously out of range VOM.  Look at the data I present in the
context of how it is given.  Check to see if there is something of value
here.  Look for clues and do not always insist on finding the treasure
before reading the map.

>Dave, you wouldn't happen to be the Dave Thomson that -I- know, would you?
Live in WA state, have a brother named Steve who lives in Oregon? Used to
live in Tacoma, WA, and belong to the Amiga computer club there?

No, but I do have a dad by my name living in WA.

Dave