Re: Experimental results? RE: Stop the nonsense

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

Original poster: "Jim Lux by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>

>
> 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.

Actually, the paper probably reduces the dielectric strength, depending on
the relative dielectric constants of the materials.
The voltage across the insulator divides up as if you had a chain of
capacitors in series.  Low dielectric constant means small capacitance means
higher voltage.

This is the problem with air bubbles.  Their dielectric constant is low, as
is their breakdown voltage, so you get hammered from both sides. Not only is
the voltage (per unit length) higher across the air than the surrounding
material, but the breakdown voltage of air is lower.

There is also the field concentration aspect.  Little edges and points and
hairs and fibers and bubbles have small radii of curvature, and give a place
for corona to start. Once corona starts, puncture usually follows (although,
I just heard about a piece of wire in the lab which coronas immensely (it
glows in the dark under voltage from the corona), but doesn't actually
fail... weird stuff).

 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.

It is very difficult to predicting breakdown voltages in layered things.
There are a lot of variables, and it is very easy to get a breakdown voltage
that is MUCH less than you'd expect from the materials involved.  Ask the
folks building rolled poly/foil/oil capacitors...


>
> 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 th
at
> 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
>
>
>