RE: Spiral Coil test suggestions: was Re: (Fwd) RE: Longitudinal Waves

["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>

>> I'm going to jump ahead of your answer, because I can't see how energy
would
>> be efficiently added gradually through the entire cycle, it must be added
as
>> a pulse at a given time.
>  Why do you say that? The current waveform of the primary is (mostly) what
determines the voltage waveform across the secondary.

Both the primary and the secondary, or any wave generator or resonant wave
device, has to continually add energy to the wave in order to maintain the
amplitude.  Energy can only be added at specific times to the wave form,
otherwise the waveform would quickly fall apart.  As I understand it,
amplitude equals voltage.  If amplitude is increased when the voltage is
increasing, the voltages will oppose each other causing both the voltage and
the current to decrease.  If the voltage has just begun dropping and
amplitude is increased, the current will increase, thus adding energy to the
cycle.  In a steady sine wave, the energy added to the cycle will just equal
the losses.

So if there are only certain times in the cycle when energy can be added,
then there are times in the cycle when there is more power than at others.
Therefore the wave form will not be a perfect wave, and in fact, every sine
wave has a damped component depending on the efficiency of the entire
resonant system.  But this is apparently not how engineers see it.  Somehow
the wave generator magically distributes the energy perfectly even
throughout the entire cycle.  And I'm a dunce for not believing this fairy
tale.

>> I'm open to learning, and I realize most of you here are experts in your
>> field.  I'll listen.  So far, nobody has explained to me in precise terms
>> how the center of a flat spiral coil can have an electrostatic charge,
the
>> outer windings have a steady zero (or near zero) volts, and electric
>> movement still takes place between the two.

>  BTW, I'm still not clear if you're grounding either end of the coil, and
if so how. If not, what else is in proximity that might accumulate charge?

The best I can figure at this time is the earth is polarizing the charge
through electrostatic induction.

I'm not grounding the center of the coil.  And I have tried ground and no
ground for the outer lead.  The ground is connected via a 25' 3 awg aluminum
cable to a 20' deep copper assembly sunk inside of a well.  The copper
assembly extends under 17' of water.

>  Finally, the suggestions. Have you turned the coil _over_ and retested
for the apparent "longitudinal" effects?

No, and I need to do this.

> Have you accounted for the fact that the ions measured are derived from
the surrounding air, which is being _heated_ by the streamers?

Under my current configuration (two 30" plates connected to the terminal,
one above and one below the coil) there are no streamers.  And yet, I am
getting some very unique effects from the plasma ball sitting on top.  I
really didn't want to mention it here because of all the undue criticism,
but I'm getting a vortex pattern in the plasma ball now.  That is, it looks
like a tornado shooting out of the center ball (there is no rotation that I
can see, but it reminds me of Tesla's carbon button.)  Also, the light
inside the plasma ball is almost fluid.  It moves so incredibly smooth it
seems like it is alive.  Every finger I place on the surface of the globe
generates its own well-defined path to the center ball.  6 feet away I have
my camera setup.  When I take pictures, harmless sparks jump from the camera
to my fingers.  The sparks are so smooth and soft they feel like silk.

> Have you run the thing with the coil axis horizontal and looked for the
longitudinal effects?

This is another experiment I plan to do soon.  I'm guessing from the
pictures I've seen of Tesla's lab that he operated his flat spiral coil in
the vertical position.

>What will happen if you run it in a vacuum?

I don't know, but as soon as I find the best coil configuration, I'm going
to build a unit encased in oil.  There is no doubt I'm working with voltages
far in excess of any solenoid coil.  The coronal losses between the primary
and secondary are nearly impossible to stop with the current configuration.

>  Observation. Chances are that a given "out of agreement" measurement
involves faulty technique or false initial assumptions. Verification _means_
being tested by observation.

I fully agree.  My observations are raising a lot of eyebrows.  And just as
others are being as skeptical as possible in order to force accuracy, I'm
being as persistent as possible to make sure the current scientific
understanding is as rock solid as everybody tends to believe.

It's not just one measurement that offends the current understanding.  I
have results, maybe nobody wants to believe me, but I'm looking at real
phenomena that supports my measurements and understanding.  If I were just
theorizing and throwing out possibilities, I would fully expect to be
brushed aside.  But I'm producing results.  Even if I get knocked off this
list for bucking the status quo, I will pursue my research and further my
knowledge.

BTW, I earlier posted my theory of c^2 and described how c^2 describes a
pulse.  I particularly related this to atoms.  I found on the Internet today
a site that visually supports my theory.  To see the behavior of electrons
in any given atom, in a two dimensional plot, go to
http://lorax.chem.upenn.edu/Education/QM/QMjava.html

This is of particular interest to Tesla coilers.  Each individual atom in
the active components of a Tesla coil contributes to the geometry of the
wave.  I know it's not recognized as useful information at this time, but
this is what I will prove in the future.  My theory is completely compatible
with Quantum Mechanics and it will assist us in better understanding it.

>> Since when does a new theory have to be established law?
> It has to _agree_ with established law. If it produces new, unpredicted
results, it means the old standard must be _extended_, not just dumped.

This is exactly what I'm doing.  It is only those who haven't tried to
understand the concept that keep interjecting misinformation into my theory.
Everything I'm doing builds on current knowledge.  Only a few gray areas are
being clarified.

>  Unfortunately, I also know he makes _no testable predictions_ about how
to directly tap this infinite energy without providing the equivalent amount
of "ordinary" power to get the ZPF moving.

If this were the case, NASA would not be looking into ZPF as a potential
power source for interplanetary and interstellar exploration.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-107289.htm

You have to keep in mind that Bearden is likely under contract with the
government.  He is a Colonel.  He also has recently had four of his papers
published in a respected scientific resource.

Let's not go down this road, though.  At least not on this list.  I'm
interested in researching the properties of flat spiral secondary coils and
getting the basics figured out.  Some other time at some other place, I'll
tackle ZPF.

>  Definitely try it sideways.

I will.

>  Also remember to account for fringe effects and ordinary EM coupling; use
a large interposed electrostatic shield, frinst.

I wound another single wind flat spiral secondary, but this time I embedded
a 12" brass rod through the center, so I could mount the copper balls
easier.  While I was using my LCR meter to measure the capacitance, I made a
unique observation.  I fully realize that the measurements are not reliable.
I'm not reporting any reliable or unreliable measurements.  I'm reporting an
unusual behavior in the measuring process...

I connected the meter to the outer lead and the center post.  The meter was
set in the pF range.  The reading was 32pF.  Then I moved to a different
position that happened to be in line with the brass rod.  As my hand and
body passed through this narrow space, the capacitance dropped to 2pF.  The
more of my body that became involved with the direction of the brass rod,
the more the capacitance dropped.  I tried putting my hand directly on the
coil windings, this did not affect the capacitance reading.  I tried moving
just a piece of steel in line with the length of the brass rod, and it did
not affect the capacitance.  The interesting part of this observation was
that the meter was affected by my body passing in the axis of the brass rod,
and not by any other proximity.  This effect was prominent even though I was
more than 12" away from the end of the brass rod.

This is not evidence of anything, but it is an important clue.  It fits the
geometry of my pulse model.  I'm passing this information along in case
someone is interested in investigating it.

Dave