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

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

Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <davep-at-quik-dot-com>

Tesla list wrote:

> 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,

	Errrrr.  First sentence says energy must be added continuously.
	Second says it must only be added at certain times????

> otherwise the waveform would quickly fall apart.  As I understand it,
> amplitude equals voltage.

	Amplitude can be of voltage, current, anything.
	Energy can be (and routinely is) added continuously.
	Or it can be added discontinuously.  Depends on the device
	design.

> If amplitude is increased when the voltage is increasing, the voltages
>will oppose each other

	I thought you said amplitude was voltage?

> 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.

	cf above.  depends on the design employed.
	
> 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.

	It does.  Suggest some courses in circuit design.

> And I'm a dunce for not believing this fairy tale.

	This 'fairy tale' is one one of the things that makes the
	internet, radio, tv, etc, work.  Useful 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.

	See previous explanations.

> >  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.

	Or the stray corona is creating a rectifier which leads to
	space charge.
 
> 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.

	Routine effects in any plasma globe.  Nicely explained by
	conventional physics.

> 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.

	Low powered (die to distance) HV RF.  Quite normal.
 
> > 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.

	Indeed, that's what the pix show.
	MUCH easier to photograph that way.
	If vertical, fields are asymmetrical to ground...

> >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.

	And the maximum spark lengths to go with this are?

> The coronal losses between the primary and secondary are nearly impossible
>to stop with the current configuration.

	One of the problems with a flat coil is the hot end is necessarily
	near everything else...
 
> >  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.

	Everything reported here seems quite conventional...

> 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.

	Was.  20 years ago.
	Retired.

> He also has recently had four of his papers published in a respected
> scientific resource.

	Which is?

> 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.

	The meter reading makes assumptions about the device under test
	being closely connected to the meter posts.  Long leads
	will fool the meter...
  
> 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.

	best
	dwp