Re: fluorescent tube question

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

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> I don't see any posts suggesting there is no current flowing.  The only
> posts I have seen are those that said there is a lot of current flowing and
> those that say there is very little current flowing.  Air is not a good
> conductor, therefore energy must be increased in potential and decreased in
> current in order for power to flow across it.
> 
> Considering that we're usually using 60mA or less at 15KV or less and
> stepping the voltage up to around 100,000V or so, the radiated current would
> therefore be around 4mA.  Then there is the inverse square law that applies
> between the coil and the free fluorescent tube.  It doesn't take much to
> realize at this point that the current is very low in a fluorescent tube
> that is not in contact with the secondary; a lot less than 1mA, in fact.
> 
> Fluorescent tubes do not have voltage step down transformers in them, so we
> can correctly state that the nature of electrical energy in the fluorescent
> tube is high voltage, low current.
> 
> Dave

	Agree.  I believe I remember some earlier posts saying something to the
effect that "it's the high voltage that lights the tube, not the current
which flows through it.  That was the reason for my comment.  The
current is low, the voltage drop is at most a few hundred volts, and the
lamps don't light very brightly, no matter what they look like in a
darkened room.

Ed