Re: Anyone ever successful with Ball Lightning generation here?

["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>


>>>With the power guys are running now anything he saw
>>>should have been seen again.

	Not knowing what 'it' is, nor how to produce 'it',
	seems a tad premature to decide.  Ferinstance,
	suppose _some_ of What Tesla saw was BL but it
	depended on the particular wire he was using (rubber
	covered)?  Mayhap raw power is not the key...


>>. . . I would like it if it turns out to be a real phenomenon.

	It is.  (BL that is).  May or may not be what
	Tesla saw, or all of what we now speculate that he
	saw.


>>Especially one that's lab reproducable.

	Marginally reproducible.  cf the literature on BL.
	Notably, Berlitz: Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning.

>> But the evidence out there seems to be lacking severely.
	I would differ on that.  A BL bounced down the center

	aisle of an airliner full (in part) of nuclear
	physicists.  (Thunderstorm approaching Oak Ridge.)

 
> With all of the eye-witness accounts, haven't we gotten past

> the debate as to whether ball lightning is a real phenomenon?

	I think so.  Eye witness accounts CAN be iffy, enough,
	with solid commonality, allow some confidence.
	cf reference above.  (may take some finding...)

> The object now is to learn how to predictably create it.
	Indeed.  'lab reproduction' is nice, we can't

	_reproduce_ a meteor, but they exist.  (it is an
	interesting exercise to consider that from 1800
	to 1850 it was Very Fashionable scientifically to
	believe that meteors (as rocks from space) Did Not
	Exist.)

 
> Tesla was operating his spread-spectrum

	Did Tesla use the term spread spectrum?

> magnifying transmitters in a CW or near CW mode, at power

> levels just below that point at which sparks would
> break out from the elevated topload.  The available

> descriptions suggest this is the regime in which the phenomena

> should be most readily produced.

	There have been other replications (indeed, perhaps
	too many....)  cf Berlitz.  One common thread is
	LARGE currents, humidity, possibly the presence of
	organic 'contaminants'  (Rubber covered wire....).
	Interestingly, some of the more persuasive (to me, anyway)
	involve relatively low voltages (500-1000V at Really
	Large Currents: Banks of Submarine Batteries, bolted
	faults in power stations.)

	Its hard to reproduce _some_ things in the lab...

	best
	dwp

...the net of a million lies...
	Vernor Vinge
There are Many Web Sites which Say Many Things.
	-me