RE: Terry's Test - Two Manifestations of Charge

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Terry,

> >Let's look at the theory you are presenting.  You are
producing the
> >same result that I am, and quantifying the same effect.
>
> Yes, it is easy to reproduce.  If we can agree that just a
> tube on Styrofoam will have "equal" sparks,  I will spare our
> atmosphere the mercury vapor release...

If you are talking about breaking off the tube end, that isn't
necessary.  Any piece of aluminum on the end of the Styrofoam
should have the same effect.  I haven't tried the effect with a
non-vacuum tube in between the topload and ground.  But I have
tried the effect with a tube that was not grounded.  I got the
same results whether the tube was grounded or not.

> >According to my theory, the electrons are manifesting in two
different
> >modes.  One is a high potential, low current mode, and the
other is a
> >low potential, high current mode.
> >
> >Let me put it this way, if there is just one form of charge,
then there
> >would be just one color and thickness of spark, but of varying

> >intensity.
>
> ???  I don't get that...  Looks like just simple basic field
> theory stuff to me...  I see nothing that is not explained
> easily and perfectly well by the 150 - 200 year old laws of
> electricity as told by Ampere, Maxwell, and Kirchhoff in the
> early to mid 1800's...

How do you explain the difference in color of the sparks?  One is
purple, the other is bright white.  If there is just one
manifestation of charge, shouldn't you be able to get a bright
purple, or thin white spark?

The fact that there could be electrons between a high potential
and low potential and manifesting in two very different modes
seems not to be explained by the above laws.  I don't see
anything in those equations that would suggest such physical
appearances.  Yet, you see the different modes for yourself.

> >Do you think you can measure the potential and current of
those
> >individual sparks?

> You really should do it on a 3-D simulator, but nobody here
> has the super computer to handle that stuff...  Some like
> E-Tesla could fake that and work, but not easily in this
case...

I think we should not calculate the answers, but measure them.
Once we have actual measurements, then we can verify whether the
present equations calculate the data or not.  Also, unless there
is some way to prove that both the sparks have the same
characteristics, we need to understand why the different
appearances.

> >If it turns out that both sparks have the same potential, then
that
> >would indicate there is just one type of charge.  But if it
turns out
> >that the potential from topload to vacuum tube is greater than
from
> >vacuum tube to ground, then it would indicate two different
modes of
> >charge.
>
> It seems obvious from the photos that the top of the tube is
> near the same potential as the top of the coil...  That is
> certainly just as expected from plain old field theory...

I can't tell if we are talking about the same thing or not.  Are
you saying that it looks like the potential from the topload to
the vacuum tube is the same from the vacuum tube to ground?  What
makes you say that?

> >I have another problem with your hypothesis.  According to
Kirchhoff's
> >law, the current going in is equal to the current going out.
According
> >to Ohm's law the current is going to take the path of least
resistance.
> >If the vacuum tube is connected to ground, why would the
displaced
> >currents flow away from ground and toward the resistance of
the spark
> >gap and the potential of the topload?
>
> The bottom of the tube is not grounded, other than some
> electrostatics effect where displacement currents couple the
> AC to ground....

Okay, try grounding the bottom of the tube and see what happens.
This is what I was going to try before my transformer gave out.
It would be in your favor if the sparks looked the same when the
bottom of the tube is grounded.

> >According to your analysis, there should be more power from
the
> >vacuum tube to the ground than there is between the topload
and
> >vacuum tube.  I wonder if this is true.  If it turns out that
> >displacement currents are feeding current to the tube, then
that
> >might mean we have evidence for longitudinal waves.
>
> Paul has mentioned the "longitudinal waves" as Tesla defined
> them, are just like our "not so modern" displacement currents.

I would agree.

> >This is the
> >type of power transmission that Tesla claimed in his
Wardencliffe
> >design.
>
> Yes, Tesla was trying to couple to the upper atmosphere with
displacement
> currents...  He used to like the term longitudinal waves.  It
is not clear
> if her understood the new (at that time) work of Maxwell and
Heaviside...

Yes, he did.  He publicly stated that Heaviside was wrong (and
turned out to be wrong, himself).

> >Also, how do you explain that current is being received
> >in the tube other than by induction?
>
> Obviously, displacement currents!!
>
> http://hot-streamer.com/andrewb/models/models.htm
>
> I just wonder how displacement currents "actually work".  The
> fact that they "do work" is obvious...

But that is exactly what I'm getting at.  In order for
displacement currents to work, there must be a quantifiable
mechanics somewhere that explains the process.

According to my theory, the potential grid would probably look
similar to your voltage grid models.  But there is also a current
grid that is 90 degrees out of phase with the potential grid and
expands toward the ground side of the coil.  I would venture to
say that the displacement currents are the result of the current
grid, not the potential grid.  In addition, my theory predicts
that a conical or flat spiral secondary coil will have a greater
current grid for the same amount of power than does a solenoid
secondary coil.  Also, the taller and skinnier the solenoid
secondary coil, the greater the potential grid will be.  A
combination flat spiral and tall solenoid coil, like those I
build, will maximize the current and potential grids.

After studying Tesla's patents and other writings, I'm convinced
that his Wardencliffe tower used this configuration for the
secondary.

> >It is one thing to displace
> >currents, it is another thing entirely to pick them up and use
> >them.
>
> There are billions of capacitors on Earth that do that every
> day!!! ;o)))

I'm not saying it cannot be done.  I'm saying that just because
we can say the words "displacement currents" does not mean we
know *how* those displacement currents cause electrical currents
in a remote conductor.  And since the displacement currents are
traveling through an insulator, we need to quantify what it
actually is that is carrying the displacement currents.  Maxwell
identified the medium as the Aether, but I suspect you don't
agree with Maxwell on this point.

> >This really is exciting.
>
> It is sort of a neat way to demonstrate field effects....
> But I really honestly see zero "new" theory to any of it :-|

That's true.  The "new" theory I am talking about is really the
old Aether theory, but based upon modern measurements.

> I think Maxwell could have easily seen what was going on in his
day...

It's funny you would say that.

The fact is, in order for something to have an effect, it must be
real.  In the modern interpretation of EM theory, the field is
just a mathematical construct.  In Maxwell's time, it was the
Aether.  What my theory shows is that Maxwell was right about the
Aether.  My theory also shows that there are two distinct
quantifications of charge, one which matches the electrostatic
charge behavior, and the other matches the electromagnetic charge
behavior.

It is interesting to me that it can be proven, at least visually
so far, that there are indeed two distinct manifestations of
charge, which matches the quantities derived from the empirical
data.

Dave