Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
Hi Chris,
(comments interspersed)
In a message dated 7/26/05 6:24:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
Original poster: "Chris Rutherford" <chris1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Malcolm,
>BL exists, it has been reported since 1800.
The juxtaposition of an assumption with a fact does not make the
assumption a fact. Consider the following statement:
XXX exists, sightings have been reported since YYYY.
Now for XXX substitute UFOs, Bigfoot, Ball Lightning, Angels,
Nessie, Mirages, or Mermaids and one can immediately see the fallacy
in that argument.
>The only reason it 'does not exist' is because it can't be
reproduced in the lab.
Not so. It "does not exist" because:
1) No one can agree on what "it" is.
2) The characteristics are not consistent from sighting to sighting.
3) There has never been a reputable visual recording of the phenomenon.
4) It can't be reproduced in the lab.
>What I'm trying to do is differentiate between spherical discharge
and BL. i.e. BL >has an extraordinary decay, where as a normal fire
ball has a ordinary delay (if you >see what I mean).
Then you are defining anything that decays quickly as being not BL?
>So far I have only been able to produce ordinary decay, i.e. 3
frames or 0.12 >seconds. For an extraordinary decay the BL needs a)
a retarding process or b) an
external source.
> As Tesla clearly produced 1 inch ordinary decay (CSNp333), it is
only fair to >speculate that Tesla managed to produce extraordinary
decay and worked out the >reason for the decay.
In my copy of CSN, published by Zavod Udzbenike I Nastavna Sredstva,
Beograd 1999, Page 333 contains only measurements and calculations
from 23 & 24 Nov 1899, with no mention of BL.. Perhaps you could
identify the reference by other than page number?
> If I can produce decay of 0.13 seconds with 750VA and some bits
of > graphite
>(melting point 3000C) then I'm pretty sure Tesla managed to do
something more >interesting with 250KVA.
Maybe plausable but never proven. It depends on your meaning of the
scientific term "something more interesting".
"I'm pretty sure", is a statement of faith which needs more hard
corroboration.
>Some of my ordinary decay discharges.
>http://www.hackinghardware.com/tesla/cr-bl1.jpg
>http://www.hackinghardware.com/tesla/cr-bl2.jpg
>http://www.hackinghardware.com/tesla/cr-bl3.jpg
>cr-bl3 is interesting, it shows spherical discharge as an isolated
>process after the streamer has moved away from that space.
All I see is combustible dust motes heated to incandescence/ignition
by HV discharge. I'm afraid the jury will need more compelling
evidence to overcome reasonable doubt, before bringing in a verdict
of existance
>Thanks
>Chris R
A Snark hunt is very difficult, especially if you're not in
agreement as to what one looks like.
Matt D.