Re: Research Project Neons (vs fluoros) (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: List moderator <mod1@xxxxxxxxxx>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:21:40 EDT
From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Research Project Neons (vs fluoros) (fwd)

 
Gentlemen
 
     Two researchers report contradictory results in  their observations of 
what they believe is the same phenomena.  This is a  not an uncommon event in 
real science. You never start out by assuming one or  the other is "right" or 
"wrong".
 
If we start instead by assuming: 
 
1) No observer bias.
2) No interfering, malevolent deity. ;-)
 
    Then we may consider the following:
 
3) Were the type, size, shape, and configuration of equipment comparable in  
each test? How much so?
4) Were the voltage, frequency, power and orientation of equipment  
comparable in each test? How much so?
5) Were similar measurement methods, materials, and procedures used in  each 
test? 
6) Were there any possible procedural errors and/or were there any  equipment 
malfunctions noted before, during, or after the test?
7) Were there any possible environmental differences? 
 (When I was in advanced physics lab in school, one old prof insisted  that 
ALL lab notes had to include ambient temperature, pressure, humidity,  presence 
or absence of em fields from nearby lighting, equipment, etc.  longitude, 
latitude, altitude, local gravitational force,  local  orientation and strength 
of earth's magnetic field, phase of the moon and time  of day, time of year, 
sunspots, presence or absence of electrical storms in the  vicinity, etc.)
 
Only after items 3 through  7 are covered  exhaustively, should we consider 
possibilities 1 or 2 above.
In this case, I SUSPECT an examination of items 3 through 5 will  go a long 
way towards resolving the reported differences.
 
Matt D.
 
" A correlation exists any time you have to throw out less than half your  
data to get the desired result" -Anon
 
 
In a message dated 5/24/07 10:30:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007  07:30:19 +0800
From: Peter Terren <pterren@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla  list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Research Project Neons (vs  fluoros)

Dr Res
I puzzle over your reply.  You only respond to  my first sentence, yet you 
remove the link to the actual experiment that I  conducted indicating you had 
read it. You make a statement that you use  both neons and argons and that 
you recommend a size of 6 inches x 18mm  (similar to the size I used). Argon 
is not commonly available in the pilot  light size so I don't think you are 
referring to this. Yet you give a  range that is about 2 orders of magnitude 
greater than what I am  obtaining.
Let me explain that. I record neons as firing at half the  distance and you 
record them as firing at 5 times the distance.  This  is a 10 fold distance 
discrepancy = 100 fold difference in radiated power  by the inverse square.
Can you explain. Do you have photos to support your  case? Were your pick up 
electrodes equal? Was your fluoro of comparable  size?

Peter


> ---------- Forwarded message  ----------
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:05:19 -0500
> From:  resonance <resonance@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Tesla list  <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Research Project Neons  (fwd)
>
> Yes, neons work at a range of 4-5 times that of a  flourescent tube.
>
>...We use both neon and argon (blue) as  accessories for our commercial 
>coils
> we market to science  museums.
> ....
> Across a classroom --- don't use a light bulb  --- usually not enough
> current.  Use a 6 inch long x 18 mm neon  tube (local neon shop)
> and it will glow brightly when attached from  second coil terminal
> to the base (ground) of the coil.  With your  setup,
> it should work excellent out to around 100 feet.
> Dr.  Resonance
>
>
>> Dr Res
>> Are Neons more  sensitive than fluoros to Tesla RF?
>> My experiment tonight suggests  otherwise and shows that a neon tube is 
>> far
>> LESS  sensitive than a nearly equal sized Fluoro. Electrodes on the  Tesla
>> side were equal sized and the other side were both connected  together.
>> See the pictures here:
>  http://tesladownunder.com/Solid%20State.htm#Neon%20and%20Fluoro%20tubes
>  I suggest they look nicer but don't perform as well at least with my 
>  sample.
>
>Peter







************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.