[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: -! Re: Moody Bible Ins

Robert Michaels wrote:
> 
> T><snip>
> 
> T>>M>We have gone to the trouble of self-rectifying the output of a large
> T>>M>oscillator and then using the DC peaks to generate X-rays.  By carefully
> T>>M>measuring the energy and frequency of the generated X-radiation we were
> T>>M>able to measure the peak output potential to within 100 electron volts.  W
> T>>M>also used this technique to measure the peak DC output of some large Van d
> T>>M>Graaff generators we constructed.
> T>>
> T>>M>DR.RESONANCE-at-next-wave-dot-net
> T>>
> T>>          "...peak output potential to within 100 electron volts."
> T>>
> T>>
> T>>        Eh?  Huh!?  Wha...?!   This is truly a sensational breakthru.
> T>>        One can only hope that you succeed in getting a paper on it
> T>>        into "Physical Reviews" or the "Journal of Physics".  Just
> T>>        think -- suddenly energy and force become one!  Undoubtedly
> T>>        a major advance toward a unified-field theory.
> 
> T><snip>
> 
> T>Uh, despite problems with exact meanings of words and such, just why
> T>wouldn't this work ?
> 
> T>As far as I know, any x-ray spectra will, holding everthing else constant,
> T>indicate the voltage applied quite exactly...
> 
> T>Not saying it would be easy by any means, just that I can't see why it
> T>wouldn't work ;'}
> 
> T>Daryl
> 
>         My response goes to the generally high level of palaver in
>         the post as whole.   My BS meter didn't pin itself to the
>         edge of the scale like this since the announcement of "cold
>         fusion" (!).
> 
>         Broadly and generally you are correct:  The hardness of x-rays
>         is related to the =dc= voltage producing them.  So, by measuring
>         that hardness it is possible infer the voltage across the
>         x-ray tube.
> 
>         I could go on long into the night over the problems in the
>         subject post (and bore you, everyone else, and myself in
>         the process) but the main problems are:  That 1 million
>         volts of Tesla current =always= produces a 9.5 (I believe it
>         was) foot long discharge); The confusion of potential
>         (as 100-volts) and energy (as 100 eV or electron volts) --
>         an error =frequently made by the poster; That 100 eV is an
>         incredibly minute amount of energy (100 electrons coming at
>         you with 1 volt of force behind them);  That self-rectification
>         was used (which would result in unidirectional peaks of
>         voltage at the half-frequency of the Tesla current - meaning
>         a constantly-changing x-ray hardness)....
> 
>         There's more but ....zzzzZZZZZ.
> 
>                                         Physics - now, and forever,
> 
>                                         Robert Michaels
> 
>          P.S.:  All this reminds me ---
> 
>                 Whatever happened to that guy who was going to make
>                 a 1-megawatt (or multi-megawatt!) Tesla coil?  He
>                 posted to The List about a year and a half ago.
> 
>                 Had the backing of major Japanese electrical mfg'rs.
>                 (he said).
> 
>                 Was going to use =diamond= coil forms (I kid you not).
> 
>                 He got hostile when I pointed out that diamond, being
>                 a form of carbon, is quite conductive electrically
>                 (and thermally, also for that matter).
> 
>                 Is that guy still around?  I sometimes travel exten-
>                 sively on business so I miss some things.  (Seems to
>                 me that megawatt diamond coil should be about ready
>                 to fire up by now).