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

Just One Pop



Subject:  Just One Pop
  Date:   Sat, 10 May 1997 21:26:41 -0500 (CDT)
  From:   rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com (Richard Wayne Wall)
    To:   Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>


5/10/97

I have just completed a series of single shot TC electrostatic 
experiments using a Hull Electrometer.  The findings are quite 
interesting and generally fly in the face of conventional TC wisdom.  
These experiments are easy and reproducible.

The basic set up is a small conventional TC with a 21" secondary wound 
with #23 magnet wire on a 4" PVC form and encased in polyurethane. The 
primary is 1/4" Cu tubing spaced at 3/8" in a flat spiral.  A 24" x 4" 
toroid and a 1 1/2" solid brass ball terminal were used.  The dual 
spark gap is four Miller tungsten electrodes set ~3/8" total gap.  
Power is a single 12 kV 60 mA neon.  A 20 nF capacitor is loaded in 
series with the spark gap, neon and primary.  

After the coil is tuned, cut the voltage down on the Variac until it 
stops firing.  Cut the power to the Variac.  Close the switch and the 
current surge will fire the TC 2-3 times and stop.  It's easy to count 
the pops.  Continue to lower the Variac voltage and its quite easy to 
get just a single pop about 9 out of 10 times the switch is flipped on. 
It's at 71 VAC on this system.  The extra primary capacitance seems to 
help.

The spark gap was fired in the single shot mode without the primary or 
secondary with the electrometer about 5' away.  Often there was a small 
reading, but there was no consistant negative or positive reading.  The 
results were similar firing just the SG and primary, but no secondary.  

Firing in single shot mode with the 24" toroid produced a negative 
deflection consistantly on the electrometer.  Yes, I said negative.
A screw driver was placed on the toroid and directed at the 
electrometer.  Again, consistent negative deflection on single shots.  
Next the TC was fired in continous mode.  Negative again.  
Interesting, eh?

The electrometer was placed on a wooden platform on wheels and grounded 
to earth.  The electrometer was moved in successive steps away from the 
TC in a SSW direction and the TC was fired in single shot mode and 
continous mode.  Always negative deflections.  At 60 feet from the TC, 
out on the concrete drive way in a breeze, there were all negative 
deflections with single shots.  Also, negative deflections on 
continuous firing.  Binoculars were used to see the meter.  

The brass ball terminal was placed on the TC and it was retuned.  The 
above experiments were repeated.  Always negative deflections with even 
crisper and sharper deflections with this small ball terminal.

To assure the electrometer was reading correctly it was checked with a 
negatively charged Teflon wand.  It deflected negatively.  Another nice 
feature about this electrometer is that it can be charged by 
electrostatic induction just like the old metal foil electrometers.  
This was done and waving the charged teflon wand back and forth made 
the meter move back and forth negative and positively.  (RH is a master 
explaining electrostatic induction.)  I then taped a lead from a 
digital voltmeter to the electometer ball and repeated the single shot 
experiments at 60 and 20 feet and the wiggle wand experiments.  Both 
the analog meter and digital meter moved in unison - always both 
negative or both positive together.  Next the electrometer ball was 
charged with a 9 V battery.  Both the analog meter and digital meter 
confirmed positive readings.  I'm absolutely confident the elec
trometer is reading polarity correctly. 

Lastly, there were good strong negative single shot deflections out at 
60 feet.  I did not do quantitative measurements, but the signal 
collected by the electrometer did not attenuate by the inverse square 
of the distance.  Not even close.

Thoughts and observations.  This past year, when electrostatics of TCs 
were explored (primarily by RH) there was great debate whether the 
electrostatic charge imparted to another body by a TC was positive or 
negative.  Eventually after further debate, it was "decided" that it is 
always positive.  It's always been my position and I've posted that 
there are innumerable variables and that either positive or negative 
polarity is immaterial.  It may be either in differing circumstances.  
The important point is that TCs are electrical hybrids and TC 
electrostatic characteristics are extremely important.  What are these 
variables and what is the mechanism of electrostatic charge production? 
Well, I'm a little reluctant and not prepared to say right now.

Another important aspect of these experimentas is that consistant 
negative charge was developed 60 feet away from the TC coil fired in 
single shot mode at very low power.  An 18" fan was blowing on the coil 
terminal and a breeze was blowing outside on the electrometer terminal.
There has been much conjecture as to charge vector - heavy ions, 
electrons, Rydberg atoms and a type of propagation theory by RH, etc.
None of these theories fit with these experimental results.  Really 
there is no conventional charge vector in this case. 

RWW