[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Vortices off tops of discharges
Original poster: "Mark L. Fergerson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <mfergerson1-at-cox-dot-net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: Vortices off tops of discharges
> Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz
> Hi Dave,
> If your assumptions were the mechanics of the vortex I
have witnessed, then
> there would be a vortex under many different conditions.
I can only
> generate the vortex with specific conditions. Yesterday I
> plasma ball at a much higher energy state than I had at
the time when I
> observed the vortex. There were long streamers in the
globe, it was solid
> red in color, and sparks jumped from the globe to a
fluorescent tube across
> 1 1/2 inches of air, but there was no vortex.
I'd assume a vortex could form under many conditions _if_
we were sure what caused it in the first place. In terms of
"known" science, I'm not terribly sure anyone knows,
otherwise you'd be getting replies along the lines of "well,
sure, you didn't get a vortex because X was too
If there's a narrow range of conditions that allows them
to form, I'd like to know what they are. Trouble is, there's
lots of candidates, not just total system power, because you
didn't vary anything else in step, so to speak. ISTM that at
higher power, you ought to be able to adjust other factors
(globe size, distance, whatever) to get vortices.
This is getting complicated (as if you hadn't noticed)!
You may find it tiresome to do a run, power down, change the
setup, and power back up. Many coilers have come up with
ways to retune their coils while operating (gap distance,
breakrate for rotary gaps, pri/sec spacing and even tap
point). You may have to do something similar to vary the
operating parameters, to find the edges of the conditions
for what makes for a vortex, and conversely just what
_prevents_ one. For starters, I can't recall if you
mentioned whether or not you're using a Variac or similar to
vary the input voltage. Per your mention of increased
voltage with a change of primary tap position, I wonder what
difference changing input voltage at a given tap point
setting would make.
There are so many variables to consider, and not just
those of the coil system. I'm wondering if there are some
characteristics of the globe that matter; its size, the
properties of the inner conductive metal oxide coating (if
present), the particular gas mixture, its exact placement
WRT the coil, and so on. Having several different ones to
try at given coil settings would be nice, to see if you can
get vortices with a large one when a small one won't,
> I'll certainly be investigating the vortex in greater
depth later. My
> current view, though, is that it was caused from
electrostatics and not from
> fluid or plasma convection.
Hm. Might be, might not. Is there a conductive coating on
the inside of the globe? (AFAIK most "plasma globes" need
them) Its resistivity, if low, would tend to prevent any
direct electrostatic effects. OTOH if Bearden is right, it
wouldn't matter because the electrostatic field doesn't come
into existence 'til the logitudinal waves interfere
I have no idea how to test for a conductive (yet
invisible) metal oxide coating inside a glass sphere without
BTW, I'd like to clarify a few things, even if you don't get
to them 'til later;
> > > Hmmm. The glass envelope may have stayed cold to the
> >>remember that tells you nothing about the heat
> >>_within_ the globe.
> > For the heat circulation you are referring to, there
needs to be air
> > flow
> Or other material than air...
I didn't exactly mean _heat_ circulation, I meant the gas
would experience convective flow due to localized heating
and the influence of gravity. That's regardless of the
source of the heat. Now obviously, if "ordinary" convection
is occuring, certain parts of the gas are being heated and
others not. The question is: what's generating the heat? I
don't offhand see any way for a TC to induce spot heating in
a proximate volume of gas whether or not it's contained.
Then there's the shape of the visible part of the plasma;
to me, that's a clue that it _isn't_ ordinary convective
flow. It sounds to me rather like some weird kind of
interference pattern. BTW, does it seem to rotate, or stand
still, so to speak? Does it appear as soon as the coil is
energized, or does it take a while to build up? Does it
vanish as soon as the coil is de-energized, or is there a
I say "visible plasma" because recall that there are
multiple ionization states available, and not all of them
radiate visible light upon recombination.
> > EM does not flow with air movement in small, closed
> Nor in large, unenclosed ones.
> > Not that would produce a tornado effect.
> electrical discharges routinely follow air movements, or
> those of other gases/particles. cf any text on lighting.
Ook. I completely forgot that there will be some
preference for the visible plasma to follow recently ionized
gas around the globe, assuming ordinary convective flow.
That might generate some of the visible effects.
> > > The globe _does_ get warm after running it a while,
> > No, there is no new warmth, at least discernable warmth,
in the globe.
> > There is not even a subtle warmth.
> The globe has a 'large' surface area, and the heat flows
> the entire surface. Any one point will heat minimally.
> And the actual power levels are small.
> And much of the power goes into maintaining the effect
> the globe.
My viewpoint (eliminate the "known" before hunting the
"unknown")is a bit harder to defend here without getting
into instrumentation to really check if the globe gets
warmer. In an ideal world, you'd be able to instrument the
entire system to within an inch of its life, but I realize
the "touch test" is as far as we usually get.
Bottom line; accounting for every milli-Joule that goes
through the system is just about impossible, but it should
be possible to measure the total light output of the globe
and see if the radiated EM and system losses leave wiggle
room for L waves.
Below the bottom line; tried operating _two_ flat spiral
coil systems at the same time to look for direct L wave
interference? If it's real, something as simple as waving
the globe through the volume proximate to both coils should
reveal places the fields interfere constructively.
Mark L. Fergerson