[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Teslas Ball Lightning
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Teslas Ball Lightning
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:21:49 -0600
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Old-return-path: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:23:16 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <G7yLiC.A.bdF.Ufr5CB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Chris Rutherford" <chris1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
BL exists, it has been reported since 1800. The only reason it 'does
not exist' is because 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). 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. 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.
Some of my ordinary decay discharges.
cr-bl3 is interesting, it shows spherical discharge as an isolated
process after the streamer has moved away from that space.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: Teslas Ball Lightning
Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 25 Jul 2005, at 12:26, Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: "Chris Rutherford" <chris1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi All,
> Just a question about the unpublished Chapter 34 of Prodigal
> Genius. John J. O'Neill states that the main mast at Colerado
> destroyed by a fireball, is there any evidence for this, or is it
> law, based on interviews with Tesla before he left us? Was this
> mast part of the extra coil?
> Tesla became familiar with the destructive characteristics of
> fireballs in his experiments at Colorado Springs in 1899. He
> produced them quite by accident and saw them, more than once,
> and shatter his tall mast and also destroy apparatus within his
> laboratory. The destructive action accompanying the
> disintegration of
> a fireball, he declared, takes place with inconceivable violence.
He produced no photographic evidence in the Notes of any such event.
My reading of what he said was that he was promoting an idea, not
reporting on an event.
> He studied the process by which they were produced, not because he
> wanted to produce them but in order to eliminate the conditions in
> which they were created. It is not pleasant, he related, to have
> fireballs explode in your vicinity for they will destroy anything
> come in contact with. "
Will they? Well he says so but again there is no evidence to support
> Chris R
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mailto:chris1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Chris Rutherford
> To: <mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>Tesla list
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:23 PM
> Subject: Teslas Ball Lightning
> Hi List,
> Tesla makes several references to 'ball lightning' throughout his
> It is possible that it does exist, but not in the spectacular form
> described by many. I have spoken to someone who claims to have
> seen a
> 10" ball hovering around some electricity pylons, but these don't
> match the type described in CSN. The balls produced by a Tesla
> are small and only last a fraction of a second. On p111 of the
> small dots appeared in his streamers, but he dismissed this as a
> persistence of vision. Yet on p333 he goes further. "The actual
> appearance of these luminous spots or points is unmistakable". He
> later discusses the formation through the rapid heating of
> "The fire ball may be connected with a process akin to explosion
> sudden volatilisation." The dictionary definition of
> is "to make volatile", thus he might be describing a process that
> makes stable molecules become unstable, releasing light.
> Has anyone seen ball lightning described in this context, rather
> the more spectacular sightings?
> What sort off power levels would he have been using at that time?