Re: Van de Graaff generator safety question (fwd)

[Steven Roys <sroys@xxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:38:02 -0600
From: Dr. Resonance <resonance@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: High Voltage list <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Van de Graaff generator safety question (fwd)


I forgot to mention --- in a tank with SF6, not in open air.

Dr. Resonance

Resonance Research Corporation
E11870 Shadylane Rd.
Baraboo   WI   53913
----- Original Message -----
From: "High Voltage list" <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Van de Graaff generator safety question (fwd)


> Original poster: Steven Roys <sroys@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:57:06 -0200
> From: Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz <acmq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: High Voltage list <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Van de Graaff generator safety question (fwd)
>
> High Voltage list wrote:
> >
> > From: Dr. Resonance <resonance@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Yes, we built one about 12 years ago.  Current increase, as compared to
a
> > belt, is approx 1,200%.
>
> This doesn't seem possible. The belt in a regular VDG operates already
> close to the limit of charge density that would cause ionization of
> the air. The conductive sections of a pelletron chain would at most
> operate at this same density. The current is always directly
> proportional to the area per second of charge transport surface that
> reaches the terminal. For a given belt speed, it's very difficult to
> get something better than what a belt can give.
>
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
>
>
>
>