I have a couple of very simple high voltage arc starter circuit
design, in welding machines, which uses a spark gap. The circuit has
an AC (60Hz) source that feeds a spark gap, a capacitor and the
primary or the coupling transformer that feeds the high voltage and
high frequency to the welding cable.

My question is, what happens right before the arc is initiated, after
the arc is initiated and what does it changes in the circuit from the
time before and after the arc is initiated.

Thanks


--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, <davep@...> wrote:
>
> > Not sure a carbon mike meets the criteria,
>      It does.
>      (Tho this bit of technbo trivia is now largely lost,
>       along with the carbon mike.  8)>>)
>
>      A carbon mike (duly fitted with DC supply, etc)
>      can modulate that DC supply to provide MORE 'AC'
>      energy out than ACOUSTIC energy in.  (This is not
>      'over unity: the enrgy (and more) comes from the battery.)
>
>      With a decent 'earpiece' and a carbon mike the result can be
>      (was, in old days) made to 'sing' (acoustic feedback):
>      oscillation.
>
> ....
>
> >     Microphones by themselves are transducers and not amplifiers.
> > However, by combining an earphone or speaker element with a carbon
> > microphone it is possible to build useful amplifiers and such
devices
> > were used in the period of perhaps 1910-1915 before practical
vacuum
> > tubes became available.  Problem with them was that they were
pretty
> > noisy and useless for really weak signals.  I don't know if any
of you
> > have heard of or seen one but there were "power" carbon microphone
> > gadgets in use around 1940 (that's when I became aware of them -
don't
> > know when they were first built) that used a low-resistance
carbon mike
> > and a speaker as a simple PA system.
>      before that, power handling carbon mikes (non oscillatory)
>      modulated the arc and HF al;ternators that were the ancestral
>      AM Voice gear.
>
>      For Arc Oscillator one source is/was 'Poulsen Arc', from
>      the Danish invetor.  I'm guessing the antique wireless folk
>      have info on the web.
>
>      Semantic Nit:
>      Many use the terms 'spark' and 'arc' interchanably.
>      Sometimes they are, mostly not, ESPECIALLY in antique
>      transmitter work.
>
>      best
>       dwp
>

> I have a couple of very simple high voltage arc starter circuit
> design, in welding machines, which uses a spark gap. The circuit has an
> AC (60Hz) source that feeds a spark gap, a capacitor and the
> primary or the coupling transformer that feeds the high voltage and
> high frequency to the welding cable.

> My question is, what happens right before the arc is initiated,
      Which arc?
      The welding arc?

> after the arc
      The RF arc?

> is initiated and what does it changes in the circuit
       What part of the circuit?

> from the time before and after the arc is initiated.
      Which arc?
      (I'm NOT trying to be a wiseacre: its sometimes Real Hard
       to write unambiguously, thats my only point.  Meanwhile back
       at what I think the question is.  8)>>)

      I once encountered one of these rf arc starter widgies, doing
      some 'emi from arc welding' studies.  'best' 8)>> line
      was the one in the manual about the sprk gap in the RF
      generator, roughly:
        Do Not File the Points: they are tungsten and are harder than
        your file.

      Back to the question:
         It can be tricky, expecially in aluminum/alloy work to get
         the wedling arc to 'strike' (as i understand it: the Al
         carries heat away too fast...  Welding arc tends to go out
         between half cycles).  So.  An auxiliary, spark gap RF
         oscillator is provided.  RF voltage will jump a longer
         distance than DC/60 Hz, for equal voltage.  Thus the
         RF at 'a few KV' (even lower) provided an ionized path
         (spark) at the welding tip, when close to the work.  The
         LF Power arc can follow thru.

      best
       dwp

The arc starter circuit is to help initiate the welding arc without
any contact from the electrode to the workpiece.
Thanks

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, <davep@...> wrote:
>
> > I have a couple of very simple high voltage arc starter circuit
> > design, in welding machines, which uses a spark gap. The circuit
has an
> > AC (60Hz) source that feeds a spark gap, a capacitor and the
> > primary or the coupling transformer that feeds the high voltage
and
> > high frequency to the welding cable.
>
> > My question is, what happens right before the arc is initiated,
>      Which arc?
>      The welding arc?
>
> > after the arc
>      The RF arc?
>
> > is initiated and what does it changes in the circuit
>       What part of the circuit?
>
> > from the time before and after the arc is initiated.
>      Which arc?
>      (I'm NOT trying to be a wiseacre: its sometimes Real Hard
>       to write unambiguously, thats my only point.  Meanwhile back
>       at what I think the question is.  8)>>)
>
>      I once encountered one of these rf arc starter widgies, doing
>      some 'emi from arc welding' studies.  'best' 8)>> line
>      was the one in the manual about the sprk gap in the RF
>      generator, roughly:
>        Do Not File the Points: they are tungsten and are harder than
>        your file.
>
>      Back to the question:
>         It can be tricky, expecially in aluminum/alloy work to get
>         the wedling arc to 'strike' (as i understand it: the Al
>         carries heat away too fast...  Welding arc tends to go out
>         between half cycles).  So.  An auxiliary, spark gap RF
>         oscillator is provided.  RF voltage will jump a longer
>         distance than DC/60 Hz, for equal voltage.  Thus the
>         RF at 'a few KV' (even lower) provided an ionized path
>         (spark) at the welding tip, when close to the work.  The
>         LF Power arc can follow thru.
>
>      best
>       dwp
>

Ed check this out when you get a minute. This is insane!!!

     Absolutely!!!!!!!!!  Anyone who objects will immediately be labeled
a RACIST of course..........................................

Another SOCAL emergency room closed yesterday because the people coming
there were over 90% illegals.  One of them is sueing over a medical
malpractice matter which is totally off the wall but he got a local
lawyer to take the case on contingency.

Ed

Far, far from Tesla but more important at the moment.

For Arc Oscillator one source is/was 'Poulsen Arc', from
the Danish invetor. I'm guessing the antique wireless folk
have info on the web.

Semantic Nit:
Many use the terms 'spark' and 'arc' interchanably.
Sometimes they are, mostly not, ESPECIALLY in antique
transmitter work.

best
dwp"

     You can find lots of info on the web, maybe including a good
description of a ~200 watt oscillator someone built.  I've built much
smaller ones which worked up to 2 MHz but didn't put out much power.

     I agree on the last statement and the error is common.

Ed

For Arc Oscillator one source is/was 'Poulsen Arc', from
the Danish invetor. I'm guessing the antique wireless folk
have info on the web"

     Forgot to mention that somewhere I found a picture of Poulsen's lab
in Denmark which had what was obviously  CW Tesla coil running, based on
the streamers coming out the top.  Not mentioned in the caption of the
picture and I've never seen anything about it.  Probably the first of
its kind as no one else had the power at the time.

Ed

Question to myself & thinking out loud.

How did I miss or overlook this Poulson fellow
in my Historical research....
http://www.geocities.com/neveyaakov/electro_science/poulsen.html

I also  an interesting looking & sounding  Tesla coil , about half way
down this page.
http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/SINGING_ARC_MOELLER.html

It seems Poulson & his arc was one of many casualties in the early
Patent wars as mentioned by Tesla himself here....
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art07.html

No luck in finding the photo you mentioned Ed
http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/history_center/poulsen.html
unless this is the continuos wave Tx you are talking about....

I could have sworn I saw the term "Longitudinal Waves" appear
in the results of my brief search for the lab photo as well.
Ahh my bad
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v34/i6/p978_1
It was  "A Study of Longitudinal Field Poulsen Arc Con- verter"
from 1929

Neither prola.aps.org or Harvard
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1929PhRv...34..978S
want to give up the complete document without a password or
a "secret handshake"  ;>  to open up their web page server manually...


JB

PS:  I'm another year older today.
I'm told my life is supposed to begin now.
So what the hell was I doing in the previous
40 years , was it practice , a trial run or what ?



>For Arc Oscillator one source is/was 'Poulsen Arc', from
>the Danish invetor. I'm guessing the antique wireless folk
>have info on the web"
>
>     Forgot to mention that somewhere I found a picture of Poulsen's lab
>in Denmark which had what was obviously  CW Tesla coil running, based on
>the streamers coming out the top.  Not mentioned in the caption of the
>picture and I've never seen anything about it.  Probably the first of
>its kind as no one else had the power at the time.
>
>Ed

Question to myself & thinking out loud.

How did I miss or overlook this Poulson fellow
in my Historical research..."

     Quite an inventor wasn't he?  Following links relate to the first
really practical applications of his arc on the US west coast - note
that Lee DeForest was heavily involved:

     http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist/poulsen.html

     http://earlyradiohistory.us/sec009.htm

There are lots of other interesting links to be found starting from
these.  The CW Tesla coil appeared in a picture of his lab in Denmark
and, as I said, wasn't noted in the caption - it was just something in
the background which not everyone would notice.  I'll bet I have a link
to it somewhere if I can find our where.

     That was quite an interesting reference you found - hadn't seen it
before.

Ed

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JET,  FROM ALL OF US AT USA-TESLA.

Question to myself & thinking out loud.

How did I miss or overlook this Poulson fellow
in my Historical research....
http://www.geocities.com/neveyaakov/electro_science/poulsen.html

I also an interesting looking & sounding Tesla coil , about half way
down this page.
http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/SINGING_ARC_MOELLER.html

It seems Poulson & his arc was one of many casualties in the early
Patent wars as mentioned by Tesla himself here....
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art07.html

No luck in finding the photo you mentioned Ed
http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/history_center/poulsen.html
unless this is the continuos wave Tx you are talking about....

I could have sworn I saw the term "Longitudinal Waves" appear
in the results of my brief search for the lab photo as well.
Ahh my bad
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v34/i6/p978_1
It was "A Study of Longitudinal Field Poulsen Arc Con- verter"
from 1929

Neither prola.aps.org or Harvard
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1929PhRv...34..978S
want to give up the complete document without a password or
a "secret handshake" ;> to open up their web page server manually...

JB

PS: I'm another year older today.
I'm told my life is supposed to begin now.
So what the hell was I doing in the previous
40 years , was it practice , a trial run or what ?

>For Arc Oscillator one source is/was 'Poulsen Arc', from
>the Danish invetor. I'm guessing the antique wireless folk
>have info on the web"
>
> Forgot to mention that somewhere I found a picture of Poulsen's lab
>in Denmark which had what was obviously CW Tesla coil running, based on
>the streamers coming out the top. Not mentioned in the caption of the
>picture and I've never seen anything about it. Probably the first of
>its kind as no one else had the power at the time.
>
>Ed

At least some, if not most,
of the power outputs from these designs are likely to fall outside of
the conventional parameters of Alternating Current as we have previously
experienced it.  There may indeed be power, but we may not be able to
measure it using current technology."

	 If we can't measure them how can we use them?  If they can be used then the
output of whatever uses them should be measurable in whatever [useful] form it
takes.

Ed

merlib.org
MERLib.org - Modern Energy Research Library
yes, its for tesla, schauberger, etc.
yes, it utilizes rss-feeds also, so people benefit.
are you guys so jumpy that you reach for the "someone is eyeing
us"-kneejerk  when ppl try to help the community?
http://peswiki.com/
http://rexresearch.com/

etc..
add
http://merlib.org/

also visit
http://del.icio.us/tag/@merlib.org

...


On 11/24/06, Ed Phillips <evp@...> wrote:

>  Our collective ranting's seem worthy of harvesting by this .org...
>  I wonder who else is accumulating & collecting our data in this
>  manner......
>
>  The Merlib site does make it easier when logged into yahoo to
>  see how many posts I have missed & catch up on them.
>
>  So I'm back on the air & slightly wiser as to who is keeping an
>  eye on us....
>
>  JB"
>
>  Any idea what this site does?  I looked at your reference but didn't
>  understand how the stuff got there.  Is anyone "keeping an eye on us" ?
>  Why would anyone/anything bother?
>
>  Ed
>
>

At 11:37 PM 1/8/2007 +0200, esa wrote:

>merlib.org
>MERLib.org - Modern Energy Research Library
>yes, its for tesla, schauberger, etc.
>yes, it utilizes rss-feeds also, so people benefit.
>are you guys so jumpy that you reach for the
>"someone is eyeing us"-kneejerk

Strange what people can read into an email....

I see no paranoid kneejerk , tin foil hat wearing ,
MIB in Black helo's are controlling my mind reaction,
in the original observation I made.
ie: people are harvesting & collecting our collective
public musings ,  as long as my/our  email address's
are not being sold to spammers as active targets ,
I find the spreading  of  "information" from this list
to complete strangers somewhat humorous , at times....

The only consistent  conspiracy / cover up question
   on this list is why did the "office of alien affairs" (??)
seize , box & remove all of a US citizen's accumulated
paperwork over his lifetime as soon as he passed away. ?


JB


>when ppl try to help the community?
>http://peswiki.com/
>http://rexresearch.com/
>
>etc..
>add
>http://merlib.org/
>
>also visit
>http://del.icio.us/tag/@merlib.org
>
>...
>
>
>On 11/24/06, Ed Phillips <evp@...> wrote:
>
> >  Our collective ranting's seem worthy of harvesting by this .org...
> >  I wonder who else is accumulating & collecting our data in this
> >  manner......
> >
> >  The Merlib site does make it easier when logged into yahoo to
> >  see how many posts I have missed & catch up on them.
> >
> >  So I'm back on the air & slightly wiser as to who is keeping an
> >  eye on us....
> >
> >  JB"
> >
> >  Any idea what this site does?  I looked at your reference but didn't
> >  understand how the stuff got there.  Is anyone "keeping an eye on us" ?
> >  Why would anyone/anything bother?
> >
> >  Ed

---

From: Jet Black [mailto:derringer@...]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 1:01 PM
To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Odd , I got Dropped off the list

At 11:37 PM 1/8/2007 +0200, esa wrote:

>merlib.org
>MERLib.org - Modern Energy Research Library
>yes, its for tesla, schauberger, etc.
>yes, it utilizes rss-feeds also, so people benefit.
>are you guys so jumpy that you reach for the
>"someone is eyeing us"-kneejerk

Strange what people can read into an email....

I see no paranoid kneejerk , tin foil hat wearing ,
MIB in Black helo's are controlling my mind reaction,
in the original observation I made.
ie: people are harvesting & collecting our collective
public musings , as long as my/our email address's
are not being sold to spammers as active targets ,
I find the spreading of "information" from this list
to complete strangers somewhat humorous , at times....

The only consistent conspiracy / cover up question
on this list is why did the "office of alien affairs" (??)
seize , box & remove all of a US citizen's accumulated
paperwork over his lifetime as soon as he passed away. ?

JB

>when ppl try to help the community?
>http://peswiki.com/
>http://rexresearch.com/
>
>etc..
>add
>http://merlib.org/
>
>also visit
>http://del.icio.us/tag/@merlib.org
>
>...
>
>
>On 11/24/06, Ed Phillips <evp@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Our collective ranting's seem worthy of harvesting by this .org...
> > I wonder who else is accumulating & collecting our data in this
> > manner......
> >
> > The Merlib site does make it easier when logged into yahoo to
> > see how many posts I have missed & catch up on them.
> >
> > So I'm back on the air & slightly wiser as to who is keeping an
> > eye on us....
> >
> > JB"
> >
> > Any idea what this site does? I looked at your reference but didn't
> > understand how the stuff got there. Is anyone "keeping an eye on us" ?
> > Why would anyone/anything bother?
> >
> > Ed

Could be the agent in charge was collecting for a Teslaphile?
They just wanted to give us a conspiracy to go nuts over.
With humans, absurd and silly reasons are more likely than they should be."

     I can't imagine anyone [except we nuts who hang our here] having any
interest in our passionate exchanges about subjects of no real interest
to the rest of the world.  Conspiracy is fun to think about
but..........................

Ed

At 09:46 AM 1/9/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>Could be the agent in charge was collecting for a Teslaphile?
>They just wanted to give us a conspiracy to go nuts over.
>With humans, absurd and silly reasons are more likely than they should be."
>
>     I can't imagine anyone [except we nuts who hang our here] having any
>interest in our passionate exchanges about subjects of no real interest
>to the rest of the world.  Conspiracy is fun to think about
>but..........................
>
>Ed


I found this Government + Hollywood suppressed
technology conspiracy list. It must be true because
it's on the Internet.
It lists the contents of one of the big secret gov
warehouse's where they store everything in.....
http://www.io.com/~jlockett/RPG/HEGGA/Stuff/warehouse.html
The list is part truth & part mis/disinformation tho
it attributes Tesla to a working Orgone machine..

No listing of Tesla's Wardenclyffe Notes etc , they must be in the Cheyenne
Mountain installation , in a box with other useful things , underneath the ramp
up to the Stargate , ready to be thrown off-world if their is a security
breach.

The lost Tesla notes are hidden away somewhere.One day
someone will find them sitting on the shelves of a public library ,
released & there for the taking , all due to a clerical error.

Conspiracy is good for a giggle , however , asking for
the " suspension of disbelief "  is a really big ask on this list.

JB

I found this Government + Hollywood suppressed
technology conspiracy list. It must be true because
it's on the Internet."

     Neat!

Ed

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, Ed Phillips <evp@...> wrote:
>
> > What was Tesla detecting? Well, if thunderstorms have
> > electromagnetic dead zones as Tesla describes, then a big
> > storm cloud should be surrounded by electromagnetic rings.
> > There should be a huge invisible "bullseye," with the storm
> > in the center."
>
>     Experience with lightning detectors doesn't really seem to
> demonstrate any such effect - signals just steadly weaker as the
strikes
> get farther away (at least out to 400 miles).

Umm...  this doesn't make much sense.   Lightning impulses put out
nearly all of their EM energy in the 100KHz to 1MHz band (caused by
the more common 1us to 10us impulses.)  Compared to this peak part of
the lightning EM spectrum, the energy in the sub-10KHz band will be
insignificant and will be swamped out, resulting in indetectibly small
"bullseye" amplitude variations.

If a lightning detector were designed to detect the "bullseye"
pattern, it would have to intentionally reject the main lightning
signal; using lowpass filters which allow it to *only* sense the much
smaller signals present in the sub-10KHz part of the band.  It makes
more sense that if lightning detectors have filters, that they would
specifically reject this low part of the band, since that's where all
the manmade noise such as 60Hz overtones and VLF military transmitters
lie.   And if they don't have filters, the 100KHz energy peak will
totally swamp out any 1KHz "bullseye" changes.

Note well that since I'm in Seattle with only a couple thunderstorms
per year I can't easily test this stuff myself.


>
>     For there to be measurable standing waves the propagation loss
would
> have to be very low and successive flashes would have to be timed very
> precisely.

Yes to losses, no to sucessive flashes.   A single flash would easily
create standing waves in a high-Q cavity.   Same as ringing a bell by
giving it a single whack.  And at the frequencies well below 10KHz,
the propagation losses *are* low.   That's why Shumann peaks exist.


>  The measurements of the Schumann resonances show a rather broad and
extremely weak signal, which I think precludes such effects.

Whose measurements?  Or more specifically, which estimates of cavity
Q?  Sutton/Spaniol of Nasa-Goddard point out that some textbook graphs
of Earth resonances have severe artifacts caused by the low resolution
of the measuring instruments: detector bandwidth which is too wide,
and integration time which is too short.  The old data puts the cavity
Q at around 8, while Sutton/Spaniol measured Q with modern equipment
and found values of 100 and higher.  Values below are from their 1988
paper "A Measurement of the Magnetic Earth-Ionosphere Cavity
Resonances in the 3 - 30 Hz Range."

  Q -  - Freq
-----  ---------
  ~100  Fundamental (8Hz)
  1000  19 Hz
   600  25 Hz

I found these values in an old online email from Richard Quick.  But I
have that journal publication somewhere at home, so I can go look up
the original numbers if you want.

>     I would think that simply listening to "static" on a low frequency
> receiver would demonstrate such effects if they exist and I don't think
> anyone has ever reported such a thing.

True...  if the amplitude changes are easily noticed by ear.  First
the receiver would need to be broadband audio baseband with no diode
detector and most especially no AGC: like a crude "whistler" receiver.
  And possibly the detection would require that measurements be made,
since the variations might not be noticable otherwise.   After all, if
the "bullseye" is made up of 50% audio changes which take place over
many minutes, the effect might show up on a meter reading, yet be
indetectable by ear unless one was carefully listening for it.

On the other hand, another effect might be more obvious to the ear.
If significant standing waves are present, then the sound of a
lightning signal would not be a "click," but would more resemble the
sound of whacking a length of plastic sewer pipe, or of clapping your
hands inside a large drainage culvert.  The sound of multiple
resonances at 1F, 2F, 3F, etc., should have the familiar "comb-filter"
or "talking inside a sewer pipe" timbre.   Even any random background
noise should have this particular timbre.  VLF noise in the sub-10KHz
region might resemble the sound of crunching gravel while walking
inside a culvert.   I vaguely recall hearing such things on recordings
of VLF whistlers.   Maybe I can find an MP3 on someone's website.


>     If you've ever spent much time in an area with typical
> every-afternoon CB's and accompanying lightning you'd notice that a
> typical storm may be active for only a few minutes but another one
> is likely to follow it before too long, with more lightning and
> accompanying electrical disturbance.  I suspect that is what Tesla
> observed but not the way he interpreted it.

But this makes no sense, since Tesla discovered a genuine phenomenon:
EM Earth Resonance.   Perhaps you're certain that Tesla *didn't*
discover the electrical Earth resonance?   Or do you simply mean that
Tesla's discovery of Earth resonance overtones was real, yet his
observation of sine wave patterns surrounding thunderstorms was wrong?
  Yet *if* EM resonant overtones exist, and are stronger at low
frequencies than at high, then this *must* cause a "bullseye"
amplitude pattern which surrounds any emitter of broadband VLF
signals.  We cannot escape the bullseye pattern unless the resonances
go all the way to infinite frequency.  And we know from lightning
research results that the Q at overtones up in the many-KHz region is
less than 1.

The only questions then are... what is the distance between the rings
of such a bullseye, and how large are the amplitude variations?   If
the ring spacing is wrong, or if the pattern dies out after one or two
rings, then we can conclude that Tesla was not seeing thunderstorm
standing waves.  Or, if the bullseye is real yet the amplitude
variations are indetectably small, then again we can conclude that
Tesla wasn't seeing any such pattern.

In my mind it makes more sense that Tesla observed something real: a
bullseye amplitude pattern, and this led to a discovery known to be
genuine: the existence of the Schumann resonance.

((((((((((((((((((((((( (  (    (o)    )  ) )))))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty              Research Engineer
beaty a chem washington edu   UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
billb a eskimo com            Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
ph425-222-5066                http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/

Though some of ya'll might be interested in this story:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325863.500&feedId=online-news_rss2\
0

Some researchers speculated that ball lightening might be caused by
silicon in soil, so they vaporized thin plates of silicon with an
electric arc which sometimes resulted in floating balls of ionized
silicon that lasted for up to 8 seconds, absent input power (unlike
microwave plasma balls). They theorize that ionized silicon in the
plasma slowly recombines with oxygen to keep the ball glowing.

At 09:03 PM 1/11/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>Though some of ya'll might be interested in this story:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325863.500&feedId=online-news_rss\
20

Thanks , unfortunately neither of the videos worked when asked to play
in my Firefox browser...  Interesting colour plasma in the photo's I would
   have like to see how it varied during during the "burn" from blue white to
orange white.......Eyewitness reports of natural ball lightning keep it at
a stable colour , usually.


>Some researchers speculated that ball lightening might be caused by
>silicon in soil.

I never speculated about the silicon/soil thing as BL is a result of a
combination of _many_ different local conditions.
   I did try granules &  balls of silica gel inside my MW oven during my
test work
but they only glowed red hot  , it may be time to get the mortar & pestle
out &
grind the granules into a fine dust or powder. , a wet grind without breathing
protection & a dry grind with breathing protection should produce 2 different
test specimens to work off , a smattering of Carbon should be
included  due to it's popularity in the planets content also.

>  so they vaporized thin plates of silicon with an
>electric arc which sometimes resulted in floating balls of ionized
>silicon that lasted for up to 8 seconds,

They mention a potential difference of up to 140 Amps between the
electrodes (of unknown composition) I wonder if they were using
DC or AC @ some frequency......

>  absent input power (unlike microwave plasma balls).

Never confuse MW produced plasma with Ball Lightning , they are 2
different creatures.

>They theorize that ionized silicon in the plasma slowly recombines
>with oxygen to keep the ball glowing.


This new "theory" & the spiral smoke trails they observed in their
tests , (never saw any in all tests) makes it worthwhile to set up
a few MW box's , make some space in the lab & do a new round
of experiments & film them again using better video codecs  ;>
It's been a while + I have a thought up a few more idea's I'd like to
   try since my last round of  burning sessions back in 1997 or so....

Just need to let this chipped , broken or seriously damaged
big toe I got early this week, heal up some more........

JB

codesuidae wrote:
> Though some of ya'll might be interested in this story:
>
>
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325863.500&feedId=online-news_rss2\
0
>
> Some researchers speculated that ball lightening might be caused by
> silicon in soil, so they vaporized thin plates of silicon with an
> electric arc which sometimes resulted in floating balls of ionized
> silicon that lasted for up to 8 seconds, absent input power (unlike
> microwave plasma balls). They theorize that ionized silicon in the
> plasma slowly recombines with oxygen to keep the ball glowing.
>

Interesting! They look very similar (but a bit longer lived) to the
glowing, burning spheres produced by high current arcs with aluminum
that Bob Golka created many years back. He was using banks of car
batteries to generate very high currents and low voltages. However,
neither his, nor the glowing balls from the Brazilian team, seem to have
the floating buoyancy of natural ball lightning though...

Bert
--
***************************************************
We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslamania.com
***************************************************

Though some of ya'll might be interested in this story:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325863.500&feedId=online-news_rss20

Some researchers speculated that ball lightening might be caused by
silicon in soil, so they vaporized thin plates of silicon with an
electric arc which sometimes resulted in floating balls of ionized
silicon that lasted for up to 8 seconds, absent input power (unlike
microwave plasma balls). They theorize that ionized silicon in the
plasma slowly recombines with oxygen to keep the ball glowing.

Not all cases of alleged ball lightning involve strikes to the
earth.  Examples are on ships at sea and [inside!] aircraft with
aluminum hulls.  I'm convinced many examples of "floating balls of
light" are really due to retinal effects from exposure to very bright
light - in other words literally in the observer's head.

Ed

At 11:22 12-01-07, Ed Phillips wrote:
>    Not all cases of alleged ball lightning involve strikes to the
>earth.  Examples are on ships at sea and [inside!] aircraft with
>aluminum hulls.  I'm convinced many examples of "floating balls of
>light" are really due to retinal effects from exposure to very bright
>light - in other words literally in the observer's head.

The documented injuries from coming in contact with the reported
hallucination, disregarded.

You are certainly a piece of work, Ed. David T was right.

Reese

The documented injuries from coming in contact with the reported
hallucination, disregarded.

You are certainly a piece of work, Ed. David T was right.

Reese"

     Documented?  By whom?  Examples?  There's a lot of trash floating
around these days (and for the last 10,000 years).  Surely you don't
believe everything you read?  You don't believe there are people who see
things that aren't real?  For the record, I'm not saying I don't
consider the possibility that ball lightning does occur, although inside
an aircraft fuselage seems exceedingly unlikely even in the event of a
direct strike, which isn't terribly uncommon.  What I am saying is that
I'm sure a lot [most?] reports are phoney.  I've seen such events twice
as a result of nearby lightning strikes and am convinced what I saw was
due to retinal afterimages caused by extremely bright lights since other
people present either saw nothing or something quite different.  Both
times it looked like one or more spherical blobs moving around as my
eyes moved.

Ed

Hi Jim,

Unfortunately, the New Scientist article doesn't really get into much
detail about the experimental setup. I suspect that they may have simply
passed thin slices of silicon through an arc between two electrodes to
rapidly vaporize it. This would avoid the problem of trying to directly
pass high currents through silicon since, if relatively pure, it would
be very poor electrical conductor. I'm looking forward to seeing the
actual article when it appears in Physical Review Letters...

Bert

jim farrer wrote:

> Wouldn't a discarded silicon wafer for making chips be a good source
> of silicon for the testing this out work?  Why should this silicon
> have to be as thin as what these experimenters used?
>
> Jim Farrer
>
> codesuidae <codesuidae@...> wrote:
>
> Though some of ya'll might be interested in this story:
>
>
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325863.500&feedId=online-news_rss2\
0
>
>
<http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325863.500&feedId=online-news_rss\
20>
>
>
> Some researchers speculated that ball lightening might be caused by
> silicon in soil, so they vaporized thin plates of silicon with an
> electric arc which sometimes resulted in floating balls of ionized
> silicon that lasted for up to 8 seconds, absent input power (unlike
> microwave plasma balls). They theorize that ionized silicon in the
> plasma slowly recombines with oxygen to keep the ball glowing.
>
>
>

Not all cases of alleged ball lightning involve strikes to the
earth. Examples are on ships at sea and [inside!] aircraft with
aluminum hulls. I'm convinced many examples of "floating balls of
light" are really due to retinal effects from exposure to very bright
light - in other words literally in the observer's head.

Ed

The documented injuries from coming in contact with the reported
hallucination, disregarded.

You are certainly a piece of work, Ed. David T was right.

Reese"

Documented? By whom? Examples? There's a lot of trash floating
around these days (and for the last 10,000 years). Surely you don't
believe everything you read? You don't believe there are people who see
things that aren't real? For the record, I'm not saying I don't
consider the possibility that ball lightning does occur, although inside
an aircraft fuselage seems exceedingly unlikely even in the event of a
direct strike, which isn't terribly uncommon. What I am saying is that
I'm sure a lot [most?] reports are phoney. I've seen such events twice
as a result of nearby lightning strikes and am convinced what I saw was
due to retinal afterimages caused by extremely bright lights since other
people present either saw nothing or something quite different. Both
times it looked like one or more spherical blobs moving around as my
eyes moved.

Ed

Hi Jim,

Unfortunately, the New Scientist article doesn't really get into much
detail about the experimental setup. I suspect that they may have simply
passed thin slices of silicon through an arc between two electrodes to
rapidly vaporize it. This would avoid the problem of trying to directly
pass high currents through silicon since, if relatively pure, it would
be very poor electrical conductor. I'm looking forward to seeing the
actual article when it appears in Physical Review Letters...

Bert

jim farrer wrote:

> Wouldn't a discarded silicon wafer for making chips be a good source
> of silicon for the testing this out work? Why should this silicon
> have to be as thin as what these experimenters used?
>
> Jim Farrer
>
> codesuidae <codesuidae@codesuidae.net> wrote:
>
> Though some of ya'll might be interested in this story:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325863.500&feedId=online-news_rss20
>
> <http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325863.500&feedId=online-news_rss20>
>
>
> Some researchers speculated that ball lightening might be caused by
> silicon in soil, so they vaporized thin plates of silicon with an
> electric arc which sometimes resulted in floating balls of ionized
> silicon that lasted for up to 8 seconds, absent input power (unlike
> microwave plasma balls). They theorize that ionized silicon in the
> plasma slowly recombines with oxygen to keep the ball glowing.
>
>
>

At 20:37 12-01-07, Ed Phillips wrote:
>The documented injuries from coming in contact with the reported
>hallucination, disregarded.
>
>You are certainly a piece of work, Ed. David T was right.
>
>Reese"
>
>    Documented?

Yes.

>By whom?

The government? The medical establishment? Real academics?

>Examples?

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=\
12792547&dopt=Abstract>

>There's a lot of trash floating around these days

Yep. You are part of it. Like a stopped clock, even you can be correct
twice a day. This is not one of those times. Do not expect further
interaction from me.


>(and for the last 10,000 years).  Surely you don't
>believe everything you read?  You don't believe there are people who see
>things that aren't real?  For the record, I'm not saying I don't
>consider the possibility that ball lightning does occur, although inside
>an aircraft fuselage seems exceedingly unlikely even in the event of a
>direct strike, which isn't terribly uncommon.  What I am saying is that
>I'm sure a lot [most?] reports are phoney.  I've seen such events twice
>as a result of nearby lightning strikes and am convinced what I saw was
>due to retinal afterimages caused by extremely bright lights since other
>people present either saw nothing or something quite different.  Both
>times it looked like one or more spherical blobs moving around as my
>eyes moved.
>
>Ed
>
>