Hakasays
QuoteDoes anyone have proposed experiments or questions regarding Tesla's single-wire, cold-cathode emitters? The discussion is probably worth an entire thread by itself.
Indeed, I know of countless experiments regarding single-wire, cold-cathode emitters. T.H. Moray, Paul Correa (PAGD), Bruce Perreault and many others.
I will start a moderated thread to keep the gaslighting and misdirection to a minimum.
AC
Some relevant links...
http://rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm
This is possibly the best and most well documented resource I have found.
https://www.nuenergy.org/nikola-tesla-radiant-energy-system/
http://www.rexresearch.com/moray2/morayrer.htm
With respect to the Correa's work with PAGD here http://rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm
When they speak Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharges there actually referring to two distinct phenomena. First an electrode sputtering effect or highly charged material ie. radiant matter ejected from an electrode. In my experiments I proved vacuum tubes are not even needed and can occur on open electrodes or sphere's under the right conditions. Second, autoelectronic emissions, field emission or radiant energy relating to longitudinal oscillations within a glow/corona discharge or plasma.
Relevant quotes...
QuoteGiven the self-pulsing and self-producing characteristics of this discharge, we have termed this veritable regime of plasma discharge we have isolated in reactors with diverse geometries designed to optimalize it (and its volt-ampere characteristic), the emission-triggered Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge, or autogenous PAGD for short. The PAGD regime is an homeostatic structure (a fluctuating order) of cyclically recurring discontinuities. Reactors designed to operate in the PAGD region of plasma discharge constitute effective plasma pulse generators with diverse applications (85).
QuoteUnlike pseudospark switches, the PAGD events do not need to be triggered externally or by the interposition of third (trigger) electrodes, though they can be triggered inductively or "electrostatically" at prebreakdown potentials. They are in fact autogenous events where the observed emissions occur at low applied fields for quasi-regular periods, to generate quasi-regular cathode current jets.
QuoteThe autogenous PAGD regime deploys extraordinarily large cathode reaction forces, associated with the rebound of anomalously accelerated ions striking the cathode and the anomalous ion counterflow (vaporized cathode metal and gas ions) being swept forward by the emitted electronic flux. The PAGD abnormal reaction forces depend on the intensity of the electronic-emission events that trigger the abnormal glow discharge, and are thus rather distinct from the externally pulsed, emission-independent abnormal glow discharges of the Manuel apparatus (73). In fact, these forces are virtually absent in externally pulsed flashover glow regimes, be they normal or abnormal.
It sounds really complex but is in fact a really easy experiment to setup so long as we understand what we want and what were looking for. I prefer a brute force high voltage/small time period VAD from a capacitor. This must eject charged matter from the surface in the smallest time period or it will not produce a discharge which is oscillatory in it's nature. It's really easy to understand and all were trying to do is use the small time period of the discharge to compress the plasma around the electrode producing oscillations. Think trying to ring a bell in the most efficient manner, it's not rocket science, hit it hard and hit it fast. It's basically a no brainer, if matter is not ejected and the plasma does not oscillate your doing it wrong...
The Correa's offer an easier option and were simply periodically/impulsively raising the voltage on an electrode in a vacuum tube. Within the voltage rise we produce a fast impulsive electrode sputtering effect which under the right conditions can also produce oscillations within the corona/plasma. This is most likely the "kick" Steven Marks was referring to because the plasma is now a conductor/oscillator much like a physical one. However unlike a physical conductor/oscillator our oscillator is made up of the fourth state of matter. Our conductor/oscillator can collapse in on itself and literally cease to exist. As Tesla implied think
"wheels within wheels", oscillatory systems within systems and energy.
In my opinion this seems to validate what Tesla claimed,
'If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.'AC
Gearing up for some disclosure in the new year and thought I would throw out another concept from Tesla...
"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment" — Nikola Tesla
I believe Tesla said this with respect to the age old problem of the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic). You see, physics has no explanation for what a field is other than virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes. It's a mouthful and basically on the same level as fairies and unicorns. As is often the case the physicists acquired a few facts then made the rest up as a wild theory which could never be proven.
In it's most basic form Tesla's claim is asking one question, what are the primary fields and how did they come about. Where did the energy come from to produce an electric field around particles like electrons and protons?. Obviously, if energy is conserved then the energy must have come from somewhere, where is that somewhere?.
At this point we have two options...
1)The particle created the field and it's energy from nothing and "acted on itself".
2)The particle was induced from external field(s) setting it in oscillation producing what we know as an electric field.
It does seem magnitudes more plausible than the nonsense of space/time and virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes. So why is it most chose to dive headfirst into a rabbit hole of contradictions rather than accept space may not to empty?. It's the damnedest thing I have ever seen and seems to defy all logic and reason.
Let that sink in.... a majority of some of the supposedly most intelligent people have been duped into believing the universe is full of virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes. One obvious point is that the supposed theory falls right in line with theism and the notion that "anything is possible". I mean if everything is virtual having no real existence in any supposed universe then anything is possible isn't it?.
Why if this is the case then nobody can say a free energy is impossible otherwise we can say they already claimed nothing is real and anything is possible. Hence the reason Tesla became the voice of reason nobody wanted to hear and said "There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment". In effect Tesla claimed, these people are nut jobs and what there proposing is simply a clever variation on something from nothing. The same old story most have been peddling since the dawn of mankind.
AC
Spherics said something similar:
QuoteMatter is nothing more than spherical stationary standing waves within the traveling ether! Already I hear the shutters closing. It is the ether that has the energy not the matter; it is the ether that is manipulated via torsion fields set up via electromagnetic fields; it is the ether that vortexes and is the essence of the electromagnetic field; it is the collapsing ether vortex that releases energy. The ether its self pulsates at extra-ordinary high frequency. It is this pulsing that feeds energy into the spherical standing waves, that is matter, that brings about all of the characteristics of an atom.
Too bad they didn't explain things further.
"It is the ether that has the energy not the matter" :
This is really talking about nothing.
Energy in relation to what?
Have you already forgotten that energy depends on the reference frame?
And that's the main question: who cares if there's energy everywhere in relation to anything? What counts is the energy that can power an electric radiator when we are cold or a car engine when we want to move. It is in relation to our equipment that we need energy, and the question is how to obtain it.
Quote from: F6FLTI've been hearing about "radiant energy" for years. It is a generic term in which everyone puts what they want. It can be X-rays as well as radio waves, near field waves, beta radiation, longitudinal waves...
When those who talk about "radiant energy" will be able to define what exactly they are talking about, I think they will have been replaced by real scientists.
If we are to follow high-quality sources like Tesla patents and original source materials, the 'radiant energy' (also called 'cosmic rays') would appear to be rays or particles that retain some overlapping properties with penetrating, ionizing radiation like X-rays but apparently more coherent and less dangerous.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US685958A/en
QuoteTesla: "It is well known that certain radiation such as those of ultra-violet light, cathodic, Roentgen rays, or the likes-possess the property of charging and discharging conductors of electricity, the discharge being particularly noticeable when the conductor upon which the rays impinge is negatively electrified. These radiations are generally considered to be ether vibrations of extremely small wavelengths, and in explanation of the phenomena noted it has been assumed by some authorities that they ionize .or render conducting the atmosphere through which they are propagated. My own experiments and observations, however, lead me to conclusions more in accord with the theory heretofore advanced by me that sources of, such radiant energy throw off with great velocity minute particles of matter which are strongly electrified, and therefore capable of charging an electrical conductor, or even if not so may at any rate discharge an electrified conductor either -by carrying off bodily its charge or otherwise."
Quote from: F6FLTWhether a very high voltage is channeled through a single wire or not, makes no difference. Very high voltages generate X-rays, it is commonplace, it is even a warning indicated in the maintenance manuals of CRT TVs and on EHV equipments
See my question posed recently to Griffin:
QuoteH: How was the original accidental discovery made? Geiger counter triggering an impossible distance from a vacuum bulb?
G: It was after I applied HF HV to the tube, that a fluoroscope within the vicinity illuminated intensely. Applying my hand on its back-side gave a bright and clear image of my hand, to which I tried this at a distance of 6-7' away from the tube. Then came the geiger counter measurements at a distance.
Since then he reports he's detected the rays upwards of 70 feet away with the same apparatus. ??? :o I wonder what power level and scale of medical/scientific X-ray machine would be required to achieve an equivalent result today?
Clearly we are dealing with different apparatus here. If old televisions were emitting
X-rays capable of illuminating phosphor screens several meters away with relatively minimal currents, I suspect it would have caused more concern for public health at the time.
The modern scientific community seems to have big problems with cold-cathode X-ray tubes, as evidenced in the earlier post:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/603739/whats-the-issue-with-inventing-a-cold-cathode-x-ray-tube
Perhaps the reason they continue to have such difficulty is because they are locked into the two-electrode paradigm and have not considered single-wire currents as a possibility?
This old patent talks about increasing the range of cathode rays using a Lenard Tube:
Hakasays
QuoteThe modern scientific community seems to have big problems with cold-cathode X-ray tubes, as evidenced in the earlier post:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/603739/whats-the-issue-with-inventing-a-cold-cathode-x-ray-tube
Perhaps the reason they continue to have such difficulty is because they are locked into the two-electrode paradigm and have not considered single-wire currents as a possibility?
I agree and one comment in your link seems relevant...
QuoteTo generate X_Rays, you need to get electrons out of a wire (the cathode) into a vacuum. You need to accelerate them to high speed and then slam them into a thin metal target (the anode). The sudden stop makes them give off X-Rays.
Scotch tape can also generate X-rays and the actual process seems very easy to understand. Basically, we want an electrical disturbance with a very small time period to cause matter to vibrate and radiate EM waves within the X-ray spectrum. We can smash electrons into a target or pull scotch tape apart and have the opposite charges rapidly snap back together to produce the same effect.
I learned a few new tricks from my radiant energy/matter experiments which apply here. As we know, we can disturb matter causing it to vibrate and radiate EM waves. However we can also disturb matter causing it to move at high velocity away from the source while vibrating and radiating EM waves in itself. As such we have a group of particles acting as a motional source which seems to have confused many people.
They cannot understand how the EM waves traveled so far thinking it's improbable and there correct. The EM waves didn't travel far, the source radiating the EM waves was moving as it was radiating energy. So the confusion would seem to be a perceptual problem rather than a technical one again. I mean the solution seems obvious and all we would have to do is imagine "a part" of the source being ejected as it vibrates. Like ringing a bell so hard it shatters and all the ringing pieces are thrown outward ringing as they move away.
Very similar to the concept of EMP weapons. We produce a very large magnetic field in a conductor then explode the conductor. At which point all the pieces of the conductor become magnetic field carriers causing the field to rapidly expand. All we really did was liberate the molecular kinetic energy of the explosive and transform it into motional magnetic field energy. No energy can be lost or gained but it can be transformed in any number of ways. The trick would seem to be imagining all the countless ways a transformation could occur.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.12.22, 19:39:13
Hakasays
I agree and one comment in your link seems relevant...
Scotch tape can also generate X-rays and the actual process seems very easy to understand. Basically, we want an electrical disturbance with a very small time period to cause matter to vibrate and radiate EM waves within the X-ray spectrum. We can smash electrons into a target or pull scotch tape apart and have the opposite charges rapidly snap back together to produce the same effect.
I learned a few new tricks from my radiant energy/matter experiments which apply here. As we know, we can disturb matter causing it to vibrate and radiate EM waves. However we can also disturb matter causing it to move at high velocity away from the source while vibrating and radiating EM waves in itself. As such we have a group of particles acting as a motional source which seems to have confused many people.
Quotehttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/603739/whats-the-issue-with-inventing-a-cold-cathode-x-ray-tube
"To generate X_Rays, you need to get electrons out of a wire (the cathode) into a vacuum. You need to accelerate them to high speed and then slam them into a thin metal target (the anode). The sudden stop makes them give off X-Rays."
Thanks for the insight AC. The name of the game in the short-term is working out experiments to characterize and map the rays emitted by these 'radiant energy' tubes.
As slight evidence to the single-plate acceleration+impact theory, Griffin notes yesterday the field also extends many feet in the opposite direction as well as forward. Beam pattern is fairly directional akin to that of a Yagi.
Other near-term questions/problems to be solved:
* Characterizing the spectral emissions. Are the emissions 'soft' (UV-band) X-rays or 'hard' (Gamma-band) X-rays?
* Characterizing the bandwidth. Is it a single-frequency emission or a broadband emission that covers a wide spectrum?
* Characterizing the efficiency/power compared to 'conventional' hot cathode 2-wire beam tubes. This efficiency seems like it is off-the-charts as shadowgraphs can be taken 20-30ft away with no optimizations.
* Characterizing/Isolating the rays from conventional EM emissions. Tesla later dubbed these 'cosmic rays' and they may have some unexpected properties compared to normal X-rays. Tesla believed his rays from these to be safe (or at least safer than Roentgen's). Perhaps these are coherent rays much like laser emissions that have never been studied in this band? Or perhaps it is not an X-ray at all, but a low frequency RF emission closer to UV or microwaves that are somehow able to penetrate tissue and metallic bodies.
Other notes:
* Testing different phosphorescent powders will give us some clue as to whether the rays are closer to UV or X rays. I've helped supply some material to support this.
* Building a detector that can output directly to an oscilloscope. That will tell us if the waves emitted are: Continuous, Half-wave rectified (only positive half of each cycle), or Full-wave rectified. It will also tell us what phase relation the emissions have to the input power.
* It was confirmed yesterday that solar cells are not affected at all by these rays.
* It was confirmed that magnetic and electrostatic fields will only affect+steer the beam in-tube, not in open air (a preliminary test had suggested otherwise)
* An accurate dosimeter is onhand, and I suggested using increasing layers of aluminum foil and charting the output vs aluminum thickness. That would give us a good idea as to the center freq of the emitted rays.
* The rays will attract thin strips of metal analogous to Dollard's 1980's Borderlands experiments and Dr. Adrian Marsh's replications in 2019 and 2020:
https://www.am-innovations.com/category/experiments/experiments-displacement/
* Dielectric film (tape) appears to be unaffected by the rays, also in agreement with the Borderlands work.
Almost any electron tube will produce x rays simply by applying 15 + kv to it any or all pins .
Rectifier tubes work better and the larger the tube the better .
Don't do this unless you have a detector running .
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2022.12.23, 22:54:02
Almost any electron tube will produce x rays simply by applying 15 + kv to it any or all pins .
Rectifier tubes work better and the larger the tube the better .
Don't do this unless you have a detector running .
I've heard this but could not find much data as to the density or composition of the X-rays emitted.
The rays in above setup are directional and detectable greater than 30ft with the equivalent of an ignition coil circuit. :o
I did find someone else working with the single-wire cold cathode ray tube concept:
https://youtu.be/QuRdLf8UkJI
And also some crazy Russians working with 2-wire hot cathode 'DIY' tubes :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwl1JNoFdhg
(do not try at home!)
This meter works fairly well and records a basic log ,which gives abetter approximation of what dose you might have received.
It would be handy to be able take most of the guesswork out as we are left with some whatever we use.
Great video links . Thanks ,it all helps .
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004018941122.html?spm=a2g0o.order_list.order_list_main.589.32a51802b1yF7u
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2022.12.27, 02:34:33
This meter works fairly well and records a basic log ,which gives abetter approximation of what dose you might have received.
It would be handy to be able take most of the guesswork out as we are left with some whatever we use.
Great video links . Thanks ,it all helps .
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004018941122.html?spm=a2g0o.order_list.order_list_main.589.32a51802b1yF7u
Griffin's got a good quality dosimeter onhand already, but thanks for the link. I may grab one for my own replication. :P
To help characterize the quality of X-ray I recommended a set of experiments comparing output with increasing layers of aluminum foil or copper shim stock between emitter and detector. With that data we can extrapolate with some certainty the rough spectrum of X-rays emitted, whether it is hard (gamma) or soft (UV). That's assuming it's 100% conventional X-rays being emitted by the single wire and not some novel/coherent ray that shares some characteristics. ???
To get absolute measurements, the best would be to use a double-slit experiment with a precise distance+gap spacing. With some algebra that would reveal the exact spectra in nanometers, as well as provide more clarity as to whether the emissions are more wideband or narrowband.
A modern R+D overview paper on the state-of-the-art for cold cathode X-ray tubes.
You can see by their designs and difficulties that Tesla's method was largely lost to time. There's a completely new field to be explored, for those willing to don the lead aprons to do so :P.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.12.30, 17:26:31
...
You can see by their designs and difficulties that Tesla's method was largely lost to time.
...
This is an interpretation without any basis.
Charged particles accelerated by high voltages move rapidly, acquiring a lot of kinetic energy. When they hit a solid or the air, and are stopped for a short distance, they decelerate very abruptly and the energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, up to X-rays. This is what happens with Tesla's high voltages.
The issue of cold cathodes is to facilitate the ejection of electrons, it is not a corollary of X-rays or very high voltages, even if the former can generate the latter. We must stop mixing everything and anything, Tesla did not invent cold cathodes nor X-rays.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.01.02, 10:11:57
This is an interpretation without any basis.
My assessment is based on
many hours pouring over Journal literature and Internet search results. I could find quite little work regarding cold-cathode X-rays, except for some breakthroughs in the past few years using wafer-die technology:
https://www.itnonline.com/content/cold-cathode-x-ray-technology-demonstrated-rsna-2020
I even ran the query through ChatGPT to see if a professional AI would conclude the same.(which it did) ;D
If you can find any sources regarding single-wire cold-cathode emitters besides 1890's Nikola Tesla work, I would love to read about it. ;)
@Hack
None of the references provided invalidate what I said, namely that Tesla did not invent cold cathodes nor X-rays.
If you think they do, you'll have to explain why.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.01.03, 11:53:17
@Hack
None of the references provided invalidate what I said, namely that Tesla did not invent cold cathodes nor X-rays.
If you think they do, you'll have to explain why.
I explained the timeline and configurations in greater detail when you asked me about this last month:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4398.msg102679#msg102679
In-short, Tesla was experimenting with bulbs that were of the same configuration, the same fill-gas and quality vacuum, powered by the same disruptive-discharge high-frequency high-voltage supplies.
So, assuming 'Tesla's Radiant Energy' bulbs are in-fact single-wire, cold-cathode Bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) X-ray emitters, he was already producing these rays as early as 1893 (whether or not he realized it yet).
Since then I cannot find
any references for the same type of bulbs in literature or in patents (maybe you'll have better luck?). So it seems this type of X-ray tube (if it is an X-ray tube) was lost/forgotten.
Griffin is actively experimenting with these bulbs as-we-speak if you have any technical questions or proposed experiments for him. ;)
I also 'commissioned' him to help make me one, in exchange for a pair of CNC'ed Extra Coil formers, so I should also have something to experiment within the next few weeks ;D
Hakasays
QuoteIn-short, Tesla was experimenting with bulbs that were of the same configuration, the same fill-gas and quality vacuum, powered by the same disruptive-discharge high-frequency high-voltage supplies.
So, assuming 'Tesla's Radiant Energy' bulbs are in-fact single-wire, cold-cathode Bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) X-ray emitters, he was already producing these rays as early as 1893 (whether or not he realized it yet).
With respect to your one electrode X-ray question to an AI. With machine language/logic and most people we need to be careful about context and what we think were asking them or implying. As well in experiments we need to be careful about what we think were seeing or sensing.
For example, when I tested Tesla's Radiant Energy bulb/circuit I understood it was actually a two electrode device. What the AI and most people could not know is that the rate of change of potential on the electrode/emitter can be so high the impedance of the glass acts as a second electrode. The glass acts like a screen and the space around the bulb a large area lower potential second electrode. In this case the glass or vaporized metal in or on the bulb surface would be the material emitting something like X-rays not the main electrode in my opinion.
In my experiments I was using almost every kind of bulb I could get my hands on. From small NE-2's to 500 watt clear incandescent bulbs and I connected the two connections together to one wire. In essence, every object inside the bulb would produce a very intense purple/white plasma. Not thin blue streamers but more like a thick plasma ball usually spherical. In most cases the impulses would quickly vaporize the electrodes and there was a 50/50 chance the bulb might crack/explode within seconds. I suspect this was due to expansion/contraction of the vaporized metal on the inner surface of the glass.
I don't think I had a cell phone back then but I do know it raised hell with RF and any nearby electronics. As I said it looked like a dense purple/white ball plasma I had never seen before. Sometimes the plasma flash from the surface was similar to a Xenon strobe. It was the time period/intensity which convinced me these experiments were inherently unsafe so I didn't spend a lot of time on them after that.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.01.04, 02:20:30
For example, when I tested Tesla's Radiant Energy bulb/circuit I understood it was actually a two electrode device. What the AI and most people could not know is that the rate of change of potential on the electrode/emitter can be so high the impedance of the glass acts as a second electrode. The glass acts like a screen and the space around the bulb a large area lower potential second electrode. In this case the glass or vaporized metal in or on the bulb surface would be the material emitting something like X-rays not the main electrode in my opinion.
Good point AC. *Technically* a one-wire Tesla setup still uses two electrodes, except the second electrode is 'the rest of the universe', or something you might call a virtual ground. Eric Dollard calls it 'counterspace' or 'virtual ground'. A similar analogy might be the imaginary 'ground' that exists between the three wires in a Delta transmission line.
Griffin notes the glass at the front gets hot, which does support your hypothesis that Bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) X-rays are being formed on/within it.
I take it you use a Whimhurst or Vandegraff to get to the very high DC voltages you've used in your work?
Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.01.03, 14:02:02
I explained the timeline and configurations in greater detail when you asked me about this last month:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4398.msg102679#msg102679
...
A link to links is not an explanation. Is it possible for you to create a text with your own explanatory words? Or not?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.01.04, 15:06:37
A link to links is not an explanation. Is it possible for you to create a text with your own explanatory words? Or not?
Did you not even read past the first sentence? ??? C.C
Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.01.03, 14:02:02
In-short, Tesla was experimenting with bulbs that were of the same configuration, the same fill-gas and quality vacuum, powered by the same disruptive-discharge high-frequency high-voltage supplies.
So, assuming 'Tesla's Radiant Energy' bulbs are in-fact single-wire, cold-cathode Bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) X-ray emitters, he was already producing these rays as early as 1893 (whether or not he realized it yet).
Since then I cannot find any references for the same type of bulbs in literature or in patents (maybe you'll have better luck?). So it seems this type of X-ray tube (if it is an X-ray tube) was lost/forgotten.
If you don't wish to research Tesla's 1890's publications, we have the actual working bulb in-hand if you have ideas for any practical experiments, to help characterize and understand the rays/fields being emitted.
Personally I'd rather focus on builds+experiments than give history lessons to people that aren't interested. 8)
Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.01.04, 15:30:48
Did you not even read past the first sentence? ??? C.C
If you don't wish to research Tesla's 1890's publications, we have the actual working bulb in-hand if you have ideas for any practical experiments, to help characterize and understand the rays/fields being emitted.
Personally I'd rather focus on builds+experiments than give history lessons to people that aren't interested. 8)
I am not interested in devotion to Tesla.
I said why Tesla didn't invent the cold cathode and X-rays in reply#16. To put you on the track, just because the Chinese used the compass in the 9th century does not make them the discoverers of the magnetic field.
If you can't express a logical and intelligible objection in your own words, find a robot that accepts your links as a "discussion".
Do you like links? Here is one: https://www.google.com, you will find the reasons for my reply#16! 8)
Hakasays
QuoteGood point AC. *Technically* a one-wire Tesla setup still uses two electrodes, except the second electrode is 'the rest of the universe', or something you might call a virtual ground. Eric Dollard calls it 'counterspace' or 'virtual ground'. A similar analogy might be the imaginary 'ground' that exists between the three wires in a Delta transmission line.
Exactly, the notion of a closed loop only works with lower frequencies and potentials. At higher voltages, 10kV+, the leakage to the environment occurs at both the (-) and (+) terminals. For example, in a HV one wire grid transmission line the Earth is the ground but completely different electrons enter the conductor at each end, ergo it is not a closed system. That's the wonderful thing about open systems because they are open to other influences.
QuoteGriffin notes the glass at the front gets hot, which does support your hypothesis that Bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) X-rays are being formed on/within it.
My theory was that by using single high magnitude discharges at a given small time period I could more accurately measure the related effects. Where alternating currents or repeating cycles dampen or have other associated effects in themselves. I noticed electrode material being vaporized in a plasma ball and being deposited on the glass over time and also small sparks near the surface of the glass. As such it seemed clear to me the glass was not a neutral element and was involved in part of the process and related effects.
QuoteI take it you use a Whimhurst or Vandegraff to get to the very high DC voltages you've used in your work?
I used Ruhmkorff coils, Tesla coils, rectified Tesla coils using 20kV diode(PRHVP2A-20) strings, my Van De Graaff and mixed systems. For voltages above 500kV I often used current from a rectified Tesla coil to feed the lower connection of the Van De Graaff in a compound setup. I never used commercial capacitors and found it easier to just build my own components for whatever voltages/currents I was working with at the time.
AC
I'm not interested in devotion to Tesla either, I'm only interested in studying, understanding, and replicating his work. >:-)
And it looks like my personal single-wire CC Tesla tube may arrive in as soon as this weekend if anyone has suggestions or predictions or experiments to attempt with it. O0
I have argued strongly against biological testing until we have a better characterization of the single-wire cold-cathode tube rays being emitted. Much safer to test on electronics and the like.
But I am also impressed at the results :-X
At such a low power level the efficiency is almost mind-boggling.
Received a lovely Xmas present from Griffin, but day-job has been so busy lately there's been no time to even look at it. ;D ;D
For physical construction, the bulb is the same as the Tesla Brush bulb, which is ambient air under a deep (diffusion or turbomolecular pump) grade vacuum.
Griffin has constructed two versions of this bulb, one conical (like a CRT) and the other cylindrical as pictured below, but otherwise created identically. But they seem to perform differently, which I cover below.
He says the bulb has to be worked a bit in HV RF first to get an output, presumably to bake-out or otherwise oxidize/alter the fill gas mixture ratio, or possibly alter or de-oxidize the aluminum emitter. Ambient vacuum will have residual moisture, which may also catalyze these reactions in the tube.
The CRT-shaped bulb he says worked almost straight-away, but he says this one has had issues getting this one started, getting 'baked-in'. His setup was limited to relatively low power of 100-200w peak with a diathermy disruptive-discharge power source. My supplies will go upwards of 3kw so if it simply requires a higher energy to get this tube rolling it should be fairly straightforward. It'll take a little time for me to get set up for this though.
As for operation, Griffin notes that the majority of emissions are forward, with a lower-level backwards as well, and an emission angle that roughly aligns with the angle of the tube body He notes the front face of the bulb becomes warm/hot, which tends to suggest braking radiation as a likely source of the rays/emissions.
Just now realizing what I'm likely to be working with, I ordered a schintillation phosphor screen, as a mere geiger counter seems insufficient for what is being tested. :o I think I will braze together an aluminum box/shield as well to ensure that any stray emissions are kept to a minimum while under study.
Will update when I get more data (hopefully work doesn't get crazy again) C.C
Received another bulb from Griffin to experiment with, this one has been 'baked-in' and confirmed working well before shipping. Intensifying phosphor screens are expected to arrive today so may be able to start doing tests by the weekend.
Eric suggested the bulbs may be acting as a cathode ray tube, but in open-air.
So these may in-fact be called 'atmospheric cathode ray tubes' which would help differentiate them from a standard X-ray tube, and why Tesla considered his shadowgraph tubes to be safer than Rhoetgen's. Determining the exact specta and quantifying these differences is my focus in upcoming experiments, while Griffin is more focused on power/data transmission and health effects on microorganisms/seeds/etc.
Pictured is the 'bake-in' process with images spaced 5min apart. Output of the tube starts low and gradually increases during this time, which I think is largely due to aluminum electrode acting as a 'getter' as it is heated+oxidized.
Update: I've been experimenting with the 'radiant matter' tube or whatever you wish to call it to attempt to replicate Griffin's recent shadowgraph results. I tried using a few different setups to gauge the voltage/current/frequency needed for such a setup.
All of the successful replications to-date have been using antique diathermy machines, but for mass-replication this will surely not suffice.
Single Extra coil HF driven -> (under 20kv with moderate current) Can get the tube to begin to glow in this state, but no emissions detected past the tube. Overall tube remains cool except for some heat predominantly near the electrode.
Dual-coil HF driven -> (under 30kv but high current). Pushed the coil to ~250w at what I would estimate at 10-15kv using a linear amplifier.
Same result as above, with the connecting leads breaking out but no externally detectable emissions (other than the bluish light from the tube)
VTTC -> Effectively same result as above.
Disruptive Discharge Tesla Coil -> I scavenged this together from a 12kv NST and some film capacitors today. Basically a low-power Tesla Coil with a high enough voltage to generate a blue corona an inch in air and draw sparks to a grounded rod to perhaps 6in.
Estimate 50-100kv at perhaps 100w at the terminal end.
This generated more vigorous results at low power, but it was quickly discovered the bulb was arcing internally to the edge of the tube, to a label fixed to the end.
The arc appears to have had enough current to create a pinhole seal break that tinkerers will know by the change in characteristics of the tube over time. A failed tube will slowly shift from a white/blue glow to a light purple, then to a dark purple as a vacuum is lost.
Since this one is pinholed it will probably be atmospheric pressure within a week :-\ Will have to get another.... C.C
To help save time replicating I plan on visiting his lab in the near future so we can work out as many bugs as possible and confirm what precise characteristics of the diathermy machine are responsible for the cathode/radiant emissions.
What was interesting is that with the failing vacuum, the tube energizes much more readily, and the result is that the far-end of the tube becomes warm/hot to the touch while the rest of the tube remains cool. Perhaps the vacuum quality is directly proportional to the spectra of waves emitted? Deeper vacuum = higher spectra emissions?
I know the experimental documentation is fairly lax at this point, but I find that in cases like this it is better to find a solution and then work backwards to better documenting the procedure. That way you're not spending weeks of effort writing papers destined to fail.
Hi Hakasays.
You could try to seal the glass envelope with some Sodium Silicate, Egg preserver. Or good old clear Silicone sealant.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2023.02.06, 11:38:39
Hi Hakasays.
You could try to seal the glass envelope with some Sodium Silicate, Egg preserver. Or good old clear Silicone sealant.
Cheers Graham.
That's why I love you guys, always for the simple solutions! ;D
I was thinking softening it with a torch would work, but Griffin commented that a long, careful annealing process is needed for such things. Of course will have to re-vac it but that's a more manageable problem
I will try the silicate route and probably follow it up with some form of epoxy as well. If that works it will at least give us a way to salvage partially-failed bulbs and breathe a little more life into them.
The last resort is of course the 'viking funeral'... ^-^
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5i8ToWyM5kyD/
Torr seal or Hysol-1C...
Quote from: picowatt on 2023.02.06, 17:44:08
Torr seal or Hysol-1C...
Well it's not cheap but I guess you get what you pay for C.C thanks for the advice :)
Anyway, to help speed things along I plan on visiting his shop this weekend to do a collaboration and 'crash-course' using both our equipment.
Primary goals are:
- Attempt to replicate emissions without using a diathermy machine (and thus narrow down the critical operating parameters)
- Perform a cloud chamber experiment
If it turns out that a disruptive discharge circuit is absolutely required, that would explain a lot about why there have been no published replications since Tesla.
As a small update he did confirm that the bulb experiences a very strong electrostatic attraction towards both paper and aluminum, that is retained for several seconds/minute after power is remove.
Griffin's full experimental update just posted here: https://youtu.be/caxdjI3H3zY
:)
Well was a crazy weekend, but we made a lot of progress. >:-) ^-^
The primary goal of the weekend trip was to reproduce the radiant bulb effect without using a diathermy machine, so we can confirm the operating parameters and so I can reliably continue experiments in my own shop. It was also meant to get a feel for the tubes themselves and roughly study the effects firsthand.
We do a couple of these weekend 'crash courses' a year now and every time is quite productive.
I'm working on a more thorough write-up, suffice to say we were able to get measurable results using only my equipment, and combined with observations made thus-far I am confident I will finally be able to reproduce and study in more detail in my shop.
In the meantime, Griffin did post a guide of how he produces the replica 1890's Tesla 'Radiant Matter' tubes, which I also got to see produced firsthand:
https://youtu.be/AJwi6MIcHlE
It's quite the artistic endeavor, and I see a lot of overlap between glassblowing and the world of CNC machining. Except instead of breaking small endmills and blowing your tolerances, it's microcracks and detaching electrodes ;D
ps: Yes, safety protocols are in-place with shielding and short exposure times throughout. Not looking to 'Madam Curie' ourselves while we figure out how these rays differ from Roentgen's. C.C
In terms of setups used in the weekend tests:
* Diathermy machine. Roughly equivalent to Adrian Marsh's except without the 'floating ground capacitor':
https://www.am-innovations.com/category/generators/generators-fischer-diathermy/
This diathermy machine operates at approx 3000kc.
* Disruptive Discharge Tesla Coil worked well at reproducing effects, almost equivalent to the diathermy machine setup. This makes sense as the core schematics are nearly equivalent.
* VTTC (vacuum tube Tesla Coil) setup also reproduced the effect but with diminished intensity. This also corresponded to threshold voltage+current. Basic Armstrong oscillator setup, with lots of current provided via microwave transformer. Also working at approx 350kc.
* HF radio equipment has NOT produced effects, most likely due to the low (<15kv) standing potentials achieved with it). Tested around 2000kc at up to 400w.
Some scattered notes regarding experiments and results
* Replica bulbs are atmospheric (no special fill gasses) that operate around 0.0001 Torr (upper limit of 2-stage rotary vane pumps)
- Effect disappears with diminished vacuum (a purple nitrogen glow means no rays will be emitted)
- Effect also disappears under high-grade vacuum (turbo-molecular pump).
- Narrow (~1in) bulbs have the correct glow but do not emit any rays (being 'dragged' down by the glass?)
* Tubes are all single-wire. No anode is present in any of these tests.
(no roentgen tubes can be found online or in literature that posses this characteristic)
* The emissions are cold-cathode; performance appears relatively constant whether the cathode is hot or cold.
* The phosphor screens are more weakly intensely illuminated than I expected. Requires a very dark room to perceive any effects. This is likely what was throwing me off in my initial tests the last two weeks.
* Rays could not be produced using HVDC alone, using a setup rated to >100kv. This also rules out 'conventional' X-ray actions.
* Voltage appears to be a critical factor, critical current remains TBD. Nothing occurs below 16kv P/P
* No rays produced at 16kv P/P @ 120cps AC (directly powered from NST)
* VTTC emissions confirmed that the bulb emits with HV RF, disruptive discharge not explicitly required.
* The cloud chamber did not produce any visible traces, only a 'cloud' of condensation.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/agx20KoUuhiT/
- Future attempts may produce more quantifiable results by using impulses so that smaller particle quantities can be observed
* The bulbs still produce the rays with a needle-point cathode rather than an electrode.
- IMO this effectively rules out collision/scattered Roentgen rays as any cathode reflections would have been tangential. The only viable Roentgen source in this case would be Bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) originating at the front face of the bulb.
- Heat can be felt from the front of the glass as well as close to the cathode, also supporting this possibility.
* Very crude HVL calculation suggests the rays produced are soft, perhaps 15-35kVp. Measurement was made by increasing layers of foil and comparing pixel brightness of phosphors on a resulting shadowgraph.
Going forward, my near-term focus is to improve detection and characterization (ie: perform high-quality HVL experiment to confirm and quantify ray penetration rates vs applied voltage/power). I also want to see what types of solid-state electronics can be used to detect (CDS cell, amorphous or polycrystaline solar cell, photodiode, phototransistors, etc.
The rays may also have electrostatic effect in open-air that we wish to falsify as well.
And finally, I'd like to reproduce and quantify the capacitor charging effect as it relates to both Tesla's Radiant Energy patents and to Dollard's 1980's Borderland experiments.
As always, everyone feel free to AMA and suggest any experiments you think might be worthwhile ;)
Based our observations thus-far, I'm starting to lean toward the possibility of the rays being high-energy beta particles (electrons / cathode rays) rather than X-ray photons.
One is the unusually high (impossibly high) readings on dosimeter for a given amount of phosphor screen ionization.
Second is the unusually high attenuation of the rays going through benign material such as plastic+rubber.
Griffin has a similar take on it:
QuoteI would propose that instead of the electron remaining as an electron, it collides with glass atoms and knocks off an orbital electron. This may be considered as a beta particle stream, although the frequency of the stream is unknown. In any case, the rays emitted may or may not be in the xray spectrum. This depends upon the frequency sensitivity of the phosphor screen, as a similar effect may in-fact be occurring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161207092959.htm
But if such a thing is true it would mean the beta particles (electrons / cathode rays) would have to be on the order of 2-30MeV to get an equivalent level of penetrating power. How you could get 5MeV emissions from a 50-200kv HV source remains to be seen... ???
I was able to confirm the bulbs I brought back are still working so I can perform experiments locally ;D (albeit with reduced brightness).
So the near-term tests will be confirming / ruling-out beta particle emissions:
T1: Taking shadowgraphs of multiple materials of differing thickness but with the same total density (plastic, rubber, aluminum, etc). The resulting shadowgraph should be approx the same brightness for all materials while we would expect materials like plastic to be nearly transparent.
T2: Using foil grids, it should be possible to steer or block particles if a high potential is applied. Being charged electrons, the rays should be deflected towards or away from a HV potential in open air. The difficulty here is doing the test far enough from the bulb to rule out deflections inside the bulb itself (HV will steer the rays inside the bulb just as in a TV cathode ray tube).
I'm curious if anyone with a radiological background could weigh-in on the beta particle hypothesis or know a mechanism that might explain it. ;)
Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.02.16, 13:45:06
I'm curious if anyone with a radiological background could weigh-in on the beta particle hypothesis or know a mechanism that might explain it. ;)
Wesley from a nearby forum. do ask him a question.