Difference between revisions of "Repeating the Wiggle Wand Experiments"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | The wiggle wand experiments first reported in ESJ 18 are repeated and varied. The original observation that the wiggle wand must be in motion is refuted, as is the observation that a charged metal wand does not produce a signal unless covered with a dielectric. Whether or not longitudinal electrostatic waves are produced is inconclusive.[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | + | The wiggle wand experiments first reported in ESJ 18 are repeated and varied. The original observation that the wiggle wand must be in motion is refuted, as is the observation that a charged metal wand does not produce a signal unless covered with a dielectric. Whether or not longitudinal electrostatic waves are produced is inconclusive. |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|repeating wiggle wand experiments]] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:01, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Repeating the Wiggle Wand Experiments |
| Author(s) | Scott Fusare |
| Keywords | charge deposition, electrometers, false indications, instrumentation, high-voltage readings, longitudinal electrostatic waves, wiggle wand |
| Published | 2002 |
| Journal | Electric Spacecraft Journal |
| Number | 35 |
| Pages | 13-19 |
Abstract
The wiggle wand experiments first reported in ESJ 18 are repeated and varied. The original observation that the wiggle wand must be in motion is refuted, as is the observation that a charged metal wand does not produce a signal unless covered with a dielectric. Whether or not longitudinal electrostatic waves are produced is inconclusive.
