Difference between revisions of "A Close Look at Charge Deposition from a Pulsed Tesla Coil System"

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Imported from text file)
 
(Imported from text file)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
==Abstract==
 
==Abstract==
  
Results of a prior experiment and its conclusions are re-examined by two researchers. Charge deposition on isolated capacities due to rapid discharge of ?non-sparking? Tesla coils is tested a second time using a number of different techniques and instruments. This new, joint effort contradicts the prior work. Explanations are given as to why the prior conclusions were found to be in error.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
+
Results of a prior experiment and its conclusions are re-examined by two researchers. Charge deposition on isolated capacities due to rapid discharge of ?non-sparking? Tesla coils is tested a second time using a number of different techniques and instruments. This new, joint effort contradicts the prior work. Explanations are given as to why the prior conclusions were found to be in error.
  
[[Category:Tesla]]
+
[[Category:Scientific Paper|close look charge deposition pulsed tesla coil]]
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Tesla|close look charge deposition pulsed tesla coil]]

Latest revision as of 19:14, 1 January 2017

Scientific Paper
Title A Close Look at Charge Deposition from a Pulsed Tesla Coil System
Author(s) Richard L Hull, Scott Fusare
Keywords charge deposition, electrometers, false indications, instrumentation, high-voltage readings, hydrogen thyratron, Lindemann electrometer, longitudinal electrostatic waves, wiggle wand
Published 2002
Journal Electric Spacecraft Journal
Number 35
Pages 20-26

Abstract

Results of a prior experiment and its conclusions are re-examined by two researchers. Charge deposition on isolated capacities due to rapid discharge of ?non-sparking? Tesla coils is tested a second time using a number of different techniques and instruments. This new, joint effort contradicts the prior work. Explanations are given as to why the prior conclusions were found to be in error.