GaryN wrote:What do you expect to achieve by the pulsed HV source?
I'm not sure, but we know that for the most part the Earth and space environment is dynamic, not pure static. Maybe at certain frequencies or with specific pulse parameters, more familiar shapes or patterns might appear? I think the limitation on small scale experiments is the energy levels being too weak to trigger many processes that can occur at higher energy events.
To answer this part first i will have to open up a can of worms over something that has been bugging me in
the general response to the CRT experiments. People often say "oh that's just static electricity's behavior"
in reference to the discharge interactions. I suspect they are having flashbacks of sparks to door knobs and
such. I have to say there is nothing static about an electrical discharge, an arc from a door knob or anything
about electricity. Even at the smallest electrical interaction, it is dynamic. As for focus on high energy
experiments, that is just a mocho-minded tendency, that only the high powered experiments can be
informative. By the time an arc actually occurs so much detail and information has already blown by.
One look at the experiments done in dry ice by Bill Beaty will further reveal the point i've come to realize
with the CRT experiments;
You don't need inter-planetary discharges to make some features. And if anyone is going to take us seriously
we must demonstrate the ability to differentiate. And this goes for mechanical processes as well.
Sadly all i am hearing is electricity this and electricity that, sounding like a bunch of parrots. As an example,
and to highlight recent hydro-cratering experiments, I've heard people call meteor crater an arc-formed
crater,,, one crater, all by itself, with no others in the vacinity of the canyon that is claimed to be caused by
the same process,,, i don't buy it. There are too many details that point to another mechanism as i've shown
by the craters formed by a single drop of water.
GaryN wrote:How would it be incorporated into the experiment? d...z
What are you hoping to achieve with your present setup? I was thinking something like a variation on the Terella might work better, but I see there were a few people tried that, but it got so involved that nowadays they use computer models. And certainly, if you are not comfortable playing with high voltages, best not to take any silly chances.
On this question i can only say replication of previous results and expansion of capability to create surface
features through electrical interaction, without dancing on the doorsteps of getting electrocuted. I am getting
plenty of features that will go a long way in demonstrating how an electrical mechanism might be involved.
A school room could become a place of discovery without breaking the budget. However, i'm getting the
impression that big budget science draws a false sense of worth, even to the point of blinded-by-$$$ or
courting cash cows. I've yet to see the type of results seen from CRT experiments. I'm not making big
Blue Berries so that is where the high energy stuff shines brightly and has great value. I'd love to be playing
with high voltage but my circumstances invoke limits.
Electricity has many subtle characteristics that can be appreciated through low energy experiments without
risk or fancy equipment or training. If it electric effects are scalable, It is a no-brainer tailor made for me. d...z
www.electric-spark-scars.com
)
