> The place to start may be eliminating water... Would the phenomenon occur on a dry cathode? That's the first thing to elucidate. In my hypothesis, it wouldn't, as the phenomenon would be a near-surface artifact due to the presence of the water bumps, the threads would not really exist all the way from the emitter to the bump.
> As to the bump vs dimple notion, I would expect there to be a dimple > if the needle end were positive, but maybe a bump in the water with > its own sharp point if the pan is positive. Why not a bump in both cases, the electrodes (the solid one and the liquid one) are attracted towards each other whatever the polarity aren't they? Besides Bill tried both polarities with no visible difference. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Filament ion jets >I suspect the threads are nearly 100 percent polar molecules, CO2 and/ > or water. This could be checked by eliminating CO2 and water from > the air - provided a foolproof means exists for seeing the threads, > or at least determining their existence through the current > readings. If the threads stop when the water or CO2 goes, then they > are likely comprised of a continuous thread of polar molecules. Some > petroleum distillates are polar, so that would also account for the > black threads observed from a power transformer. > > Wild speculation now begins... > > The place to start may be eliminating water, which should be > comparatively easy. To eliminate both from a chamber the CO2 could > be eliminated using a getter and then the water eliminated by > freezing out. > > If the threads consist entirely of water then some interesting things > could be done. The thread flow rate can be measured by simply > running for a long time and measuring the amount of water > transferred. The thickness of the threads could then be computed > provided the speed of the jet could be measured. I think the speed > of a water jet might be measured by imposing an AC signal on the > jet. I noted a pulsing of an AC (square wave) signal imposed on a 10 > meter long flowing electrolytic cell, which occurred in > synchronization with the motions of a peristaltic pump, and which was > thus fluid velocity sensitive. A voltage drop vs flow rate > calibration could be done using streams of water emitted from holes > in the side of a metal can which is maintained at differing fill > levels by a pump and spill drain. It is possible, however, the > peristaltic pump was, via pressure changes, merely changing the > diameter of the Tygon tubing, and thus its diameter and thus its > internal fluid resistance. I don't think so, though, because I think > there was a resistance shift depending on pump direction if memory > serves. > > As to the bump vs dimple notion, I would expect there to be a dimple > if the needle end were positive, but maybe a bump in the water with > its own sharp point if the pan is positive. > > About thread visualization, it might be interesting if SW were a slow > speed rotary spark gap and the capacitor C1 were sized just big > enough so as to make the thread momentarily visible through a corona > sheath. I suppose you could superimpose a HF HV tesla coil output on > the DC, but that might seriously change the flow mechanics, whereas a > periodic flash would show the normal flow status just prior to the > flash. > > > ------HV---------- > | | > | | > | C1 | > |-----| |---R1---| > | | | > | | | > | ---SW--| > | | > | | > ------> |-------| > Gap |--HV---- > > Fig. 1 - Jet spark circuit > > Ascii figure above requires fixed font like Courier. > > It sure is way easier to dream stuff up than to do the work! > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > > > On Jun 4, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Hi Horace, >> >> I had read about the absence of magnetic deviation too (as well as >> the rest of Bill's excellent and remarkably complete experiment >> reports), it is not incompatible with the ion refocussing water >> bump (sounds better than pimple) hypothesis I posted earlier. You >> would not expect the bump height or position to depend on the >> magnetic field, only on the electric field distribution, which is >> barely affected by the ions when current is low. The ion flow >> itself would be deviated, but it would still refocus, at least >> locally(*), on the unmoved water bump so the dark spot in the dry >> ice mist would also be unmoved. >> >> Of course this relies on my wild speculation that a bump was >> mistaken for a dimple in Bill's laser relection test, which may be >> totally wrong. It is however based on the plausible hypothesis that >> at such low (nA) current levels the charged water surface is more >> likely to raise locally towards the oppositely charged tip (or more >> likely towards the first incoming ions, after which it would self- >> maintain by being attracted to more incoming ions due to its raised >> position) rather than recess due to particle impact. >> >> Regards, >> >> Michel >> >> (*) assuming the bump hypothesis is confirmed, a current >> distribution test would be interesting, to determine whether all >> the current goes to the dark spot or if we have a more classical >> wide spread, in which case the widely spread ion flow would only be >> refocused locally by the water bump. It would be tricky to do though. >
