John Berry wrote: > I connected a signal generator to the secondary and hung the > oscilloscope lead in the air, that is how i found the 760-ish khz frequency, > > I am not willing to run my scope near or even while the TC is running > currently as I have no power line conditioners.
Eh -- good point. You did say something that implies you're running the TC from the AC line, which I hadn't quite picked up on. Hmmm -- I don't suppose you've got a computer somewhere in the house which is on a UPS? I'd think any garden variety UPS could run a typical scope for a good useful length of time fully disconnected from the wall. (Of course you're not supposed to operate them that way -- should always be grounded, so the instructions say -- but what the hey, last time I tried yanking the plug out of the wall on a UPS it worked just fine.) > > The shocking sensation isn't constant however it is only on the initial > establishment of an arc. Ah hmmm..... Does that make sense? It seems like it might make sense. Initial arc establishment is when the voltage must be highest, and that means the capacitor between the two terminals is most fully charged. (Which may not have anything to do with it, of course.) > > I found this on nerve response: > > /Now, for the Great Insane Shocking Signal Generator Experiment of 1997: > > WARNING - I disclaim safety of repeating this experiment! Do at your > own risk!!! > I connected a variable frequency sinewave generator to an audio power > amplifier, which drove a step-up transformer. With one wet hand, I > touched the two high-voltage-side terminals of the transformer. With the > other hand (insulated), I varied the voltage and frequency the first > hand was getting. > > Results: > > Low audio frequencies 80 Hz and less seem most shocking.Now, for the > Great Insane Shocking Signal Generator Experiment of 1997: > > WARNING - I disclaim safety of repeating this experiment! Do at your > own risk!!! > I connected a variable frequency sinewave generator to an audio power > amplifier, which drove a step-up transformer. With one wet hand, I > touched the two high-voltage-side terminals of the transformer. With the > other hand (insulated), I varied the voltage and frequency the first > hand was getting. > > Results: > > Low audio frequencies 80 Hz and less seem most shocking. > As frequency was increased above about 80-100 Hz, the burning/pain > sensation decreased but the "tingly" shocking sensation did not lose > much of its intensity until the frequency reached 500 Hz. Roughly at > that point, the shock began to be less intense in all ways as the > frequency was increased further. It was noticeably less intense at 1 KHz > than at 500 Hz, and a fraction as intense at 5 KHz as at 500 Hz. At 20 > KHz, there was almost no sensation of shock at voltages where lower > frequencies are painful. > As frequency was increased above about 80-100 Hz, the burning/pain > sensation decreased but the "tingly" shocking sensation did not lose > much of its intensity until the frequency reached 500 Hz. Roughly at > that point, the shock began to be less intense in all ways as the > frequency was increased further. It was noticeably less intense at 1 KHz > than at 500 Hz, and a fraction as intense at 5 KHz as at 500 Hz. At 20 > KHz, there was almost no sensation of shock at voltages where lower > frequencies are painful./ > > Based on that I'd say my shocks were probably lower than 100hz and > certainly lower than 500hz > > Also while I am aware obviously that points have lower capacitance and > leak more ion wind it seems that the fact that the other end was a wire > point anyway and the distance between the TC and arc point would make it > seem unlikely that the tiny capacity difference could explain it > especially when the tests showed than the size of the grounding > electrode didn't change anything. And yet, I thought you had observed that the shape of the electrode did matter -- did I misunderstand that? I'm not sure the difference is tiny, in any case. Unfortunately when I attempted to figure it out using a quick trip to Griffiths followed by some careful reasoning I arrived at the conclusion that replacing a point-and-plate capacitor with one made of two points (same separation) would *INCREASE* the capacity which is just silly. Maybe this is Nature's way of telling me it's time to go to bed.
