On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 04.12.2011 01:41, schrieb Horace Heffner:
This is about the water bridge experiment, not Bill Beaty's water
thread experiments.
His fine threads extended multiple times the length of the water
bridge, and were sustained indefinitely, with orders of magnitude
less current. Read the archive references.
Possibly there is a misunderstandment.
Yes, there is, on my part!
I have seen many of his experiments, especially the experiment with
dry ice nebula on a water surface.
It is clearly visible that a stream of focussed air ions flow to
the water surface and draws traces into the steam.
Air ions make the nebula coagulate and vanish, this makes them
visible.
I would however call this air threads, and not water threads. There
are focussed and laminar threads of ions flowing in air and this
demonstration really impressed me. I have seen this last year or
earlier. I have read everything about air ions, that I could get at
this time and discovered his site also.
I have not found any water thread experiments made by him, sorry.
If there is something else, a pointer would be welcome.
Peter
I think this is a case of my bad memory. My position was that the
threads here solid and comprised of polar molecules - probably water
and/or CO2. I don't think Bill Beaty ever acknowledged that
position. There were lengthy debates. What I call water threads he
called air threads. I thought the definitive experiment was run, but
I can't find it. A definitive experiment would be on in which HF AC
current is carried simultaneously with DC by the thread. If it
traveled at near light speed, then the thread would have to be both
solid and conductive.
I provided some calculations that the thread had to be solid, because
electrostatic forces would divert the thread into a conical spray if
it were comprised of small independent charged particles. The thread
as a whole could be diverted by an electric field, so it was charged.
This convinced me the threads were continuous and either bound polar
molecules, the structure of which I provided, or van der Waals force
bound molecules. The latter seems to me unlikely because the threads
conducted (at least around 100 picoamps) so were likely proton
conductors. The structures I suggested looked feasible in that role.
The small current and the rigidness of such a structure explains the
lack of diversion in a magnetic field.
On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 04.12.2011 00:29, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 04.12.2011 00:01, schrieb Peter Heckert:
I dont believe, he used this for the water thread experiment.
This needs more current.
I tried with deionized water, but my supply was too week. It
should deliver about 100µA.
Its a TV split diode flyback transformer driven by a selfbuild
electronics.
He writes here, he did not do the experiment himself:
http://amasci.com/freenrg/wasser.html
Again, you confuse this with Bill Beaty's experiments. They are
related but not identical at all. Very different linear range,
thread diameter, and currents.
I cannot find a water thread experiment made by him.
That is because Bill did not call them "water thread" experiments. My
mistake, and bad memory. The above wasser.html reference was indeed
about water bridge experiments, not Bill Beaty's air thread
experiments, which are a very different thing - thread lengths up to
60 cm.
I still think Bell Beaty experienced continuous water threads, not
air threads. I just have to remember to call them "air threads".
Funny how memory is so shaped by one's viewpoint, filter, biases.
My apologies for the confusion.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
