sci.physics.electromag

"a_plutonium" wrote in message
news:f5ce7cb1-5139-48f7-9836-c2b2e6ef4f5c@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I may have to get another Wimshurst generator to fulfill this
> experiment. I am going to try it, using
> a Wimshurst and a Van de Graaff.
>
> My idea is a testing of two simultaneous Capacitor Currents, one
> transverse or perpendicular to the
> other.
>
> There maybe a Meissner Effect on currents themselves.
>
> The two electrodes on a Wimshurst is separated by 3 cm. Now what
> happens when there are
> four electrodes of two Wimshurst generators involved where the four
> are at equal distances
> and the two generators are running currents that are transverse or
> perpendicular to one another.
>
> Soon I will obtain a Van de Graaf generator and see what this
> transverse experiment yields
> but it looks as though I need a second Wimshurst to conduct this
> current flow.
>
> What could happen? Could the currents entangle and affect one another
> as a Meissner
> Effect of currents? Or is this somewhat related to what happened to
> Oersted in 1820 when
> he found a compass deflected by a current in a wire.
>
> So, when I have two Wimshurst generators such that both are giving a
> capacitor current
> but which their electrodes are parallel or electrodes are
> perpendicular to one another, will
> they affect one another? And if I do the same experiment with a
> Wimshurst and Van
> de Graaff generators of parallel and perpendicular of their
> electrodes, will the currents
> affect one another and how will they affect one another?
>
> It would be nice to build them so that the crank on them generates a
> "near simultaneous"
> current flowing through both of them. A huge difficulty will be to
> make sure the distance
> spacing of the electrodes is equal.
>
> Oersted found a current deflects a compass needle, and what I would
> like to find in
> Capacitor-Currents is a Meissner Effect or perfect diamagnetism. For
> this book is about
> proving that superconductivity is the same as Capacitor Current.

And that would suggest that a "capacitor current" is what you should be
observing?
Using a Whimhurst will give you an interrupted current flow. Using a Van de
Graff in conjunction will give you an interrupted flow at a higher pulse
frequency, will it not? Inadvertently introducing lorentz iterations won't
help in this.
Perhaps you should consider using a "capacitor" current that is independent
of the machinery. However, I am can't offer any thoughts as to how you
should achieve this without resorting to chokes etc, which would in
themselves destroy your observation of "capacitor current" as an independent
phenomenon.
Maybe charging a large capacitor, or bank, and discharging it through a
resistive circuit that is not so "electromagnetic" so to speak, aka, via a
choke, might be insightful?
I would much like to read the results if you could achieve this, though I
can't offer any insight into how to do it.
The problem (to me) would seem to be how to do so while achieving a
reasonably linear flow of (capacitor) current. However, that may well not
be the real consideration. If lineararality cannot be achieved,
consistantencey in effect though not in magnitude could also be insightful?
Regards,
Vince