--- On

**Tue, 1/26/10, Harvey D Norris**wrote:*<harvich@...>*

From: Harvey D Norris <harvich@...>

Subject: [teslafy] Polar vs Dual Plate Capacity Considerations.

To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com

Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 8:33 PMI took my supply of 6*6 square in steel plates and made equal stacks of checkers on each side of the corners with two plates of 36 sq in separated by ~ 2in, and measured ~ 13 pf by wavetech LCR meter.

Also did the same thing with a pizza box foil capacity measuring ~50 pf.

In both of these cases when supplied with the plate area and distance, and neglecting the dielectric and frequency considerations; the metric formula predicts what the LCR meter records. Furthermore by this standard; it is the geometry case itself that holds true for every expansion of plate area. This means that for the pizza box model where plate areas vs plate separation is large, and also for the smaller plate model where the distance between plates is closer to the actual 2/d area of the plates; for both of these models their size in space is irrevalent, and their practical relevance only depends on their dimensional perpectives of an area vs a distance, or a ratio between them.

Here then a division of thought vs application can be shown. Many high voltage circuits will allow oscillation of currents through an ionized bulb with no apparent return path, but it is known that free electrons exist on every metallic surface area, and since the study of capacity itself is initially based and defined from surface areas at a separation distance, antiquainted definitions of polar capacity exist, but the figures seem incomprehensibly wrong with what is observed by modern instrumentation.

The primary objection becomes the fact that when a model predicting so and so a capacity; say .66nf is made, it in fact has a dimension 4 ft high and an appreciable surface area. The same model miniaturized of course has less surface area. The point here being made is that even though both of these elements contain identical dual plate capacities, the conduction across both as displacement currents may differ from this very high impedance 60 hz BRS, which has over 20,000 ohms internal impedance, having a current limitation that it will only supply 7.7 ma at wall 120 VAC input. Predictably the model having a higher surface area will allow more conduction from the source, from the simple fact that the issue of more polar capacity added by more surface electrons to be moved becomes relevant in the conductions. So this then will be the next test; the miniaturization of equivalent capacity of .66 nf by checker means, if possible.

HDNHere a great mistake has been made as was found in making a smaller model of the measured .66 nf. Using the steel 6*6 sq in plates, it is found that the needed distance between the plates is only the width of a sheet of paper! Taking the LCR meter and directly measuring the capacity itself only yeilds .11 nf, and the difference of these measurements is brought about by the adjacent 30 ft of delivery wires to the air capacity, where here I used radio shack MegaCable speaker wire. Any conventional extension cord having adjacent opposite polarity delivery wires will have this imbedded internal capacity problem here which should simply be solved by using sepated wires of delivery... Here then to continue suppositions we merely need to make sure two separately spaced delivery wires are used, thus then the helium and neon bulbs will have six times a midpoint of capacity. In this case if no polar capacity effects are present, we should then see six times less current through the bulbs.

HDN

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/