On Jun 24, 2007, at 3:49 PM, William Beaty wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Horace Heffner wrote:
How quickly memory fades:
"When I used a soda straw and blew upon a thread with all my might,
the dot in the mist only moved a little... Not at all like smoke,
they are more like carbon-fiber spiderwebs under high linear
tension...
And now I suspect that chains of charged droplets or ions, if they
move
fast enough while in an e-field, behave much like a contiguous
rope. But
the forces connecting them are e-fields, not thin fibers.
I don't know how thin fibers connecting them got into the
discussion? I didn't say anything about fibers. You said "like"
above and that implies fiber like characteristics like tensile
strength and a thin cohesiveness.
If the droplets are held together into a tight filament by charges
then the charges have to alternate. Otherwise they repel each
other. The alternative is a true filament stream made by hydrogen
bonding, which is what I suggested.
On the other hand, when a sharp liquid cone starts emitting a
charged
fiber, that's called "electrospinning." Viscous liquids
applied to
charged metal electrodes apparently will send out "spider webs"
spontaneously.
It still seems to me only experiment can tell which. I still think
you should be able to tell the difference by the signals.
Just using an audio amp and a tiny electrode gives no easily detected
signals.
Well, I did suggest a video amp. That may not be enough though.
Certainly an artificial strong HF signal could be detected through a
filament and the difference between filament and no filament
detected, if such filaments do exist.
But in theory, as a droplet or ion approaches an electrode,
I certainly agree the signal from drops on approach may be washed
out, but the signal on the needle should not be. If there is a true
conductive water filament then it should be possible to put a whopper
of a signal on that and pass it right through a ring.
the
voltage on the electrode smoothly rises. If many charged droplets
approach in a stream, then the electrode voltage will rise high.
But then
as each droplet actually touches the electrode, it has a
vanishingly small
effect on electrode voltage. All of the voltage step occurred as the
droplet approched, and not as the droplet touched. (I think we are
misled
by macro effects where a spark leaps whenever a charged sphere is
brought
near a grounded plate.)
Therefore, we'd need a grounded plate with microscopic orfices, and an
electrode positioned a microscopic distance behind this plate.
That way
when each droplet approached, it would have no effect on electrode
voltage. But when a droplet passed through one of the holes in the
grounded plate, it would suddenly create a large step in voltage at
the
electrode. We have to electrically shield the droplet as it
approaches,
then only remove the shielding as the droplet is about to touch the
electrode. I've never tried this test.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
