Harry Veeder wrote:
On 25/10/2007 10:57 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[Message bounced the first time, permanent fatal error on the Vortex
address -- ??? -- I'm resending it. Sorry if you see it twice.]
Michel Jullian wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity
Horace Heffner wrote:
...
Good point. Another option along the same lines might be to simply strip
a section of the ground wire and connect the ground wire to the faraday
cage at the entry point using an alligator clip. It the lights go out
then the power is from an external source.
Wow, that's perfect!
Now why wasn't this obvious to start with? Dunno -- maybe it was to
others, but it sure wasn't obvious to me, at least.
Maybe an old fashioned pressure cooker would make a nice Faraday cage, the
vapor outlet hole could serve to let the wire in...
I think it has been stated in a variety of ways by a variety of people
(Terry, Bill...) that the Faraday cage should be grounded, I can hardly
believe this hasn't been tried yet...
Sorry to be contradictory, Michel, but that is almost exactly the
/opposite/ of the point raised by Horace.
It doesn't matter whether the cage is "earth"-grounded or not; the earth
ground is a red herring. The point is the circuit inside must be
connected TO THE CAGE, not (solely) to an external ground, and must be
tied to the cage by a wire which is internal to the cage, not by a long
looping external path.
Earth-grounding the cage makes it impossible to "see inside"; a grounded
cage blocks all electrical fields inside from escaping. An ungrounded
cage does not. But, conversely, an UNgrounded cage blocks external
fields from entering the cage just as well as a grounded one. In this
case, that's all we care about, and the "earth ground" of the cage
doesn't matter.
You don't care about the earth ground, if you have already made up your mind
that a conventional explanation is good enough.
That's not quite fair. This is a first step to finding the energy
source which is being proposed here, not a "proof to end discussion".
And the point is that, in trying to "rule out" a conventional
explanation, the "earth ground" is not helpful, and actually confuses
the issue.
First order of business when one suddenly runs across something that
_might_ be "totally new physics", it seems to me, is to look for a
conventional explanation. RF energy of some sort, or a ground loop,
might provide such an explanation in this case. _IF_ there is
conventional RF energy entering the system via the "ground wire" then
this will eliminate that particular factor. OTOH grounding the Faraday
cage to the earth, while running a second wire to the circuit inside,
doesn't help with ruling out RF energy, and actually makes the ground
loop issues worse.
_IF_ enclosing the device in a cage and connecting the "ground wire" to
the cage at the point of entry shuts off the lights, _THEN_ it appears
that the actual power source must be outside the cage, and it strongly
suggests that it's either RF energy or some ground loop within the lab.
**BUT** (and this is a big "BUT") it would still not give any definite
information as to what that power source might be, and consequently it
wouldn't end discussion (though I think Ron may already have "ended
discussion", to judge by his recent emails). It merely points the
direction which investigation should then follow, which is to identify
the apparent external power source. It could still turn out that the
"external" power source is not RF at all but rather is something new and
wholly unexpected. None the less it would provide a large clue as to
what direction to start looking in.
Furthermore, _IF_ connecting the circuit ground wire to the cage at the
point of entry did _NOT_ turn off the lights, that would very
interesting indeed: It would rule out both ground loops and stray RF as
power sources, and would suggest very strongly that there is something
new and startling here. It would also make such issues as whether other
equipment in the lab was turned on or not pretty much irrelevant.
But either way, until the power source has actually been identified, an
unexpected -- unconventional -- result hasn't been ruled out.
However, at this time, as far as I can see, neither RF energy nor a
simple ground loop has been really ruled out as a source of energy for
the single-ground-wire system. Caging the circuit, and connecting the
ground wire to the cage at point of entry, would go a long way toward
doing that.
Harry
(Does the pie plate turn transparent when the ground
wire is removed? Visible light is, after all, just high frequency EMR
-- or at any rate it can be so modeled when attempting to understand its
interaction with a conductor.)
If the cage and the circuit are tied to "earth ground" SEPARATELY then
the area of the loop made by the (separate) ground wires acts as an
antenna (obviously!) and the circuit cannot be said to be "grounded to
the cage" in any useful way. Until now, that sort of "grounding" is all
that had been mentioned, and it is all that has been done, as far as I know.
Until Horace's post, no-one, as far as I know, had suggested tying the
ground wire from the circuit directly to the cage, so the circuit was
"grounded to the cage" by a conductive path which was contained entirely
within the confines of the cage itself.
Michel
