Actually I'm not sure it is silly, counter intuitive but *maybe* right. A point concentrates charges and voltage, it might depend very much on the specifics.
However my personal believe is that the capacity is not an issue merely that it contracts a flat piece. I took a bayonet light bulb and put my thumb on one terminal and carefully positioned the other terminal to be struck and sure enough a strong discharge was felt. Putting a small bit of wire on the terminal to draw the arc killed the effect. The capacitance there must be tiny. So I took a piece of AL foil and used that to draw the arc despite having a larger capacitance it manifested the effect only weakly. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>wrote: > > > John Berry wrote: > > I connected a signal generator to the secondary and hung the > > oscilloscope lead in the air, that is how i found the 760-ish khz > frequency, > > > > I am not willing to run my scope near or even while the TC is running > > currently as I have no power line conditioners. > > Eh -- good point. You did say something that implies you're running the > TC from the AC line, which I hadn't quite picked up on. > > Hmmm -- I don't suppose you've got a computer somewhere in the house > which is on a UPS? I'd think any garden variety UPS could run a typical > scope for a good useful length of time fully disconnected from the wall. > (Of course you're not supposed to operate them that way -- should > always be grounded, so the instructions say -- but what the hey, last > time I tried yanking the plug out of the wall on a UPS it worked just > fine.) > > > > > The shocking sensation isn't constant however it is only on the initial > > establishment of an arc. > > Ah hmmm..... Does that make sense? It seems like it might make sense. > Initial arc establishment is when the voltage must be highest, and that > means the capacitor between the two terminals is most fully charged. > (Which may not have anything to do with it, of course.) > > > > > > I found this on nerve response: > > > > /Now, for the Great Insane Shocking Signal Generator Experiment of 1997: > > > > WARNING - I disclaim safety of repeating this experiment! Do at your > > own risk!!! > > I connected a variable frequency sinewave generator to an audio power > > amplifier, which drove a step-up transformer. With one wet hand, I > > touched the two high-voltage-side terminals of the transformer. With the > > other hand (insulated), I varied the voltage and frequency the first > > hand was getting. > > > > Results: > > > > Low audio frequencies 80 Hz and less seem most shocking.Now, for the > > Great Insane Shocking Signal Generator Experiment of 1997: > > > > WARNING - I disclaim safety of repeating this experiment! Do at your > > own risk!!! > > I connected a variable frequency sinewave generator to an audio power > > amplifier, which drove a step-up transformer. With one wet hand, I > > touched the two high-voltage-side terminals of the transformer. With the > > other hand (insulated), I varied the voltage and frequency the first > > hand was getting. > > > > Results: > > > > Low audio frequencies 80 Hz and less seem most shocking. > > As frequency was increased above about 80-100 Hz, the burning/pain > > sensation decreased but the "tingly" shocking sensation did not lose > > much of its intensity until the frequency reached 500 Hz. Roughly at > > that point, the shock began to be less intense in all ways as the > > frequency was increased further. It was noticeably less intense at 1 KHz > > than at 500 Hz, and a fraction as intense at 5 KHz as at 500 Hz. At 20 > > KHz, there was almost no sensation of shock at voltages where lower > > frequencies are painful. > > As frequency was increased above about 80-100 Hz, the burning/pain > > sensation decreased but the "tingly" shocking sensation did not lose > > much of its intensity until the frequency reached 500 Hz. Roughly at > > that point, the shock began to be less intense in all ways as the > > frequency was increased further. It was noticeably less intense at 1 KHz > > than at 500 Hz, and a fraction as intense at 5 KHz as at 500 Hz. At 20 > > KHz, there was almost no sensation of shock at voltages where lower > > frequencies are painful./ > > > > Based on that I'd say my shocks were probably lower than 100hz and > > certainly lower than 500hz > > > > Also while I am aware obviously that points have lower capacitance and > > leak more ion wind it seems that the fact that the other end was a wire > > point anyway and the distance between the TC and arc point would make it > > seem unlikely that the tiny capacity difference could explain it > > especially when the tests showed than the size of the grounding > > electrode didn't change anything. > > And yet, I thought you had observed that the shape of the electrode did > matter -- did I misunderstand that? > > I'm not sure the difference is tiny, in any case. Unfortunately when I > attempted to figure it out using a quick trip to Griffiths followed by > some careful reasoning I arrived at the conclusion that replacing a > point-and-plate capacitor with one made of two points (same separation) > would *INCREASE* the capacity which is just silly. Maybe this is > Nature's way of telling me it's time to go to bed. > >
