[lk]

I appreciate the image links and your efforts. I think it would help a lot if the experiment can be done on a horizontal screen surface with dust or powder that is spread on by hand, like talcom powder that can be shaken from a container through small holes. A horizontal surface would better simulate the usual pattern of the force of gravity on a surface. Thornhill's and others' experiments were done on horizontal surfaces. Do you think it would be very hard to get your CRT screen horizontal? Good luck.

[dahlenaz]

I havn't resorted to store bought talc (composition unknown) but the dust we have around here in large volumes sure seems like talc when it gets wet, sort of pasty.
Having the monitor horizontal has been done and the results were very rewarding but the discharges are no different, the primary difference is that the material may not be as well affixed to the surface. This was a good thing is some instances where post deposition and dynamic e-wind were observed but some of the circular patterns are lacking the detail that is seen when the material has had a chance to bind to the surface.

An E-wind image is at http://www.geocities.com/dhlndsign/larger_image.html

I've noticed something that may be very important. After a discharge has removed material the area seems to resist further deposition. I'll put up an image to show this. Resistence to deposition is unmistakable and needs to be considered thoroughly for large scale application of observaition. dz

[Steve Smith]

[dahlenaz]

delete

[dahlenaz]

Steve comments "I suspect that there are microscopic bits of your fingertip deposited on the surface of the display terminal"

I'm Glad you're still tuned in, Steve. When you say microscopic bits, are you saying erroded from my finger? That seems a bit beyond what is being initially focused on, the patterns visibly removed material. If there is bi-directionality that is real cool but if that doesn't relate to removal of material from the surface then it is not as important as understanding the forces occuring in the vacinity of the approaching object. Recent observations with fiberglass on the surface showed that the approaching Finger tip begins affecting the surface on a broad scale and the discharges are far less intense. Something is different with the presence of fiberglass dust on the surface in contrast to dust deposits. I'm trying to get some images of the early surface alterations. Energizing and de-energiaing the monitor now sends strange activity through the surface of fiberglass. dz

[dahlenaz]

Steve wrote: "proton discharge is far more massive than the
initial electron streamers that are exciting the discharge."

This is where you lose me. I thought that discharge is a
result of charge differential and that current flows from
negative to positive.

Another question being, is the surface of the CRT
considered a staticly charged surface considering that once
it is de-energized it is no longer prone to discharges?

Would the surface have a negative static charge or a
positive static charge like that caused by friction, light,
heat or chemical reaction?

There seems to be an electromagnetic field being generated
at the tube's face. The material respondes to changes in the
application of power, either applied or removed.
The material, in as much as can be seen, leaves the surface
and is, in part, deposited on the finger tip. Is it a
passenger and obsticle to the proton flow or does it have
its own state of charge?
With all these gaps in my understanding i' may be better
off making the presentation a picture comparison with no
technical content just observational detail. dz

[Steve Smith]

Zane,

The situation is similar to lightning; electrostatic discharge is the same regardless of scale.

Yes, I am saying that there is material being torn from your fingertip by the electrons, but it is probably the size of dead skin cell fragments -- practically invisible.

Your finger is the focus of charge that's always building up in your body. As your fingertip approaches the display screen, electrons begin to migrate out of it, creating a filamentary electric field that increases in intensity the closer you get. This is known as a "stepped leader".

Just as a cloud begins to seperate charge when it prepares to fire a lightning bolt, your finger is emitting the attractive force that will, ultimately, cause the "positricity" from the display terminal to leap along the conductive pathway. When the stepped leader from your finger is close enough to the screen, the return stroke travels back along the electron streamers and the spark occurs.

When the return stroke travels back to your finger, it is dragging the air along with it, so it lifts the lightest dust from the screen and carrys it along with the air. Since the dust is in contact with the screen, I expect that it is similarly charged, so is most likely being transported mechanically, rather than electrostatically.

Glass builds up charge seperation, or imbalance, very well, since it is non-conductive materials that tend to hold these differentials. Charge buildup can occur "spontaneously" without the familiar method of rubbing a glass rod with a piece of wool -- all it takes is for two non-conductive materials to come in contact with each other.

Dust -- and I take it that you are referring to the "common dust" that we see as motes in a beam of light -- is mostly organic material: dead skin, hair fragments, bits of bug, carpet detritus, etc. Its electrical potential is quite different from silica, from which the fiberglas is made, so you are witnessing the variability in charge imbalance between materials.

Steve

-- This is a low resolution reply to your comments, but I think that your experiment is an excellent clue as to how electricity moves around between charged bodies in space.

[dahlenaz]

Steve, For the Current CRT test the dust is outdoor central Az floodplain superfine stuff. For the TV images at my site that was dust that had accumulated over time and through several humidity changes so it was on their solid but not crusty.

Around the edge of the tube the dust is almost totally absent. I imagined that that is from something going on between the plastic and the glass.

The difference between dust and fiberglass powder is dramatic and may be indicated best by the way the fbrgls clings to the finger and the increased volume as well. The discharges are less intense but the predischarge activity seems to have a larger lataral and verticle range. dz

[lk]

Today's TPOD at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070508pithballs.htm repeats a previous one, warning that static electricity is much different from
electrodynamic observations in space and in plasma labs. But I don't know that this particular experiment would be much different, whether it involves static or dynamic electricity. We could try to compare it with Thornhill's, Ransom's and other crater making experiments such as at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040816crater.htm
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041126craters-lab.htm
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050325blueberries.htm
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051108electricwind.htm and http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060517electricwind.htm. Does anyone know the difference between their experiments and Zane's CRT dust experiment? Can they let us know what's needed for a dynamic experiment?

[lk]

Today's TPOD at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070508pithballs.htm repeats a previous one, warning that static electricity is much different from
electrodynamic observations in space and in plasma labs. But I don't know that this particular experiment would be much different, whether it involves static or dynamic electricity. We could try to compare it with Thornhill's, Ransom's and other crater making experiments such as at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040816crater.htm
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041126craters-lab.htm
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050325blueberries.htm
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051108electricwind.htm and http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060517electricwind.htm. Does anyone know the difference between their experiments and Zane's CRT dust experiment? Can they let us know what's needed for a dynamic experiment?

[Steve Smith]

Hey LK, please go back and delete those additional, duplicated posts.

Regarding electrodynamic vs. electrostatic phenomena, the simplest explanation is that "static" electricity is defined by "charges at rest"; thus the "static" nomenclature. Electrodynamics refers to "charges in motion."

CJ's experiments are conducted with charge in motion and Zane's with stationary charge. They are two halves of the same coin, but with very different properties.

In space, particularly in dual-layer plasma, the charges are carried through moving currents that flow along the field lines of the galactic, homopolar motor. The Birkeland currents create magnetodynamic fields and pull matter into the shapes that we can see as the familiar spirals, spherical star formations and nebulae. Therefore, there's an "input" current from extra-galactic space that "feeds" the electron flow.

In Zane's experiment, the charge buildup happens because the non-conductive materials in his glass display screen, by their very nature, cause electrons to migrate away from one another. The "charge imbalance" creates a potential that is equalized when another charged body enters its field of influence -- the fingertip.

When electromagnetic radiation flows through space, it can be thought of like this:

An EM wave is created somewhere, though the oscillation of an electric dipole, so the "electric flux density" changes. The electric flux density is also known as the "electric displacement field", because the EM wave is in motion.

Now think of the wave moving through a point at some distance away -- the movement of the electric displacement field through that point creates a magnetic field perpendicular to the changing electric flux density. Since the magnetic field is also dynamic, or in motion, it produces an electric current.

Now another point at "x" distance, "senses" the variable magnetic field, so an electric field is produced. This process continues at the speed of light: changing electric fields create changing magnetic fields which create changing electric fields which create changing magnetic fields, ad infinitum. Therefore, you have a dynamic electric charge.

There are a few TPOD articles that address this: Tornado in Space and Magnetic Vortex in Space are two.

In electrostatic charges, the electrons in the material migrate to the surface because of mutual repulsion -- they want to be as far away from each other as possible. Inside the body of the dialectric material, the environment is too dense and they bump into each other all the time, so they gradually move to the surface, where they can zip around without hitting too many of their neighbors. This creates charge imbalance without the need for EM fields.

I hope I've hit the main points and not gotten too confused myself. Maxwell, Faraday, Coulomb and the other geniuses are sometimes too far above me for me to truely grasp what they wrote. That said, it bears careful consideration. I would Google some articles about Maxwell's laws.

Steve

[Plasmatic MnemoHistory]

Ok First of all I am completly elated at the opening of this forum. Specifically for this kind of evolving collective jorney in the persuit of a common interest. So I read the thread and had some ideas. I took out my IONIC air machine. And turned it on and puffed a shot of talc powder.I wanted to do it this way because of the charged particle element.

A few seconds later I reached for the machine and a large static discharge sounded. I pulled the metal dust collector out and there where some very cool Moonscape type of craters. So I put it back in and did some more "RESEARCH"I took my key with a plastic handle and repeadly caused discharges. After i took the collecter out and was amazed to find a very moon crater collection of shapes. So I photographed it and you will not believe your eyes.If someone will show me how to post some pics you will be in disbelief at the images!!! Ill email them to someone to post!
_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

[Enan Gamre]

Hello forum!

Plasmatic,

you could go to http://www.imageshack.us/ and upload your images there, and then it should give you a code which you can paste into a post here. Look for the "Thumbnail for forums (1)" code, like
[URL=http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=.jpg][IMG]http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/543/.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Check with the Preview button here.

I've edited this post to fix the code. It seems ImageShack has some problems at this moment, but uploading without registration (no e-mail) has worked fine.

[Plasmatic MnemoHistory]

As promised this is the pictures!What do you think?


[IMG]
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6894/rhondapic2098lb9.jpg[/IMG]


_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

[@rc-us]