At 09:22 PM 3/11/98 -0600, you wrote: Hey Richard, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I was just very curious to the phenomenon you saw. As an engineer I like to try to understand what goes on. I appreciate what you've told us. If you decide to not respond that's fine. Rob > >Geez, I think Ryan was right about people being very agressive on the list >here. I made a mistake to begin >with, I thought I posted to the stamp list, but mistakenly posted here. If I >was making this crap up, I would >have bailed out when I had the chance? > > >Richard Skinner >rwskinner@worldnet.att.net >http://home.att.net/~rwskinner > >---------- >> From: Reginald Neale >> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU >> Subject: Re: [OT] Cable retained energy, was Super Caps >> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 4:08 PM >> >> Rob said: >> >> >I'm sorry I missed some of this discussion but I was wondering how he >> >proved t held a charge? How did he charge it (voltage level, type of >> >instrument, lenght of time...etc)? How did he show it held a charge >> >(voltmeter)? How did he discharge it (short, resistor leak path)? >> >Where was the cable during the test (rolled, laid out..etc)? Did he show >> >the cable was at close to no voltage after discharge? >> > >> >I have heard of antenna wires showing charges, but this was because of >> >the natural EMF of the background. >> > >> >Just curious. >> > >> I too am curious about the the specs on this cable. As a reference, a small >> camera flash stores about 5 joules of energy. That's enough to make some >> decent sparks, and more than enough to be dangerous. The formula for >> capacitive energy storage is [C*V^2]/2. As an earlier poster mentioned, >> RG-58 is approx 30pf/ft. When you do the math, you'd have to charge about >> 666 ft to about 1KV (probably wouldn't handle that) or 66666 ft to 100V to >> get 5 joules. That's 11 miles of cable. Or maybe this cable is something >> really exotic... always possible, given the eclectic nature of PicLister >> backgrounds. >> >> Reg Neale > >