As I said I have ran into a bit of a problem while trying to replicate the effect. I know that several conditions seems to be significant.

1. Lightbulb was turned on while exposed to the strong changing dielectric field. I tried exposing lightbulbs with no power supply connected but no luck so there.
2. The electrostatic machine and the lightbulb were connected to the same wall outlet so they shared mutual phase and ground.
3. The lightbulb was exposed to the strong changing dielectic field for prolonged length of time (15-20 minutes).
4. Since the lighbulb had an isolated metal shield around it (like in the normal table lamps) there could be that some kind of capacitive coupling occurred during the exposure to the strong changing dielectric field.

As I said previously- we had several similar lightbulbs to compare it with, no visible changes appeared on the glass and the resistance of the filament remained within normal tolerance compared to the other similar lightbulbs available to me.

The nature of light emitted was very much like the xenon lamps and the intensity of light was almost 50% stronger. In fact it was a 100W lightbulb that gave light as a 150W type.

The effect stayed consistent even when the lightbulb was moved to another location and even after a few days. The effect was so noticeable that a colleague of mine who didn't know the whole story asked me why did I replaced my table lamp lightbulb with such a bright and more powerful one.

Before I managed to accidentally break the lamp I haven't had time to measure it's temperature (I think it was as hot as a normal 100W lamp but I cannot be sure now) or spectrum of emitted light. What a shame!



It seems that as with the Shad's Neutrino Diffusor's resonator a several precise and very particular demands must be met before the effect can be reproduced. Shad spent years of his life perfecting the construction of ND and to be honest after the lightbulb broke I simply didn't spend much more time reconstructing the proper conditions needed to reproduce the lightbulb effect. My point is that as opposed to the ND which is fully understood and reproducible if one observe several seemingly unimportant and precise details in order to get it to work the lightbulb effect was a fluke yet to be understood. In fact at that time so many more interesting dielectricity effects presented themselves that the lightbulb incident was of minor interest to me.


However, my theory is that the vacuum dielectric in the lightbulb was excited with the heat and EM radiation from the AC current in a way that allowed for the strong changing dielectric field to polarize dielectric (vacuum or even glass although my bet lies with the former one) permanently in a way that would allow the heat or EM radiation from AC current to excite it even further. In fact I suspect that to a certain point the lightbulb started to behave like a discharge tube of low pressure but with a heat and EM radiation of AC current as the exciting agents.

That's all of course a wild speculation. Further experiments should be done in order to be able to reproduce the effect and the one could measure temperature, light spectrum, power consumption, EM field as well as dielectric field in order to determine what is really going on.