http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=548
I wish someone would dig into this and get more details.
What did Wistrom see and at what dc voltage? How much twisting of the spheres did he observe? What does this indicate about quantum spin? How would fusor design be affected?
electrostatic rotation?
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: electrostatic rotation?
Good man Tony! You pushed the info on ES rotation to the proper forum. This announcement is certainly interesting. The chrome polish on the spheres tends to militate against sharp concentrations of charge bleed and ion wind effects.
The next question is just how true to flawless figures of revolution are the spheres. With coulombic forces, a slight egging might induce rotation as quickly as a sharp bleed point.
Richard Hull
The next question is just how true to flawless figures of revolution are the spheres. With coulombic forces, a slight egging might induce rotation as quickly as a sharp bleed point.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: electrostatic rotation?
They don't seem to be very revealing of details yet. They do say that the phenonmena can be predicted if you go back to the most basic rules governing the behavior of charges and electric fields. I'll be glad when there's more detail out.
Re: electrostatic rotation?
I found more: http://www.engr.ucr.edu/~wistrom/
Frankly, the more I read about this, the more I think it's somebody's idea of a practical joke. It looks to me as though it would violate conservation of energy, for one thing.
Frankly, the more I read about this, the more I think it's somebody's idea of a practical joke. It looks to me as though it would violate conservation of energy, for one thing.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: electrostatic rotation?
I'm intrigued by this to say the least. A lot of amazing things could be explained if this is real. I have a trip planned to electric spacecraft for a meeting of the board of tustees in May and we may just give this experiment a shot.
I am concerned that the conditions of the experiment may be super critical or that the rotation is induced via unseen field irregularities outside the experiment. The one thing that lends hope is that their voltages were not all that high and in some cases downright low! It would be tough to advance a remote interferance force when the total voltage used in the experiment is under 5kv.
At all events, their discription of the setup is nebulous, at best. I would love to be able to quiz these guys more on the epitome of their process. A friend of mine has tried to contact them via e-mail, but hasn't heard back yet.
Certainly ion wind is nixed out of the picture at low voltages. The concern regarding conservation of energy is well taken. There is a source of potential energy, but we would normally think of it distributing itself quickly on perfect spherical isotropic capacities nearby and not inducing more than a temporary coulombic reaction. Apparently these guys are claiming that in this special case, the energy exchange is multi-bodied and ongoing. If this is the case the potential energy source would then change over to a dynamic source, current would flow and no violation would occur. I don't think they are claiming a single charge on one ball would keep the work going forever.
A static charge on a ball from a van de graff or a power supply, if left connected, is really a dynamic source of what appears to be potential energy.
Richard Hull
I am concerned that the conditions of the experiment may be super critical or that the rotation is induced via unseen field irregularities outside the experiment. The one thing that lends hope is that their voltages were not all that high and in some cases downright low! It would be tough to advance a remote interferance force when the total voltage used in the experiment is under 5kv.
At all events, their discription of the setup is nebulous, at best. I would love to be able to quiz these guys more on the epitome of their process. A friend of mine has tried to contact them via e-mail, but hasn't heard back yet.
Certainly ion wind is nixed out of the picture at low voltages. The concern regarding conservation of energy is well taken. There is a source of potential energy, but we would normally think of it distributing itself quickly on perfect spherical isotropic capacities nearby and not inducing more than a temporary coulombic reaction. Apparently these guys are claiming that in this special case, the energy exchange is multi-bodied and ongoing. If this is the case the potential energy source would then change over to a dynamic source, current would flow and no violation would occur. I don't think they are claiming a single charge on one ball would keep the work going forever.
A static charge on a ball from a van de graff or a power supply, if left connected, is really a dynamic source of what appears to be potential energy.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
marsbeyond
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:42 am
- Real name:
Re: electrostatic rotation?
When this first came out on April 2, 2003, I thought it was a late April Fool's joke too. But many physicists are taking it very seriously. Wistrom got into this because he was modelling air pollution, and other many particled systems. Isn't the law of gravitation limited to two bodies as well? I remeber someone mentioning a "three body problem". I wonder how many old simple experiments need to be repeated (or done for the first time now) in a multi-body mode? As far as violating conservation of energy, I was wondering what would happen if the two hanging spheres were instead suspended on air bearings?
Somehow they would have to be fixed to a shaft so they remain at a constant distance from each other would they not?
This sounds like a fairly simple experiment, if you have some air bearings.
Somehow they would have to be fixed to a shaft so they remain at a constant distance from each other would they not?
This sounds like a fairly simple experiment, if you have some air bearings.
Re: electrostatic rotation?
Before I would go and claim to have found new physical principles, I would carefully check the old ones!. I read over the info at the UCR web site, (thanks Tony) and it seems a little more coherently explained than the earlier blurb. But they obviously are being close mouthed about it, for a reason. Perhaps for issues of experimental priority - maybe there are some potential patent issues there... (sorry about that awful pun).
But without a description of the spheres - ie: their sphericity or deviation from a perfect sphere, it is impossible to tell if this is due to undiscovered physics or plain jane physics we all somewhat know and love..
When charged spheres are in close proximity, their charges will induce a charge assymmetry on the other surfaces. That much is elementary electrostatics. As to a continued spinning motion, I think this is not likely without a steady input of energy, because... in the non quantum scale of this experiment, the rotating charge surfaces are required to radiate energy.
Air bearings, while an attractive idea for a nearly frictionless support, will induce rotational torques from boundary layer effects. A simple example of this can be seen in the flow meters which use a small sphere, supported by gas flow to indicate. The spheres all rotate.
There are other non-electrostatic effects that may come into play when the spheres begin to move. The charges and their images on the other spheres, will effectively move across the sphere surfaces... thus becoming surface currents These currents can easily interact and could create some type of spherical quasi-induction motor. The earth's magnetic is more than strong enough to create the necessary torques.
There are also other very mundane electrostatic sources of anisotropy... like...dust attracted to the surfaces by the charges.
Does anyone know what the sphere dimensions are?
Also how fine are the support wires? And... why aren't they a source of motion? There are many questions about the experimental procedure to be asked.
This experiment is only simply in theory. Implementing it in any kind of controlled manner, so as to be able to give reasonable estimates of all influences involved...is far from simple.
I am reminded of a comment made by the college profs who were attempting to replicate Coulomb's original experimental settup by which he deduced the inverse square law of electrostatic attraction- repulsion. After taking data with their replicated apparatus, they said they were unable to see how Coulomb was able to see the inverse square relationship beacuse of all the vibratory noise in the torsional pendulum.
Another point to consider with the UCR claim is whether the rotational effects persist after the charging sources are disconnected. That part is not clearly stated.
Something must be going on, if they have submited an Applied Physics Letter for publication. Foolishness here is hazardous to your professional career's health.
Dave Cooper
But without a description of the spheres - ie: their sphericity or deviation from a perfect sphere, it is impossible to tell if this is due to undiscovered physics or plain jane physics we all somewhat know and love..
When charged spheres are in close proximity, their charges will induce a charge assymmetry on the other surfaces. That much is elementary electrostatics. As to a continued spinning motion, I think this is not likely without a steady input of energy, because... in the non quantum scale of this experiment, the rotating charge surfaces are required to radiate energy.
Air bearings, while an attractive idea for a nearly frictionless support, will induce rotational torques from boundary layer effects. A simple example of this can be seen in the flow meters which use a small sphere, supported by gas flow to indicate. The spheres all rotate.
There are other non-electrostatic effects that may come into play when the spheres begin to move. The charges and their images on the other spheres, will effectively move across the sphere surfaces... thus becoming surface currents These currents can easily interact and could create some type of spherical quasi-induction motor. The earth's magnetic is more than strong enough to create the necessary torques.
There are also other very mundane electrostatic sources of anisotropy... like...dust attracted to the surfaces by the charges.
Does anyone know what the sphere dimensions are?
Also how fine are the support wires? And... why aren't they a source of motion? There are many questions about the experimental procedure to be asked.
This experiment is only simply in theory. Implementing it in any kind of controlled manner, so as to be able to give reasonable estimates of all influences involved...is far from simple.
I am reminded of a comment made by the college profs who were attempting to replicate Coulomb's original experimental settup by which he deduced the inverse square law of electrostatic attraction- repulsion. After taking data with their replicated apparatus, they said they were unable to see how Coulomb was able to see the inverse square relationship beacuse of all the vibratory noise in the torsional pendulum.
Another point to consider with the UCR claim is whether the rotational effects persist after the charging sources are disconnected. That part is not clearly stated.
Something must be going on, if they have submited an Applied Physics Letter for publication. Foolishness here is hazardous to your professional career's health.
Dave Cooper
Re: electrostatic rotation?
I dont really see how its possible either, i mean, if you want to spin the system with the soheres one way, something has to spin the other way, thats sort of a basic tennet of physics dating back a LONG time ago, and i dont see what is doing it.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: electrostatic rotation?
Electrostatics will fool the hell out of you sometimes.
I have just posted about the dynamics of moving media dielectrics in the original thread in the General forum.
I doubt surface currents are involved. To interact with the earths mag field the magnetic forces on the speres would have to a be a number of guass. Real current would be needed. I doubt if the current exchanges exceed the single digit microamp range. Current and current alone drives magnetic forces and there just are no currents of use here in this system!
Curiouser and curioser. I do not believe any new physics is in play here, but just and un-appreciated form of charge transport that is non-linear and the three body systems is demanded as part of a stepped order feedback system to have charge do work as it is draw off exchanged for dynamic energy via the coulombic force. This means some small currents must flow and the energy source on the fixed sphere must be replenished, thereby not violating any thermodynamic or energy balance laws. It is patently obvious, though they did not elaborate, that if you just place a non-replenished ES potential on the stationary sphere that once that energy is used up,(translated to dynamic energy of motion), all rotation must cease.
Richard Hull
I have just posted about the dynamics of moving media dielectrics in the original thread in the General forum.
I doubt surface currents are involved. To interact with the earths mag field the magnetic forces on the speres would have to a be a number of guass. Real current would be needed. I doubt if the current exchanges exceed the single digit microamp range. Current and current alone drives magnetic forces and there just are no currents of use here in this system!
Curiouser and curioser. I do not believe any new physics is in play here, but just and un-appreciated form of charge transport that is non-linear and the three body systems is demanded as part of a stepped order feedback system to have charge do work as it is draw off exchanged for dynamic energy via the coulombic force. This means some small currents must flow and the energy source on the fixed sphere must be replenished, thereby not violating any thermodynamic or energy balance laws. It is patently obvious, though they did not elaborate, that if you just place a non-replenished ES potential on the stationary sphere that once that energy is used up,(translated to dynamic energy of motion), all rotation must cease.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: electrostatic rotation?
Richard -
I agree with your analysis, in general.
I was actually anticipating currents in the nano- ampere range or possibly smaller. For the torsional response on support "wires", all dynamics must go away after the spheres rotate through some angle.
The idea of surface currents was just a desperation attempt to speculate on what might happen if charges moved on the spheres surface - which they will do if there is any relative motion amongst the spheres.
I can see some sort of dipole or multipole interaction since there are three charged objects. Dipole or higher fields become more nonlinear with distance, and might create some type of oscillatory behavior. Can't exactly describe how, though, but there may be a coupling mechanism to link a pendulum like movement into an angular rotation.
Microscopic vibration and swinging might be all but impossible to elliminate, even with a good honeycomb highly damped optical table as the bench. Without some physical description, one whistles in the dark..
I can't tell from the little published, whether they actually had a friction -free system capable of continued rotation, or whether that was just a speculation based on the static rotation, only.
But not enough is said to give credence to any "new physics" claim.
Dave Cooper
I agree with your analysis, in general.
I was actually anticipating currents in the nano- ampere range or possibly smaller. For the torsional response on support "wires", all dynamics must go away after the spheres rotate through some angle.
The idea of surface currents was just a desperation attempt to speculate on what might happen if charges moved on the spheres surface - which they will do if there is any relative motion amongst the spheres.
I can see some sort of dipole or multipole interaction since there are three charged objects. Dipole or higher fields become more nonlinear with distance, and might create some type of oscillatory behavior. Can't exactly describe how, though, but there may be a coupling mechanism to link a pendulum like movement into an angular rotation.
Microscopic vibration and swinging might be all but impossible to elliminate, even with a good honeycomb highly damped optical table as the bench. Without some physical description, one whistles in the dark..
I can't tell from the little published, whether they actually had a friction -free system capable of continued rotation, or whether that was just a speculation based on the static rotation, only.
But not enough is said to give credence to any "new physics" claim.
Dave Cooper