Experiment - More on electrostatic rotation

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Experiment - More on electrostatic rotation

Post by Richard Hull »

The experiment has been done on the electrostatic rotation claimed in a recent scientific paper noted by Kerry Bonin in the genral forum on 2003-04-02. I am attaching an image of our setup. I am adjusting the HV supply and Tim Raney is observing the onset of rotation.

The upshot was that rotational torque was observed in an electrostatic system consisting of three identical metal spheres placed near one another. One was fixed and had a DC potential applied. The other two spheres were suspended in the same equatorial plane as the fixed sphere and in such a manner as to be relatively close and at various angles about it. The torque was said to be the result of an electrostatic torquing force not suspected at first glance.

This past week the experiment was replicated by myself and Tim Raney while visiting the Electric Spacecraft research center in Ashville North Carolina. Also present were Charles Yost, Steve Hall and the Perfesser. We were assisted in the setup and performance of these tests by Steve Hall. Several iterations and various angles and alterations of the setup were tried. In all cases, the rotation of the two suspended spheres rotated as stated in the paper.

The rotation in our experiment was very noticable and very slow.

We had the balls separated by about 5mm and it was found instantly that the balls naturally wanted to swing together and bang each other much as a "Franklin's bells" ES demo would do as the ball's polarized and then touch laterally then repelling and repeating the action. All of this at a potential of only 2kv. (expected).

However, if the voltage was set to only 1 kv, the balls pulled only slighly inward and very slowly rotated on the suspend wire axis at about 1 degree every second. The deflections at 1 KV were on the order of 90 degrees before the wind up restoring torque on the stainless steel supension wire was equalled by the coulombically induced torque.

The two balls counter-rotated in our experiment.

Any questions?

Richard Hull
Attachments
esj3balls.jpg
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
guest

Re: Experiment - More on electrostatic rotation

Post by guest »

Richard,

Is it possible to connect the spheres to rods that are free to rotate? Perhaps balance the top of the rods on ball bearing pivot points. The purpose would be to see a continuous rotation in the spheres/rods. Then a motor could be built on this effect. And is the energy used from the motor the same, less than, or greater, then the energy used in creating the high voltage conditions?

Is polarity important in affecting the results? Or was only one polarity available?

What was the current flow on your power supply? In other words, is the transfer of charge (current) causing a corona motor effect. Does it work in a vacuum? Is there a magnetic component? Can you apply the charge once and turn off the power supply and still see the effect (until the charge bleeds off)?
Doesn't that mean that work is being done in the system when no input energy is expended? I'd be careful about answering that question.

Why did you choose stainless steel suspension wire? (I assume all the spheres used this.) How was the wire terminated? To the same ground point? What about using nylon, as in fishing line, or some other non-conductor?

Just a thought, perhaps this effect is also occurring in T.T. Brown's electrostatic motor patent. It's an unusual motor, not really fitting those listed in Jefimenko's book on Electrostatic Motors.

Just some thoughts. Good job with the experiment.

-Dave
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Experiment - More on electrostatic rotation

Post by Richard Hull »

David,

I will try to address your questions.

We only had a single polarity supply (hot positive), but I am absolutely sure it would work both ways.

We ran a quick series of tests and plan on building the thing into a jeweled bearing system so continuous rotation is allowed. (provided the torque overcomes the minimal bearing friction.) The forces exhibited in this system are at least one order of magnitude below the attractive coulombic forces on the balls so a 'captured' jeweled bearing system would allow much high voltages and thus, greater torques to be developed inspite of the really large laterally attractive forces.

As regards the wires........We used SS wire because that was what the authors used. The wires were all insulted and hung from plastic insulators in the ceiling with NO cross electrical connections, thus isolating every sphere electrically from each other. Remember, one of the three spheres is rigidly mounted and fixed!!! This is the powered sphere. Due to the nature of the experiment, the opposite terminal of the supply must, or should be, connected to as close to a perfect ground as possible as this is AN ISOTROPIC CAPACITY EXPERIMENT. Theoretically, it must be viewed as the balls interacting against each other AND infinitely distant return of energy/charge exchanges. You can see in the picture how the set up is run.

No problem answering the question on energy source useage. There is no free energy. The system uses current, I am sure, although we, again, did not measure it as it is certainly below 1 ua. This one of the most sensitive of systems in ES I have ever seen. (Probably why it has never been seen.) All of this would have to be developed with a much more robust system that we hope to set up.

There are no free rides! If a motor is made, it is pulling current albeit an infintesmal amount following the infintesimal torque noted. More as we re-develop the experiment.

THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES IN NATURE. The energy for translatory or rotational motion of pondermotive systems has to come from somewhere. As regards charging the system and letting it run until the charge bleeds off.............. Same deal......... You effectively charge the static isotropic capacity of the fixed ball. There is now a fixed amount of energy in joules stored there. Now remove the supply. Due to the proximity of the other balls, you have a series of capacitors which are in a complex series/parallel capacitor charging network via very high impedance connections. Miniscule currents will flow. Due to the fact that the balls are not only attracted coulombically, but also are rotating (all by coulombic interactions, currents flow. The charges don't bleed off the balls by atmospheric effects. They are lost much more rapidly doing work in attracting one another and rotating the masses. Thus, the system runs down to a point of stasis where all the balls are charged to a similar level, but the forces needed to translate or rotate the balls are in balance with frictional forces and the system stops. In space, floating free, the balls would, of course, collide colombically rather than torque on an axis.

Again, we were verifying, to our satisfaction, that this effect was real.

Forget, forever, ion wind. It ain't happenin', not at 800-1,000 volts off of 6" perfect spheres. I am now convinced it is a net imbalance of ES (coulombic forces). We also thought that the mere constraining of the system components in an axis might force a net torque, through forced imbalance of forces. Again, because in the vacuum of empty space the balls would certainly just drift together and transfer their charges without rotating.

Naturally, a two ball system was tried and showed absolutely zero rotational effects or torques, only colombically attractive and repulsive effects at polarization. Again, those natural and expected attractive/repulsive effects began at 2kv while in the three ball system, it was absolutely mandatory that the voltage never exceed 1kv inorder to notice the torque effects.

All of the above simplest explanations should, by Ocam's razor, be accepted until hard experiment shows otherwise. Polarizing the zero point, spinning up the aether, or any one of a slew of new age ideas are not needed to explain anything above. (at least at this 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
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”