| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Electromagnetic Forum » Electrostatic Induction
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Vince Morgan |
 Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Perhaps this is not the right group for this enquirey but I can't find one
more suitable, and I am open to suggestions.
My technical literacy is very poor so please be patient.
Recently I took a close look at static influence machines. As you are all
aware these machines devellop HV at low current.
Originaly I was taught that these machines picked static charge out of the
air, like picking daisies. Looking at them more closely reveals that they
are using the surrounding air both as a dielectric, and as a circuit.
I wondered how the current might be increased in such machines. A few days
ago I found the following at http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko/delo/10881.
POSSIBILITIES OF ELECTRO-STATIC GENERATORS
by Nikola Tesla
Quote:
A remarkable device of this kind, embodying new features, has been recently
developed by Dr. R. J. Van de Graaff at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and is attracting extraordinary attention. (See page 96,
February, 1934, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. - Ed.) It is hailed as a revolutionary
invention with which wonders will be achieved. The technical papers refer to
it as a Colossus, a Master Key expected to unlock the secrets of nature.
Naturally enough imaginative scribes have built Spanish castles on this
foundation. So it comes that even such an ably edited paper as The Near York
Times informs its readers of a contemplated use of this generator for long
distance transmission of power. According to a bona fide report in its issue
of December 5, 1933, "the possibilities of the colossal generator have been
worked out in theory and it now remains to apply it in practice." However
visionary this scheme may appear it is not absolutely impossible. A wise
Macedonian king said: "No wall is so high that a mule loaded with gold could
not jump over it." With unlimited capital and regardless of returns, it
might be carried out.
In view of many articles and editorials written in the same vein, which have
amazed the layman and amused the expert, it may not be amiss to examine the
merits of this odd contrivance in the light of well demonstrated scientific
facts.
Most people, and not a few electricians, will think that very long and noisy
sparks are indicative of great energy, which is far from being the case. An
impressive display of this kind, at several million volts, can be readily
obtained with any wide leather or fabric belt in dry weather. The only
requirement is that the outward surfaces of the highly charged capacity
elements be arranged along an ideal boundary everywhere of small curvature.
But the electrical energy is trifling and this applies to all electrostatic
generators which have been proposed, irrespective of size.
In estimating the amount of electricity furnished to each terminal per
second, only the sprayer need be considered as it supplies much more than
could be generated by friction of the belts. The device used has not been
clearly described but it is sufficient for the purpose of this dissertation
to know that it operates at 20,000 volts and energizes, through rows of
points, the two belts which are said to be four feet, or 120 centimeters,
wide. Assuming that they are run at a speed of 100 feet or 3,000 centimeters
per second, the area covered in this time interval would be 120 x 3,000 =
360,000 square centimeters. If it were possible to charge the belts
uniformly to a surface density anything like that existing on an electrified
particle, the output of the machine would be very great. But this can never
be realized. The following approximate estimate will show what may be
reasonably expected.
Although he pays close attention to the charge carrier(belt) he identifies
the charge sprayer as the primary reason for the low current in the Van de
Graaff, I believe, and by extension that could be applied to all such
machines, including inluence machines like the Pidgeon or Wimhurst.
Toward the end of the document he wrote something I found very interesting
personaly.
Quote:
Static electricity may be eventually harnessed for driving motors and this p
rospect is attractive on account of the enormous power output of such a
machine at very high voltages. The efficient generation and control of these
is the chief impediment in this direction. As an interesting experiment the
two units of the generator described might be separated and so an electric
drive improvised. It would be operative but inefficient.
If I were to locate an isolated flat metal plate, with a wire attatched
through a load to earth, such that an insulated charged body oscillating
tangentially across the surface of the plate would induce an AC current in
the wire, I could have a rather efficient electric generator? As the
charged bodies static potential (field?) is in no way diminished by the
interactions it can be viewed (without regard to leakage) as an infinite
source of potential energy. Is this true? If this is true it would imply
that one could repeatedly induce a current between potentials without having
to continuously reestablish those pontentials. This certainly has some
philosophical implications.
One could look for manifestations of forces that would identify the work
being done to drive the circuit other than by the charged potential, but I
can't see them personaly. They must exist mustn't they? Where are they?
Many are familiar with the existence of the mysterious 'Testatica" machine
in Switzerland. Looking much like a modified Wimhurst or Pidgeon it appears
to be capable of the impossible. However, when one examines this machine it
become apparent that the charge collectors are a vast improvement on the
comb type usualy used in similar machines. Perhaps the designer of this
machine read Tesla's observations too.
I believe a very efficient electric generator could be devised that
incorporated the use of static fields to induce current, without
neutralising those potentials in the process.
Please feel free to offer any learned critisism of my idea. I would
appreciate it very much indeed, though philisophical arguments will be
treated as a point of view if I may.
Regards,
Vince |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Benj |
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 6, 1:32 am, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Quote: Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about electrostatic
machines.
"Many are familiar with the existence of the mysterious 'Testatica"
machine
in Switzerland. Looking much like a modified Wimhurst or Pidgeon it
appears
to be capable of the impossible."
Except that the "advantage" of the Swiss "Testatica" machine is that
it produces more power than it takes to run it. Generally speaking
all the magnetic "free energy" machines have demonstrated little proof
of this... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Kelly |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47575fbf$0$7421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: Perhaps this is not the right group for this enquirey but I can't find one
more suitable, and I am open to suggestions.
My technical literacy is very poor so please be patient.
Recently I took a close look at static influence machines. As you are all
aware these machines devellop HV at low current.
Originaly I was taught that these machines picked static charge out of the
air, like picking daisies. Looking at them more closely reveals that they
are using the surrounding air both as a dielectric, and as a circuit.
I wondered how the current might be increased in such machines. A few
days
ago I found the following at http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko/delo/10881.
POSSIBILITIES OF ELECTRO-STATIC GENERATORS
by Nikola Tesla
Quote:
A remarkable device of this kind, embodying new features, has been
recently
developed by Dr. R. J. Van de Graaff at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and is attracting extraordinary attention. (See page 96,
February, 1934, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. - Ed.) It is hailed as a
revolutionary
invention with which wonders will be achieved. The technical papers refer
to
it as a Colossus, a Master Key expected to unlock the secrets of nature.
Naturally enough imaginative scribes have built Spanish castles on this
foundation. So it comes that even such an ably edited paper as The Near
York
Times informs its readers of a contemplated use of this generator for long
distance transmission of power. According to a bona fide report in its
issue
of December 5, 1933, "the possibilities of the colossal generator have
been
worked out in theory and it now remains to apply it in practice." However
visionary this scheme may appear it is not absolutely impossible. A wise
Macedonian king said: "No wall is so high that a mule loaded with gold
could
not jump over it." With unlimited capital and regardless of returns, it
might be carried out.
In view of many articles and editorials written in the same vein, which
have
amazed the layman and amused the expert, it may not be amiss to examine
the
merits of this odd contrivance in the light of well demonstrated
scientific
facts.
Most people, and not a few electricians, will think that very long and
noisy
sparks are indicative of great energy, which is far from being the case.
An
impressive display of this kind, at several million volts, can be readily
obtained with any wide leather or fabric belt in dry weather. The only
requirement is that the outward surfaces of the highly charged capacity
elements be arranged along an ideal boundary everywhere of small
curvature.
But the electrical energy is trifling and this applies to all
electrostatic
generators which have been proposed, irrespective of size.
In estimating the amount of electricity furnished to each terminal per
second, only the sprayer need be considered as it supplies much more than
could be generated by friction of the belts. The device used has not been
clearly described but it is sufficient for the purpose of this
dissertation
to know that it operates at 20,000 volts and energizes, through rows of
points, the two belts which are said to be four feet, or 120 centimeters,
wide. Assuming that they are run at a speed of 100 feet or 3,000
centimeters
per second, the area covered in this time interval would be 120 x 3,000 =
360,000 square centimeters. If it were possible to charge the belts
uniformly to a surface density anything like that existing on an
electrified
particle, the output of the machine would be very great. But this can
never
be realized. The following approximate estimate will show what may be
reasonably expected.
Although he pays close attention to the charge carrier(belt) he identifies
the charge sprayer as the primary reason for the low current in the Van de
Graaff, I believe, and by extension that could be applied to all such
machines, including inluence machines like the Pidgeon or Wimhurst.
Toward the end of the document he wrote something I found very interesting
personaly.
Quote:
Static electricity may be eventually harnessed for driving motors and this
p
rospect is attractive on account of the enormous power output of such a
machine at very high voltages. The efficient generation and control of
these
is the chief impediment in this direction. As an interesting experiment
the
two units of the generator described might be separated and so an electric
drive improvised. It would be operative but inefficient.
If I were to locate an isolated flat metal plate, with a wire attatched
through a load to earth, such that an insulated charged body oscillating
tangentially across the surface of the plate would induce an AC current in
the wire, I could have a rather efficient electric generator? As the
charged bodies static potential (field?) is in no way diminished by the
interactions it can be viewed (without regard to leakage) as an infinite
source of potential energy. Is this true? If this is true it would imply
that one could repeatedly induce a current between potentials without
having
to continuously reestablish those pontentials. This certainly has some
philosophical implications.
One could look for manifestations of forces that would identify the work
being done to drive the circuit other than by the charged potential, but I
can't see them personaly. They must exist mustn't they? Where are they?
Many are familiar with the existence of the mysterious 'Testatica" machine
in Switzerland. Looking much like a modified Wimhurst or Pidgeon it
appears
to be capable of the impossible. However, when one examines this machine
it
become apparent that the charge collectors are a vast improvement on the
comb type usualy used in similar machines. Perhaps the designer of this
machine read Tesla's observations too.
I believe a very efficient electric generator could be devised that
incorporated the use of static fields to induce current, without
neutralising those potentials in the process.
Please feel free to offer any learned critisism of my idea. I would
appreciate it very much indeed, though philisophical arguments will be
treated as a point of view if I may.
Regards,
Vince
The problem with electrostatic machines (and such motors and generators
exist)- in addition to the necessarily high voltages is that the energy
density of such devices, at best, is far inferior to that of electromagnetic
machines. Thus a 1HP motor might require several thousand volts and be the
size of a house. Note the sizes mentioned in your reference. These are
practical considerations that limit electrostatic machines- too big, too
high a voltage and too expensive. The "sprayers" are a minor problem and are
a bit more efficient overall than friction contacts. Size is the major
problem (this has a great deal to do with the difference between mu0 and
epsilon0) and is one that can't be wished away.
The Van de Graff machine has had limited use- for a HV low current supply
for charge accelerators as an example. A small one can fill a 3 story
tower. Beyond that electrostatic precipitators are commonly used to reduce
particulates in exhaust gasses from coal fired power plants and in some
other applications. There are also electrostatic speakers, microphones and
some sensors so the use of electrostatic machines is quite common-where
their benefits overcome their disadvantages.
Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about electrostatic
machines.
As for your oscillating charged body - why do you think that this will
produce a current in the wire? --
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vince Morgan |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2IM5j.3841$sg.740@pd7urf1no...
Quote: ----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47575fbf$0$7421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: As for your oscillating charged body - why do you think that this will
produce a current in the wire? --
Hi Don,
As an experiement I recently made a flat plate capacitor
from and old cd and aluminium foil. Passing a mildly statically charged
plastic tube (bic pen body) back and forth over the upper capacitor plate
induced an AC flow through an air cored inductor connected in series to the
plates. There is no exchange of energy as the pen's static charge decayed
(apparently) as it would at rest on an insulated surface. I believe the
source of the energy is the field ascociated with the charge on the pen,
which if insulated sufficiently should decay at a rate that has little
relationship, if any at all, to it's deployment.
From what little I do know of the science of electrostatics, I believed that
my result was to be expected.
A charged body will induce a charge seperation on a metal object, some field
lines from the charged body will fall on those sepperated charges and in
doing so create an electrical potential.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here. That wouldn't be anything new
Highest regards,
Vince Morgan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vince Morgan |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:8c9d0853-4616-4203-81af-6e9b1842a0e1@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Dec 6, 1:32 am, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Except that the "advantage" of the Swiss "Testatica" machine is that
it produces more power than it takes to run it. Generally speaking
all the magnetic "free energy" machines have demonstrated little proof
of this...
My thoughts exactly Benj.
It employes unique techniques that are not used in other static induction
type machines. I though it quite pertinent that Tesla saw, not "Static
Induction" as weak, but the methods then used on those machines to move
charge around and recover that charge. The "Testatica" actualy does seem to
achieve to some extent what Tesla envisiaged in this regard.
Thank you,
Vince Morgan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vince Morgan |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4757aca9$0$20842$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2IM5j.3841$sg.740@pd7urf1no...
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47575fbf$0$7421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
plates. There is no exchange of energy as the pen's static charge decayed
(apparently) as it would at rest on an insulated surface. I believe the
I should have said there was no energy lost from the field(apparently).
There may have been a kinetic exchange between my arm and the plates I
suppose but that is another matter I think.
Vince |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vince Morgan |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4757aca9$0$20842$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2IM5j.3841$sg.740@pd7urf1no...
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47575fbf$0$7421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: A charged body will induce a charge seperation on a metal object, some
field
lines from the charged body will fall on those sepperated charges and in
doing so create an electrical potential.
The above should read;
Some of the seperated charge becomes bound to the charged body leaving
unpaired charges. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 5, 11:36 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
Quote: On Dec 6, 1:32 am, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about electrostatic
machines.
"Many are familiar with the existence of the mysterious 'Testatica"
machine
in Switzerland. Looking much like a modified Wimhurst or Pidgeon it
appears
to be capable of the impossible."
Except that the "advantage" of the Swiss "Testatica" machine is that
it produces more power than it takes to run it. Generally speaking
all the magnetic "free energy" machines have demonstrated little proof
of this...
"little proof": Howard Johnson's and Reidar Finsrud's magnetic motors |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
critisism -> criticism
it's -> its
sepperated -> separated |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 5, 10:32 pm, "Don Kelly" (arsehole who doesn't trim quotes)
<d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Quote: The problem with electrostatic machines (and such motors and generators
exist)- in addition to the necessarily high voltages is that the energy
density of such devices, at best, is far inferior to that of electromagnetic
machines. Thus a 1HP motor might require several thousand volts and be the
size of a house. Note the sizes mentioned in your reference. These are
practical considerations that limit electrostatic machines- too big, too
high a voltage and too expensive. The "sprayers" are a minor problem and are
a bit more efficient overall than friction contacts. Size is the major
problem (this has a great deal to do with the difference between mu0 and
epsilon0) and is one that can't be wished away.
What about with PZT? LNT? ST? BT? CsF? CF? CsNa plasma? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Kelly |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
----------------------------
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:8c9d0853-4616-4203-81af-6e9b1842a0e1@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Dec 6, 1:32 am, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about
electrostatic
machines.
"Many are familiar with the existence of the mysterious 'Testatica"
machine
in Switzerland. Looking much like a modified Wimhurst or Pidgeon it
appears
to be capable of the impossible."
Except that the "advantage" of the Swiss "Testatica" machine is that
it produces more power than it takes to run it. Generally speaking
all the magnetic "free energy" machines have demonstrated little proof
of this...
-----
Do you believe this? I don't. As with the various electromagnetic machines
inadequate instrumentation can lead to wonderful results. note that the one
thing that is lacking is adequate tests made by an independent and
competent lab. Somehow, any time this is done, it is time to bring out the
excuses for failure. --
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Kelly |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4757aca9$0$20842$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2IM5j.3841$sg.740@pd7urf1no...
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47575fbf$0$7421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
As for your oscillating charged body - why do you think that this will
produce a current in the wire? --
Hi Don,
As an experiement I recently made a flat plate capacitor
from and old cd and aluminium foil. Passing a mildly statically charged
plastic tube (bic pen body) back and forth over the upper capacitor plate
induced an AC flow through an air cored inductor connected in series to
the
plates. There is no exchange of energy as the pen's static charge decayed
(apparently) as it would at rest on an insulated surface. I believe the
source of the energy is the field ascociated with the charge on the pen,
which if insulated sufficiently should decay at a rate that has little
relationship, if any at all, to it's deployment.
From what little I do know of the science of electrostatics, I believed
that
my result was to be expected.
A charged body will induce a charge seperation on a metal object, some
field
lines from the charged body will fall on those sepperated charges and in
doing so create an electrical potential.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here. That wouldn't be anything
new
Highest regards,
Vince Morgan
Try it without the inductor but with a closed circuit-just a wire- see if
there is any current. Alternatively leave it "open circuit" but with a very
high impedance voltmeter across the capacitor - I would be curious about
your results. You are unlikely to make the rod move fast enough to make
the inductance a factor so its presence should not be necessary Small C and
small L means that with anything you can move manually, you are a long way
from any conditions where the inductance will be important.
Yes, as you predicted, you will have a change in the charge balance and a
current will flow in the external loop (which has a low impedance, quite
different from a large air gap in the device mentioned before -in which the
current in the air would be extremely small-possibly not measurable).
Another way of looking at it is as a two capacitor system in which one
capacitor is the rod-plate capacitor which you are varying. Using quite
standard energy balance analysis techniques it should be fairly simple to
show what is going on. Note that force in a capacitive system can be due to
changing charge on a fixed capacitor or changing capacitance with a fixed
charge. Output energy will be lost in resistance in the wire. Input energy
comes from you. The electrostatic system is simply a mechanical/electrical
conversion device supplying no energy from the charges. The force that you
apply to move the pen has a component due to the acceleration of the mass of
the rod and also a component in that you are modifying the electrostatic
conditions in the system. The magnetic equivalent is moving a magnet
through a coil- no net energy is removed from the magnetic field which
simply acts as a transfer mechanism. You could also get an effect with a
parallel plate air core capacitor and physically flexing it to change the
gap between plates. This will not take energy from the electrostatic
field -and is at the heart of some electrostatic transducers.
The Swiss device looks interesting but there is the same problem that occurs
with a lot of magnetic "free energy" machines -inadequate and inappropriate
instrumentation as proper instrumentation requires a good knowledge of what
is being measured and equipment well beyond that available at the nearest
Radio Shack. Essentially this machine appears to have a moving charge
situation and a charge in motion is a current which produces a varying
magnetic field coupled to a coil- presto -Faraday's Law. Move the charge
fast enough and n appreciable voltage can be induced in the coil. In
addition, as with most of these devices, there is a high frequency component
(rectified or not) and often resonance. Resonance seems great but the high
currents and or voltages do not translate into high power. The better the
resonance, the less the average input and output power (which is what is of
importance) involved.
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Benj |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 6, 8:03 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote: "little proof": Howard Johnson's and Reidar Finsrud's magnetic motors
Howard Johnson: Typical magnet motor nonsense but was granted a
patent.
Reidar Finsrud: A VERY high efficiency "perpetual mobile" that is one
of the finest works of art on the planet! However it does NOT "run
forever". It does run for a very long time, though.
You forgot to mention those "perpetual motion" clocks. They DO "run
forever"!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Benj |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 6, 3:09 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Quote: Do you believe this? I don't. As with the various electromagnetic machines
inadequate instrumentation can lead to wonderful results. note that the one
thing that is lacking is adequate tests made by an independent and
competent lab. Somehow, any time this is done, it is time to bring out the
excuses for failure. --
What I believe is of no consequence. I have not personally tested
these Swiss machines so I cannot comment as to the validity of the
results. However, there is considerable comment in the crank press
verifying interesting things apparently happening.
However, I personally HAVE tested a number of "free energy" "N"
machines and found them quite lacking. Also the various magnetic motor
devices tend to be lacking as well. People sort of forget that
electromagnetic fields are VERY perfect in accepting and giving up
energy. There is little room there for more energy out than you put
in.
Thus, I pretty much agree with your assessment except the part about
"independent and competent" labs. My experience is that they are
neither independent nor competent and generally have axes to grind to
about the same degree as the "peer-reviewed" press. Do you think that
big oil would allow any device to become known that would eliminate
the need for fuel in vehicles? Gimme a break! Do you think the
GOVERNMENT would not also be in lock-step with big business? Nay. The
only "independent and competent" lab I'd trust is experiments done by
me right in front of my fat little face with my own gear or gear I
trust. Hell, one of the largest and most "prestigious" "independent
labs" in the country pulled some of my work right out of publication
to cover it up!
Just look at the name-calling we've seen right here regarding "crank"
literature as mild as the Jefimenko books! Can you imagine the kind
of resistance and "debunking" REAL blockbuster discoveries left out of
control might engender? One of these days "science" is going to have
a LOT to answer for! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vince Morgan |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9DZ5j.161$jq2.92@pd7urf1no...
Alternatively leave it "open circuit" but with a very
Quote: high impedance voltmeter across the capacitor - I would be curious about
your results.
This I have done , and did observe a noticable current. The values etc I
couldn't tell you at this point as it was a very rudimentary experiment.
You are unlikely to make the rod move fast enough to make
Quote: the inductance a factor so its presence should not be necessary Small C
and
small L means that with anything you can move manually, you are a long way
from any conditions where the inductance will be important.
Thank you for that. To be honest I had very little reason behind the
inclusion of the inductor in the first place other than to observe any
choking that might occur.
Quote: Yes, as you predicted, you will have a change in the charge balance and a
current will flow in the external loop (which has a low impedance, quite
different from a large air gap in the device mentioned before -in which
the
current in the air would be extremely small-possibly not measurable).
Yes, very different indeed.
Quote: The force that you
apply to move the pen has a component due to the acceleration of the mass
of
the rod and also a component in that you are modifying the electrostatic
conditions in the system.
Yes, I beleive this is where the energy transfer must be happening in my
experiment.
Quote: The Swiss device looks interesting but there is the same problem that
occurs
with a lot of magnetic "free energy" machines -inadequate and
inappropriate
instrumentation as proper instrumentation requires a good knowledge of
what
is being measured and equipment well beyond that available at the nearest
Radio Shack.
There has never, to my knowledge, been a thorough testing of this
machine/machines. There are quite a few of them within the Merthinia
community of varying sizes and outputs, and the smaller ones are not
identical in operation to the original. However, the differences are
inconsequential apparently.
What is truly curious about thier very existence is the fact that there
appears to be no gain whatsoever in any fraud here. And that they have been
used (or claim to be used) for over thirty years now. There has never been
any monetary or political gain and all the available evidence is that the
community itself has very little interest in the attention these machines
have generated. Perhaps they are all sharing a similar delusion.
Time reveals all things, and perhaps thirty years isn't long enough.
I don't beleive these machines produce more energy than it takes to run
them, from a scientific perspective. However, from an entirely different
perspective, it is hard to ignore the simple fact that they actualy exist,
that they took much time and effort to build, and are in every way worthless
to a community that by and large abhores publicity if they actualy don't
work.
Even Eienstein once stated that it would take as much energy to release
nuclear energy as would be returned in the process. A chain of curiosities
regarding previously unobserved phenomena combined with a disciplined
approach eventualy lead to this conclusion being disproved. And even
Rutherford deemed it impossible. The problem there was that at first glance
it would appear to violate conservation of energy I beleive. At first,
second, third, etc. glance it seemed impossible.
I don't beleive the "Testatica" produces more power than it takes to run it.
But I don't disbeleive it either.
The idea behind all this is to try and produce either a solid state static
induction generator using wire for the circuitry rather than air. Or, if
that proves impossible, or too far beyond my capabilities (and that
certainly is true currently), a compact rotary device that uses a wire
circuit rather than air. And it must produce current suitable for inductive
loads. If it could be entirely self exiting then I will have icing on my
cake.
I've been purchasing equipment, oscilloscope etc. and components, for a
couple of weeks now with the intention of doing some more rigorous
experiments with measured results. I'll post those results here as they
become available. And Don, you are more than welcome to offer suggestions
as to what experiments would be of interest to you, and I will endevour to
do them accordingly. As I shall with your current suggestions.
Thank you for taking the time and effort Don,
Highly appreciated,
Vince |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:49 pm
|
|