 |
There are currently, 240 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
IEEE mag article admitting unknown force
Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 @ 22:16:28 UTC by vlad
|
|
In the free-energy yahoo group Eric Krieg writes: The following is interesting, it shows the bane of many an EE or physicists being incessantly bothered by kooks with designs - but also shows a kind of experiment that needs more investigation:
Perpetual Motion Discovered at Last? A Reader Challenge
Being an experimentalist by heart, perpetual motion schemes seem to have a way of finding me. Usually brought to my attention by well meaning and overly excited friends, all have failed a few simple logic tests. Magnet motors, H2O→electricity→H2O, motor-generator-motor converters and fuel boosters (energy conversions) to name a few. Oh, and they are usually accompanied by promises of tremendous wealth and fame.
Over the years all these misguided partnering requests were declined, usually with a pointer or two about what they might want to review again from Physics-101. Usually undeterred they go off still set in their beliefs, to date I have not regretted any missed opportunities.
So you can imagine my surprise when I opened my August/September issue of The Industrial Physicist and on page 8 saw an article entitled "Spin and Energy -Free?" Being an un-refereed, but respected journal, I was quite surprised to see an article discussing a perpetual motion possibility, especially one based on something as old and well understood as electrostatics. Ready to punch another hole in an "impossibility" I read on. Now I'm going to jump ahead here a little so you won't be tempted to do what I was going to do, that is turn the page prematurely.
Both the mathematical and experimental data supporting this latest discovery have been rigorously reviewed and prior published in The Journal of Physics [1][2], Applied Physics Letters [3], Europhysics Letters [4], and The Journal of Mathematical Physics [5] among others. For those of you who publish you understand the gravity of being reviewed and accepted by some of these names. You also understand that perpetual motion theories can be a death-nail in your career.
The referenced journals got my attention so I contacted one of the authors, Dr. Anders O. Wistrom of the University of California-Riverside. He very graciously forwarded me copies of the papers I was unable to locate (for free) on the Web, as well as some yet to be published writings and FAQ's. He also agreed to be interviewed for this article.
Let me begin by saying Dr. Wistrom is quick to point out that to date his experiments have yielded only qualitative data and that he is encouraging others to generate quantitative results through carefully designed experiments. He is interested is in having other experimentalists further this work and devise some advanced experiments to help explain this hereto unexplained phenomenon.
Perpetual Motion Explained
I'll skip through the 10 or so pages of calculus [1] that show why this is seemingly possible and does not violate any known laws of physics; the numerous journal reviewers are far more qualified at that than I. Instead let's jump right into the background, theory and physical results.
Out of frustration when dealing with colloidal systems, Dr. Wistrom and Dr. A. V. M. Khachatourian were searching for a workable general solution to 3-body particle interactions. The theory they put forth is that an asymmetric electrostatic charge distribution amongst three or more spherical conductive objects will cause a constant torque to be expressed as a direct consequence of the Coulomb force and Gauss' law of electric potential. 3-Body interactions are not simply an extension of proven 2-Body interactions. This includes both molecular and everyday macroscopic objects. Their theory states that for a fixed voltage a value for the observed electrostatic torque is proportional to the inverse of the forth power of the separation distance. The key to this theory is that charge distribution is not necessarily equal over the entire surface of a conducting sphere under all circumstances.
Qualitative Findings
The experiments that were conducted all involved three conducting spheres, a photo is shown in Figure 1. One sphere is rigidly mounted and attached to a high voltage D.C. power source in the range of 500 V to 5 kV. The two remaining spheres are suspended from insulated wires or mono-filament lines about 1 m long as detailed in Figure 2. All three spheres were similarly sized and ranged from roughly 4 to 24 cm in diameter. Sphere weights are not important. All were either metallic or metallic coated and the experiments were all conducted within a draft-free room or Faraday cage after many hours of equalization.
Figure 1., Photo of Spheres used in this Experiment. Figure 2., Experimental Setup
When the three spheres were arranged to form an equilateral triangle with separations being on the order of ≤5 mm, as expected no rotational torque occurs. When this angle is increased to between 60° and 180° (with a maxima occurring at 90°), an unexpected (and opposite) rotational torque is observed in the second and third spheres (see Figure 3.). If the angle is extended beyond 180° a second maxima is again found but with reversed torque directions. A typical experiment shows that at both maxima the continuous torque is estimated to be on the order of 0.5 dyne·cm using these voltages and separations. This torque will continue to generate rotation until an offsetting counterbalancing torque is generated by the twisting of the support wires. Now with a 0.5 dyne·cm torque you shouldn't expect the spheres to leap to their new positions, it takes on the order of 10 min to rotate 30° or so. But his implies that if you were to remove the opposing torque, say by installing a bearing, the rotational velocity would be free to increase without bound. Hence, perpetual motion caused by a static charge.
Figure 3., Torque vs. Sphere Angle
Once the electrostatic charge is removed the spheres return to their original positions, reapplication always results in the same directional torque regardless of sphere size, conductive construction or experimental location. The effect is also expected to increase as the square of the applied voltage, so higher voltages should be able to overcome any bearing frictions and the spheres should continue to gain rotational velocity until air drag effects begin to intervene, of course a vacuum chamber would logically take this to its next step.
If you look graphically at Dr. Wistrom's published illustrations it is easy to see how this torque could be generated (assuming you disregard several basic ideas in electromagnetic field theory which have been around for centuries, like charge distribution on conducting spheres). I encourage you to download a copy of the Applied Physics Letter which can be found at: http://homepage.mac.com/awaspaas/rotation.pdf. and access the remaining journal articles through your subscriptions or a local library.
Experimental Challenge
If you are like me a variety of possible torque generating mechanisms might come to mind as a possible explanation for this phenomenon. Low intensity coronal discharges, the earths magnetic field, filament effects, high-voltage "wind" and more. Dr. Wistrom and his colleagues believe they have effectively addressed many of these obvious solutions but believes truly quantitative experimental designs are still required to advance the proof. Data needs to be collected showing for example, the lack of high-voltage current flow into the charged sphere, the voltages present on each spheres before and during each run and the actual measured torques generated by each sphere. It would also be beneficial to consider an electromagnetic and electrostatic enclosure and could prove very interesting if you were to develop a low-friction bearing system.
I don't foresee the initial solutions being a complex experiment nor involving vast sums of money. Dr. Wistrom's initial experiments were quite simple yet showed measurable results. Perhaps a carefully thought out and well designed inexpensive solution that could begin at home in your basement. Or perhaps you may be interested in submitting a design to this column for others to assemble or critique. Either way, are you up to a scientific challenge?
References:
[3] Wistrom A O and Khachatourian A V M, Coulomb motor by rotation of spherical conductors via the electrostatic force, Appl. Phys. Lett., 2002, 80, 2800
[4] Khachatourian A V M and Wistrom, Electrostatic rotation of spherical conductors, Europhys. Lett., 2002, 59, 521-525
[5] Khachatourian A V M and Wistrom, A sum rule for associated Legendre polynomials with spherical triangles, J. Math Phys., 2003, 44, 849
[1] Khachatourian A V M and Wistrom, Coulomb torque-a general theory for electrostatic forces in man-body systems, J. Phys., A: Math Gen., 36, 6495-6508
[2] Khachatourian A V M and Wistrom, Evaluation of the Coulomb Force via the Fredholm integral equation. J. Phys. A: Math Gen., 2000, 33, 307-317
Originally published in My Favorite Experiment, I.E.E.E.'s Instrumentation and Measurement Magazine, Vol. 7, No.1, author John Witzel, jw@senets.com , March 2004.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 3.66
Votes: 3
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: IEEE mag article admitting unknown force (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 @ 15:56:59 UTC | The charge density on a conducting sphere is only uniform in the absence of any external fields. It general, the surface is an equipotential surface. In the presence of an external potential the charge distribution will rearrage itself to maintain this equipotential surface.
In the experiment discussed the conduction band electrons rearrage themselves, causing the rotation. As the rotation occurs the charge distribution remains the same since the conduction band electrons are free to move. This maintains a static configuration with reference to the laboratory frame.
The movement of these conduction band electrons is a current, whcih will create magnetic fields. Although these fields may not occur in the laboratory reference frame they will exist in the refernce frame of any point on the rotating spheres. |
|
|
Re: IEEE mag article admitting unknown force (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 @ 18:46:09 UTC | Hey, im just a kid here, i have nothing to loose in the physcs world, but i do honestly belive i have a PMM here, i have an active post a Physics Forrum (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=199655#post199655) and from what ive seen i haves somthing good. I have showed my design so a few trusted adults, an architect, two doctors, and soon, a Physisist. My responces so far have been positive, neither I nor them have been able to find any kind of flaw. I wont say any details here, but if we were to talk under private internet/ non internet connection, id be happy to show you.
Adam
P.S. Plese Reply to AdamChess4@aol.com |
|
|
|
|
