## Asymmetric capacitor in High Vacuum

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Hec031 wrote:Feel free to research the subject matter and you will find what I'm saying to be the case.
D'you mean, I'll find that others saying such behaviour is due to something irrelevant? Of that... I am quite sure!!!
Hec031 wrote:It's unusual because many have tried to make this happen with an asymmetric capacitor device and have failed, except for my effort.
I've stuck a balloon to the ceiling many times by rubbing it on my shirt. Not sure I can see how this is different. Again, maybe it's just me, but I'd have expected it to do something like this!
Hec031 wrote:The point of the video was to demonstrate that if done correctly an Asymmetric capacitor will produce a visible force
No. Sorry. I can't see any forces. I have only the usual 5 senses. One includes being able to see mediating particles of the electromagnetic force, but not the force itself. That's about the extent of my mortal senses.

I can see a deflection of the suspended part. I'd guess that was hanging on around a 20cm line with a deflection angle of 1 degree or so. So if it weights around 20 grammes, then the deflection represents a vertical displacement of ~0.2mm, which is a change of potential energy of 4E-5J.

If the charging capacity is 18kV, then to achieve an equivalent electrical potential energy of 4E-5J would require a capacitance, wrt chamber wall, of 0.2pF.... which would've been the range of my estimate of it.

So,... it still looks all 'usual' to me. Nice experiment, showing electrostatic forces acting on macroscopic bodies. You can try the balloon-on-the-celing trick next time, too.

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm
chrismb wrote:
Hec031 wrote:Feel free to research the subject matter and you will find what I'm saying to be the case.
D'you mean, I'll find that others saying such behaviour is due to something irrelevant? Of that... I am quite sure!!!
Hec031 wrote:It's unusual because many have tried to make this happen with an asymmetric capacitor device and have failed, except for my effort.
I've stuck a balloon to the ceiling many times by rubbing it on my shirt. Not sure I can see how this is different. Again, maybe it's just me, but I'd have expected it to do something like this!
Hec031 wrote:The point of the video was to demonstrate that if done correctly an Asymmetric capacitor will produce a visible force
No. Sorry. I can't see any forces. I have only the usual 5 senses. One includes being able to see mediating particles of the electromagnetic force, but not the force itself. That's about the extent of my mortal senses.

I can see a deflection of the suspended part. I'd guess that was hanging on around a 20cm line with a deflection angle of 1 degree or so. So if it weights around 20 grammes, then the deflection represents a vertical displacement of ~0.2mm, which is a change of potential energy of 4E-5J.

If the charging capacity is 18kV, then to achieve an equivalent electrical potential energy of 4E-5J would require a capacitance, wrt chamber wall, of 0.2pF.... which would've been the range of my estimate of it.

So,... it still looks all 'usual' to me. Nice experiment, showing electrostatic forces acting on macroscopic bodies. You can try the balloon-on-the-celing trick next time, too.
Sounds like you have it all figured out.

Hector

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Well.... that's why I was asking if I'd misunderstood something here. Maybe there is more to it, but I don't see a need, just yet, to invent anything further than the usual effects of capacitance.

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm
chrismb wrote:Well.... that's why I was asking if I'd misunderstood something here. Maybe there is more to it, but I don't see a need, just yet, to invent anything further than the usual effects of capacitance.
You have already done your own analysis with your own facts and your own assumptions that fit your own conclusion. I think anything I say will be just a waist of time.

Like I said I'll post the real numbers from the next experiment and then if you want, feel free to analyse it to your hearts content.

Hector

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am
Suspend the device inside the vacuum chamber from a cable-pulleys apparatus, similar to a cable car or ski lift, with a slowly turning coiled-spring motor (from an old-fashioned wind-up timer?) which steadily moves the suspension wire/monofilament upper attachment points horizontally along the length of the vacuum chamber. Design for a range of motion at least half of the chamber's maximum extent, from near the wall to beyond the center.

For steady-state electrical conditions, if the measured horizontal deflection, or the parallelogram height, or the azimuth, changes significantly as a function of distance from the vacuum chamber wall, electrostatic effects could be at play.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Hec031 wrote:You have already done your own analysis with your own facts and your own assumptions that fit your own conclusion. I think anything I say will be just a waist of time.
Not at all! I have done an analysis which, prima facie, suggests nothing unusual is going on beyond the conventional.

It is not my analysis to fit my conclusion, it is meant to be an impartial application of electrostatics.

Just explain to me why you think this is unusual.

Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am
chrismb wrote:
Hec031 wrote:You have already done your own analysis with your own facts and your own assumptions that fit your own conclusion. I think anything I say will be just a waist of time.
Not at all! I have done an analysis which, prima facie, suggests nothing unusual is going on beyond the conventional.

It is not my analysis to fit my conclusion, it is meant to be an impartial application of electrostatics.

Just explain to me why you think this is unusual.
I think he's calling you a troll but in an elegant manor. Either way I'll stay tuned and see what gets posted.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
palladin9479 wrote:I think he's calling you a troll but in an elegant manor. Either way I'll stay tuned and see what gets posted.
I don't understand why. I've simply posted a simple calculation to explain an observed phenomenon. Not exactly 'troll' behaviour, is it?

If he longs for it to be far more complicated than common electrostatics might suggest, then the issue of letting one's own assumptions fit the facts does not appear to be mine.

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm
chrismb wrote:
Hec031 wrote:You have already done your own analysis with your own facts and your own assumptions that fit your own conclusion. I think anything I say will be just a waist of time.
Not at all! I have done an analysis which, prima facie, suggests nothing unusual is going on beyond the conventional.

It is not my analysis to fit my conclusion, it is meant to be an impartial application of electrostatics.

Just explain to me why you think this is unusual.
Okay lets assume it's electrostatic attraction. We can see that the device is in theory attracting itself towards the door of the chamber. However the problem with that idea is that that is not the closest chamber surface to it. The bottom of the device is actually closer to the chamber than any other part of the chamber. So the strongest mutual attraction point would be downward not forwards. Since the device is setup in a level pendulum configuration the only visible forces would be those acting on the horizontal plan not the vertical.

The second closest surface on the horizontal once again is not the chamber door, it's the wall that has the port from which I took the video from. Not one do we see any sideways movement from the device, only forwards and backwards movement.

The device weight is 1.9 grams
The length of the pendulum arm is 16cm
The closet point to the device is at it's bottom that distance is 4.5cm
The distance to from the device leading electrode to the door is 14cm
The distance from the left of the device which is the side you see on the video is 10cm from the chamber wall.
The right side of the device opposite to what you see on the video is 14cm from the chamber wall
The distance from the back of the device to the chamber is 23cm.
The distance from top closest point of the device to the the roof of the chamber wall is 22.3cm.

The Applied voltage was 18kv with a current draw of 3uA.

Again let me try to explain the fact that while my experiment showed the presence of displacement due to a force, other attempts such as NASA ACT experiment, Dr. Campbell's ACT experiment, Dr. R.L. Talley and many others have failed to generate any displacement due to a force, which is why this experiments is a unique results.

Experiments with another kind of device not shown on these videos have resulted in the same kind of effect, but the electrodes where not exposed to the environment. Those devices had a Faraday cage component attached to the device which would prevent such effects as the one you describe from being present.

Again I would suggest that it would be prudent on you part to read more on prior experimental attempts that are similar in nature.

Hector

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm
chrismb wrote:
Hec031 wrote:You have already done your own analysis with your own facts and your own assumptions that fit your own conclusion. I think anything I say will be just a waist of time.
Not at all! I have done an analysis which, prima facie, suggests nothing unusual is going on beyond the conventional.

It is not my analysis to fit my conclusion, it is meant to be an impartial application of electrostatics.

Just explain to me why you think this is unusual.
I think he's calling you a troll but in an elegant manor. Either way I'll stay tuned and see what gets posted.
Not a troll, but simply not an objective thinker. Just look at his post on the Woodward research and you will see that he has a history of not having an open mind about anything new. He comes into these issues with his mind already made up and there is nothing you can say to people like that to convince them otherwise.

Funny thing is he mentioned a battery powered device as a way to be convince that such propellantless propulsion effects could exist. Currently I'm working on just such a device. A battery powered self contained propulsion module for testing in a rotary pendulum experiment. This device would carry it's own power source (batteries), power supply and thruster. All of this would be enclosed in an insulated body. Eventually that insulated body could be covered with a Faraday cage. Now if you guys are going to argue that a Faraday cage can't shield against Electrostatic forces than this is a dead argument.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Hec031 wrote:Again I would suggest that it would be prudent on you part to read more on prior experimental attempts that are similar in nature.
Not really... if you come to a web site about nuclear fusion and post something from a different field, then it is beholden on you to make your point in regards the experiment that you do. In fact, that would always remain to be the case, even if it were fusion. It is for you to provide the links and references that show this to be unique. Have you ever read a scientific paper? If so then you'll know there is a list of references at the end to show the reader the prior art. I have never read a paper that, under 'References', simply says "It is prudent on the reader to figure out what things need to be read before understanding this paper".

I've never heard of the people you mention, and at the moment see no reason to go looking because your experiment appears to include a grounded side to the pendulus in which case its electric field would naturally be biased on the high potential side. I'll click links where you provide them, but I'm not going to spend my time at guessing what material you think is relevant.

Thinking about 'force' seems to be adding confusion in this scenario. Think, rather; how does this pendulus, once charge, behave so as to minimise the energy in the chamber. There is no need to figure out which is the closest to what, just bear in mind that if there is an electric field only on the side of the charged element, then it would move to minimise the electric field potential on that side. And the behaviour you have filmed is entirely consistent with that. The less volume in which there is an electric field, the lower the field's potential.

As there is nominally no field potential energy on the side that is grounded, with respect to its surroundings, then that gap can open freely while the pendulus moves on the other side to minimise the field energy on that side, up to the point at which the rate of change of its gravitational potential is equal and opposite to the rate of change of the electric field, with respect to its displacement.

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm
chrismb wrote:
Hec031 wrote:Again I would suggest that it would be prudent on you part to read more on prior experimental attempts that are similar in nature.
Not really... if you come to a web site about nuclear fusion and post something from a different field, then it is beholden on you to make your point in regards the experiment that you do. In fact, that would always remain to be the case, even if it were fusion. It is for you to provide the links and references that show this to be unique. Have you ever read a scientific paper? If so then you'll know there is a list of references at the end to show the reader the prior art. I have never read a paper that, under 'References', simply says "It is prudent on the reader to figure out what things need to be read before understanding this paper".

I've never heard of the people you mention, and at the moment see no reason to go looking because your experiment appears to include a grounded side to the pendulus in which case its electric field would naturally be biased on the high potential side. I'll click links where you provide them, but I'm not going to spend my time at guessing what material you think is relevant.

Thinking about 'force' seems to be adding confusion in this scenario. Think, rather; how does this pendulus, once charge, behave so as to minimise the energy in the chamber. There is no need to figure out which is the closest to what, just bear in mind that if there is an electric field only on the side of the charged element, then it would move to minimise the electric field potential on that side. And the behaviour you have filmed is entirely consistent with that. The less volume in which there is an electric field, the lower the field's potential.

As there is nominally no field potential energy on the side that is grounded, with respect to its surroundings, then that gap can open freely while the pendulus moves on the other side to minimise the field energy on that side, up to the point at which the rate of change of its gravitational potential is equal and opposite to the rate of change of the electric field, with respect to its displacement.
So in your opinion would enclosing the device in a faraday cage eliminate this issue?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
I don't understand your question. It is already [roughly speaking] in a Faraday cage. The charged side generates an asymmetric electric field with its surroundings and as the pendulus moves, thus minimising the electric field energy.

If you put the pendulum on a friction-free track, then it'd keep moving all the way to the side of the chamber, thereby reducing the electric field generated to a very small volume. But as it lifts up against a gravitational field, so its gravitational potential increases and it is limited to how far it can move.

I suppose if you felt there was some inate force being generated, independent of the electrode's position within the electric fields in the chamber, you could seek to disprove it by fixing the electrode ridgidly within the chamber and suspending the whole chamber on a long pendulum, then you should find nothing happens, because there is no change of electric field potential with change of position of the chamber. If that experiment finds something else, then I'd say 'WoW! Interesting!'.

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm
chrismb wrote:I don't understand your question. It is already [roughly speaking] in a Faraday cage. The charged side generates an asymmetric electric field with its surroundings and as the pendulus moves, thus minimising the electric field energy.

If you put the pendulum on a friction-free track, then it'd keep moving all the way to the side of the chamber, thereby reducing the electric field generated to a very small volume. But as it lifts up against a gravitational field, so its gravitational potential increases and it is limited to how far it can move.

I suppose if you felt there was some inate force being generated, independent of the electrode's position within the electric fields in the chamber, you could seek to disprove it by fixing the electrode ridgidly within the chamber and suspending the whole chamber on a long pendulum, then you should find nothing happens, because there is no change of electric field potential with change of position of the chamber. If that experiment finds something else, then I'd say 'WoW! Interesting!'.
The Faraday cage would be a component to be displaced with the device, not just an enclosure for the device to move inside of. In other word it would be attached to the device and the device must displace it at the same time.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Oh, I see. Yes, you can do that test, and convention says you would expect to find no movement.

A wire cage with a fixed element inside, one side of which you charge up the other you don't, as per your set up. Suspend the whole cage in your chamber and there should be no displacement of the cage orthogonal to the direction of the incoming wires.

If that's the case, then I would then agree something else must be going on.