Re: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)

[Steven Roys <sroys@xxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:09:36 -0200
From: Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz <acmq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: High Voltage list <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)

High Voltage list wrote:

> From: Richard Hull <rhull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Has a discussion swarmed around the paper by Wistrom and Khachatourian from the Journal of Physics A regarding electrostatic torque in a three ball system?(title  "Coulomb torque - A general theory for electrostatic forces in many body systems.")
>...
> The upshot is that two 8" metal spheres are suspended from the ceiling on fine threads.  They are placed in near contact with each other.  A third fixed ball, also in near contact with the other two, is brought up to a high voltage of about 1-5kv.  (return is to the earth).  It was noted in the paper that the two suspended balls start to rotate.
>...
> We thought it was impossible, as do most scientists.  However unlike other scientists who just poo-poo the idea outright, we did the experiment and, indeed, the balls do rotate.  They also move to touch over a great period in our experiment.  Tim Raney and myself conducted the experiment last summer.  In spite of this we are still skeptical of the conclusion that a torque is there due to electrostatic laws, but feel that the lateral translation of the restrained (suspended) balls might have induce a reaction torque.

> Anyone seen or heard of this effect?......  done any experiments?

I made some experiments as soon as I saw the idea. The balls really
move, but:
- Just two balls move too.
- The balls never rotate by more than 180 degrees. Has anyone observed
  greater angle of rotation? (Assuming that the suspension lines are
  not twisted, of course.)
- A torque in the charges would move the charges, not the balls.
- Any calculation that ends showing unbalanced torques is
  inconsistent with a correct static charge distribution in the
  balls, because the charges would move to cancel the torques.
  The calculations presented in the papers must be flawed. I have
  all the papers, but didn't try to reproduce the calculations.
  (Peer-reviewed papers are not a guarantee of correctness...)
- The balls just readjust their positions to minimize potential
  energies due to electrostatic forces and gravity. Any irregularity
  in the surfaces of the balls would cause them to rotate, aligning
  "bumps" due to the electrostatic force. The electrostatic force
  also tilts the balls a bit, and gravity tends to rotate any
  heavier side of the balls to the lowest side. This is easy to observe
  with light hollow balls. Glue bumps to the outer sides, and the
  bumps align. Glue weights at the inner sides, and they move apart.

Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz