Re: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)

[Steven Roys <sroys@xxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:00:01 -0800
From: Richard Hull <rhull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: High Voltage list <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)

We recorded all that you note in your post.
1.Very, very slow OSCILLATORY rotation
2.Fractional, 2pi maximum rotation.
3. Slight attraction off the gravitational perpendicular related to
coulombic attraction.
4. Felt the authors erroneously believed in full and continuous rotation if
not counter torque limited by the suspension wires.
5. System is always ultimately upset by ultimate touching of the balls,
nulling out charges and ruining the experiment.  This occurs always near the
ragged edge of maximum voltage.

Naturally, only two balls can rotate as one in the experiment is rigidly
fixed to a table by definition in the experimental procedure.
..............while I am on that subject............

We all agreed that the physical discription of the setup in the paper was
sadly lacking and very poorly presented with regards to possible replication
by others.  The math was tedious and hard to follow at my level of
understanding (electronic engieer).

I think if this was a lab report going for a grade, the theoretical
mathematical exercise might win an A if correct and a B in incorrect. ( The
gyrations and forethought in its mathematical wizardry would win here)  The
experimental presentation, however, deserved no better than a D!

Still an interesting wake up from a doldrumic slumber.  It also got a lot of
bile flowing in the old boy, status quo, scienctific elitist crowd.  Plenty
of "knee jerk" to go around.  Nice to have stuff like this kickin' around.
It forces what is left of empirical experimenters back to the lab.

Richard Hull

----- Original Message -----
From: "High Voltage list" <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)


> Original poster: 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
>
>
>
>