Re: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)

[Steven Roys <sroys@xxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:02:05 -0800
From: Richard Hull <rhull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: High Voltage list <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)

I doubt if coriolis forces have much influence here.

Richard Hull

----- Original Message -----
From: "High Voltage list" <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:20 AM
Subject: RE: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)


> Original poster: Steven Roys <sroys@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:39:06 -0800
> From: BrianB <brianb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: 'High Voltage list' <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Three ball electrostatic rotation (fwd)
>
> And don't forget that the rotation of the earth also comes into play...
>
> Brian B.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: High Voltage list [mailto:hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:33 PM
> To: hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>
>
>
>
>