The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does a Van der Graff device respect the law of charge conservation?  (Read 5795 times)

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Does a Van der Graff device respect the law of charge conservation?

A modified VDG device is used for experiment.
A brush from the system is removed (fig. 1) and special care are taken in order to avoid any ,,charge” dissipation from belt. The system of belt and roller was mounted on a higher support and any other metallic (conductor) parts are made to be at least 50 cm distant.
With this modification the VDG is turned on and after few seconds a small gas tube (9 W power) is fixed at about 5 mm on sphere. The tub starts to flicker. The tube was leaved in this position for a longer time (at least 4 hours). After this time, the flickering process is like at beginning.



What electric current (charge movement in actual theory) power this flickering?
The common answer will be: from VDG device.
This is a very naïve answer, because if it’s true, the low of charge conservation is not valid.

If it is considered that air performs an activity of charge supplement, the entire experiment can be made in advanced vacuum. The proposed theory foreseen no substantial difference between experiment made in advanced vacuum or in dry air.
 The reason for this contradiction is represented by absence of back up mechanism for belt and roller charge regeneration.
If , due to the friction, the belt is producing ,,positive: charges and the roller negative charge, and  the ,,positive”  charges are removed from system, there will remain an excess of uncompensated negative charge.
In our case, at beginning,  the ,,positive charge” produce a gas excitation, and consequently the potential of sphere decrease with every spark.
The roller remains negatively charged. For few minutes, the negative charge from the roller is not so important. But, after a short time interval (it can be calculated), on minutes range, the charge on the roller becomes huge, and this affect the normal triboelectric process.  In this case, maybe the belt starts to carry electrons from the roller, but this will lead to a decreasing of sphere potential and inversions of it sign. This means, the tube will have period lower or even without flickering. This was not the case in the experiment.
The experiment was repeated with a micro ammeter instead of gas tube.
The expected change of sign of the VDG sphere, observed as change in sign of current does not happen.


A simple question rise at this experiment: how VDG device with a single brush works?
Looking after experiment, VDG is able to produce with a single brush, the same charge type for very long time. If the law o charge conservation is valid, there should be a tremendous opposite and negative charge deposited on the roller. This is not the case in reality. The roller does not have any substantial charge on it.


 

lyner

  • Guest
It's energy, not charge, which 'flows' to the tube.

How could you possibly pursue the idea of non-charge conservation? Have you ever calculated the forces which would be caused by one coulomb separated from one coulomb by one metre? It would tear the lab apart - not just pull the VDG over.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"and special care are taken in order to avoid any ,,charge” dissipation from belt. "
Special perhaps, but not adequate.
The law of conservation of charge is perfectly intact, it's just that you don't seem to understand it.
The light flickers because you move charge through it. It goes up the belt to the cap. through the air to the tube, through the tube to you, through you back to ground wher it can start again.

Why do you persist in thinking you have found something nerw  that shatters the whole of modern science when all you have really done is a poor experiment?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
The light flickers because you move charge through it. It goes up the belt to the cap. through the air to the tube, through the tube to you, through you back to ground wher it can start again.
You don't even need a charge to flow 'around'. It can be a field effect.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
It's energy, not charge, which 'flows' to the tube.

How could you possibly pursue the idea of non-charge conservation? Have you ever calculated the forces which would be caused by one coulomb separated from one coulomb by one metre? It would tear the lab apart - not just pull the VDG over.

The ,,energy" in actual orthodox interpretation is not a mysterious and intangible fluid; the electric energy is carried by electrons movement. Do you suggest a absence of charge movement ( in frame of actual physics) and a energy manifestation from God will?

I have underlined that actual interpretation does not respect the charge conservation law. In this case (like in many others) it is possible to choose more variants. The actual explanation is not valid or the charge conservation is not valid.

The tube is suspended in tree points near the VDG device using PVC insulating band, tested before. 15 cm length is completely insulating any charge leak from VDG. In experiment the length was about 50 cm.
I made such ,,poor" experiments when in my mind, the idea of something strange is already old. I was suspecting something strange, based on the inconsistency of VDG working principle (attached post), but other supplementary experiments strength this idea.
Therefore if I have admitted that some old posts need a new reinterpretation, there are strong evidence which forced me to make this step.
It's not a hurry so next week others texts will be post.
In the meantime maybe someone have the curiosity to try one of the experiment....

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"electric energy is carried by electrons movement."
Electrical current is carried by electrons, the energy can be carried by a field.

"In the meantime maybe someone have the curiosity to try one of the experiment...."
Why? I don't think any of us has a problem with your experimental observations. I'm sure they are reasonably valid. What we have a problem with is your strange interpretation.
If we did the experiments it wouldn't make any real difference.

For example "15 cm length is completely insulating any charge leak from VDG."
No it's not- you proved this with an exceptionally sensitive charge meter- a fluorescent tube.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
1. In this case maybe VDG act as a field generator ( insure a energy transport) without electron movement. This hypothesis is more closed to my theory.

2 I have seen any strange interpretation. Still I wait for the orthodox interpretation for Daniel pile and concentration cell.
Add the VDG device explanation too.

3 . I've said another thing. Putting 15 cm of insulating band between VDG and gas tube there is no flickering of tube ( with my device and its power).  Therefore the gas tube is suspended using this insulating band, and no fascicle of electrons can travel through 50 cm of insulating band. Of course in this case the tube is at maximum 1 cm distance of VDG and the insulating band make the connection between tube and another insulating (wood) object. There is no possibility for a flux of electrons to come to the tube coming from a external object.
In this case how is the tube flickering?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"Still I wait for the orthodox interpretation for Daniel pile and concentration cell. "
 
You already got one. Here it is again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniell_cell
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
It's a very good description for a nonthinking mind.
I don't have time to continue talking about nonsens. If there are not other comments to the experiment let's stop the discussion.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
In this case maybe VDG act as a field generator ( insure a energy transport) without electron movement
(If you really want a statement which demonstrates a non-thinking mind, that's one.)

And how could it accomplish that? A non changing field involves no charge movement and an em wave in a vacuum also involves no movement of charge. Any change of field in a medium must involve charge displacement. Or do you know different? For instance, have you measured it?

But, by all means, stop the discussion. You are taking it nowhere useful.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I don't have time to continue talking about nonsens.
Then why did you start it?
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
I posted and I will post my messages here in order to have a supplementary testimonial.
On the other side, even for you it is hard to believe, I don't think you can estimate the value of the theory. The history is written by the winners. You will have time to meditate at this sentence.


 
 

lyner

  • Guest
That is just nonsense. From what we read here (all your posts) you show too much general ignorance of well established matters to hope to expand the frontiers of Science.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"You will have time to meditate at this sentence. "

Time, yes; any inclination, no.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
The frontier of science are broken by those who knows the limits of science and overpass them.
The other only learn science and from those who learn science there are some persons who are considered intelligent and make comments or write ,,good" books.

I'm sure you will have time and inclination too.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
The frontier of science are broken by those who knows the limits of science and overpass them.
No, the frontiers of Science are broken by people who are clever enough to understand MORE than the existing models. You do not appear even to be clever enough to understand the most elementary existing models.  The frontiers are pretty safe from your efforts.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums