Deleted, due to no interest
if you had a series of self-charging layden jars (i.e. - capacitors that charge themselves without any energy input into the system - posibly extracting it from the environment on its own) then you would essentially have an unlimited powersource.
The lack of interest may come from the logistics of such an attempt. Possibly these jars are too large for the ammount of power? or perhaps too difficult to reproduce?
If you have reproducable instructions i would love to give this one a try.
If it proves valid i cna add it to my collection of self-charging caacitor set-ups
The ?Self charging leyden? is in regards to this page,
http://www.esdjournal.com/static/shower/shower.html
The metallic-ink was iionized at the time of spraying onto the bottle. it held this (+) charge (until the soaking in salt water) This problem has been solved in the printing industry, by using materials that dont hold much charge.
this ionization must have been charging the electrolytic fluid in the bottle,
this charge would be induced at a certain time-constant dependant upon the ammount of charged particles (mol count) of the ink on the outside of the botle, and the ammount of charge the ink molecules were capable of holding.
its important to note that the phonomena occuring here is atmospheric induction.
i know it sounds backwards, but the outside of the bottle actually holds a positive charge, which induces an equal but opposite negative charge in the shampoo. this powerful negative charge (being isolated inside the bottle) will attract a spark from anything positively charged that comes within a certain range of the fluid. (opening, hole at top near the neck).
also, the human body can hold a very large charge, which can "feed" the spark.
i think the real question is: how many times would the bottle need to be charged/discharged before all of hte ionization in the paint its balanced out by electric discharge?
i think what this is, is some of the energy from the ionization process charged the paint with a + on the outside of the bottle. and this charge was slowly dissipated by inductive-capaticance.
G'day all,
Sorry guys, the construction of the Leyden jar is irrelevant. You can use a milk bottle filled with iron filings and wrap the outside with aluminium foil.
The Leyden jar is NOT self charging. The charge is provided by the shower!
For an explanation of the physics involved look up Kelvin Generator, it will show you how this happens.
Hans von Lieven
i've examined the shower scenerio, that was actually my first thought, but upon closer analysis of whats happening with the flowing water, (even if the botle was palaced directly under the shower-stream) is not consistent with the observed phenomena concerning ionized-metallic ink/paint. this problem was surfaced several times in the packaging industry and there are very nice methods in place for dealing with it. which is why we dont have products shocking us all the time.
the energy came from the applying of the paint, and it charges the conductor inside the bottle (the shampoo).
This explains why after several discharged the "self-charging" action stops.
also the exact ammount of carge can be calculated, by the time it takes for x-ammount of oppositely charged electrolyte sollution to balance out the charge of the bottle. thats a rough way of figuring the numbers AFTER the problem occurs, but more importantly this same charge can be calculated by the mol count of the metalic ink/paint and its ability to hold a charge. This will give you a more accurate measurement, partly becaus ethe charging force (i.e. the ionization-printing process) is much more powerful than the charge density of the metalic ink/paint. So it can be known how much charge the ink can hold at maximum. and by measuring the charge from each spark, you could estimate the number of times the shampoo-capacitor will spark after opening closing (with a constant induction-time in between discharges) before the energy is depleted and it becomes a normal shampo bottle.
G'day Smokey and all,
Thanks for elucidating what seems to be a reasonable scenario, perhaps my analysis was a bit hasty. :-)
Hans von Lieven
deleted
@argona
ok, ill try to put this into a language that might come across more understandable....
to apply the ink in uniform fashion the apply a charge to the bottle itself, which attracts the paint/ink to the bottle
this charge may may not be balanced out by the metallic ink particles, leaving a net imbalance of charge on the outside of the bottle.
this charge inbalance induces a charge inside the bottle, equal but opposite.
during this process, a layer forms roughly in the center of the plastic wall seperating the two charged areas.
this layer starts off being slightly conductive (though it is an insulator) as the charge imbalace is creating an equal and opposite charge on he other side of the plastic, once this charge imbalance reaches a certain point, the net charge passing through the bottle becomes 0 in the very center, then this "net 0" area will increase in width as the charges on both sides become greater (they amplify each other to some extent because the charge inside the bottle is electrically isolated). The best way i can describe this action, is to compare it to the semiconductor in a PV-cell. Except in this case, the electrons are not comming from photon-refraction, but rather from the "ionized" metellic particles. Over time the charge in the metallic particles passes "through" the bottle to the inside, balancing out the charges, and reducing the overall charge of the system.
As for the charge disipating into the air around the bottle - this would only take place in certain conditions
i.e. - similar to the conditions of the bottle sitting in a saline-sollution.
that is to say that the charge induced inside the bottle ("holes") attempt to attract the electrons on the outer surface of the bottle, as the negative charge inside tte bottle gets larger, it will (in most conditions) actually attract more electrons from the air - but this is temporary as when the bottle Discharges these electrons flow through the circuit across the spark gap.
hope that makes more sense.
G'day Smokey and all,
Easy to check Smokey, just dunk the bottle in salt water and see if the effect disappears.
Hans von Lieven
that was actually done in the above video, to neutralize the bottles and enable the manufacturer to still use them.
deleted
?The exterior of the bottles showed no electrostatic voltage except near the neck of the bottle where the metallic ink was absent.?
------when i say the "outside" of the bottle, i mean physically located on the other side of the plastic bottle than is hte Inside.
------now, wether the charged exists on the very exterior surface, or under the ink (which may be more accurate) is really irrelevant.
"It was discovered experimentally that the charge on the bottles could be removed permanently by soaking the bottles in a grounded metal container filled with salt water (1% NaCI). After 24 hours in the salt water, the bottles could be rinsed, dried and filled with shampoo and the discharge problem eliminated. ?
"This to me shows that conduction (not induction) allowed charge migration to drain the
Trapped charge."
--- this may seem that way, but in actually - due to the polarity of the charges the container had to be grounded to allow the charge on the exterior of the bottle (capacitor) to dissipate. It is apparent (though this is just my opinion) that the charge is insulated on the exterior surface of the paint/ink possibly because of the tempering of heating process used to dry it - which is not mentioned in the article.
Remeber now - that electrostatic charges will travel on the exterior surface of an insulator - this being the plastic bottle - which could explain the charge at the neck, where the secondary insulator (heat-dried ink) was not present.
----The "draining" process utilized both conduction and induction (charge UN-seperation) to neutralize the bottles.
"And if there was it should have been negative not positive."
The original charge was Positive, causing the paint/ink applied to the bottle to take on a Negative charge - partly because of the electron-structure of the atoms (which is WHY they ionize the bottle to begin with), and partly because of induction aplifying this effect. This induces a positive charge inside the bottle. sorry if i got the two charges +/- mixed around on you during my earlier posts.
"This part is interesting in that it showa the plate (ink) was isolative and insulative.
And totally blocked the trapped charge from passing through. Leaving in effect
a isolated pole with no corresponding ?other pole? through induction."
-- Yes this would seem to be the case, although it has not been fully substantiated in this particular case, there are other instances where the outer surface of the ink can become insulative - i.e: as i described above.
----HOW do i know the charge is nagative on the outside of the bottle? (assuming we didnt know the original charge as positive)
--- If the ink-charge were positive - 1) this phoenomena would not occur, due to the positive charge in air.
and 2) if it were positive people would get shocked by touching the neck of the bottle NOT when they actually opened it.
deleted
induction can work in either direction depending on the circumstances, and the relative charges of the other materials involved.
an example::
+ || -
the + charge wants to go towards the - (electrons attracted to the holes on the other side). This intensifies the EMF directly nearest the bottle, causing the neutral (0) charge zone to expand, further preventing the + to travel to the -
+ | | -
During this process some electrons from the + side are taken in by the plastic to fill some holes on the - side, this will occur as long as the EMF is increasing - basically as long as there is a supply of electrons flowing into (or in this case trapped inside) the + side building up a charge and trying to cross over the barrier into the - side.
the plastic possesses both electrons and "holes" to some extent, and eas the electrons travel through the plastic this is balanced out (starting in the center and expanding outwards towards each wall) thus forming a zeutral zone where very few electrons (or holes depending on your perspective) can pass through. This area gets thicker over time as the induction takes place.
This stops occuring once the EMF builds enough strength to widen the neutral-zone in the plastic so great that it prevents the electrons from traveling through. This is commonly refered to as the Depletion Region (describing the charge depletion that occurs there as the EMF builds up on both sides of the insulator).
The paint/ink application process utilizes the molecular negativity of the metal particles, to attract them onto the surface of the bottle, for an even coat, similar to how they paint cars. the metal, being alreayd somewhat negative, takes on a greater negative charge (the ionization on the surface of hte plastic is temporary, while the metal holds the charge indefinately until it is "release")
Also, nothing is 100% insulator, everything conducts to some degree. Static charges built up on the surface of an insulator will travel across that surface to create an (almost) even charge distribution. When the object is discharged it will travel again from the entire surface - to the point of discharge and onto the object which has a greater (and opposite) static-electric potential. If you dont think charges travel across the surface of an insulator - pick an insulator of your choice and find a material of opposite potential [ triboelectric series ] and test this by creating a charge on one side of the insulator and discharging it from the other side.
There is a difference between: direct contact induction (which is actually charge migration/conduction - at a high resistance) and Non-contact induction::: When the charge does not have a path of travel, but still "feels" the influence of the opposing charge - it induces a charge of opposite polarity on the other side of the barrier, which in effect makes the other charge become as strong as itself (but opposite). This is important to note because when the two objects are then allowed to discharge to one another (after the proper induction-time factor), the charges will balance each other out to 0 leavint both materials electro-statically neutral.
[note: the metal particles maintain some degree of charge after the bottle discharges, hinting that the charge in the particles may be isolated, similar to electromagnetism, the (isolated) metal can be staticaly charged in a "permanent" sense. allowing for multiple induction chargings on the capacitive system it is adhered to.
Direct contact induction (partial-conduction) - one substance has a static charge that is different fom the other substance, and when in contact- this charge slowly dissipates into the other substance, until the charge is balanced or the other substance cannot take on any more charge (the materials physical properties determine the charge capacity, and the time it takes for this to occur).
Non-contact induces Opposite polarity, Contact induces Like polarity. I know its a confusing process, and all of the factors in this particular case with the shamoo botles are not absolutely known. Therefore much of this scenerio is subject to speculation.
In that time period the most common metals used for this type of printing were nanoparticles of silver, gold, copper, brass, and platnum,. ALL of which are on the negative end of the triboelectric series. making it difficult to impart a positive-sustained charge onto these metals. their atomic structure will over time make them negative again. So it seems that the ink should have had a negative charge, and that this charge was most likely located in the metallic particles nearest the exterior surface of the bottle, (under the ink)
deleted
>There is a difference between: direct contact induction (which is actually charge >migration/conduction - at a high resistance
Sorry again, there?s no such thing.
>Please check these pages out on atmospheric electricity.
OK - Charge a large capacitor (or layden jar) then trickle that off onto a smaller capacitor through say a 100Mohm, resistor.
it will take some time but the smaller capacitor will chage, this is exactly what happens when you connect 2 charged objects at at high restance. - grounding the container full of saltwater created a path of lower resistance and the charge traveled from the ink (trapped under the atmoshperically plated layer) into the bucket and off to ground.
as for the -/+ im sorry im an american, we label ours backwards here, our electrons are drawn traveling from positive to negative. its purely conceptual and bears no difference on the actua process, as the charges are equal and opposite, in a circuit it all functions the same.
The plastic is not a dielectric - but because its composed of several different types of atoms, there is a conbination of atoms with electrons in their outer shell and atoms that could accept electrons. they are dispursed throughout the plastic and create whats called the break-down voltage of the plastic material.
At a certain voltage the plastic becomes a conductor - HOWEVER - copposing charges induced in this manner
create a neutral zone, as described in my earlier post, that pevents the plastic from electrically "breaking-down", and the charges can achieve much higher voltages without traveling through the plastic.
the "ions" from the corona treatment were temporary and dissipated shortly after the ink was applied, probably before hte ink even dried. however as the metallic particles in the ink dried, ther remained alligned as if under effect of the treatment, and as thus, maintain the charge that accumulated during the process.
as for a charge traveling across the outside of an insulator - an isolated insulator (meaning there is no path fo the charge to leave its surface) will keep the charge on its surface. Now this charge will spread itself across the entire surface of the object. i.e - rub a baloon on your head and the ENTIRE baloon becomes charged, NOT just the part that touched your hair - you can then pick up pieces of paper with the OTHER side of the baloon.
if you are holding the baloon that charge is traveling from the baloon into your body, and eventually helps to balance out part of the opposite charge you applied to your hair.
Another example to prove that charges move across a conductor is to charge one end of a plastic comb.
then put salt+pepper on a plate. you can clearly see that the opposite end of the combs is also charged.
This holds true for the plastic on the capacitor-bottle as well, the charge imbalance existed not only inside the bottle, but equally and oppositely on the outside of the bottle - NOT the outside of the printed ink, i believe to be because of a secondary insulating layer on the outer exterior of the ink.
and ions move to wherever their opposite charge is (if they are in close enough proximity ot be affected by it)
otherwise they evenly distribute themselves across the surface of an insulator. If the object is a conductor then they spread throughout the entire mass inside and out. though once they are distributed, the ions remain motionless UNTIL a path to an opposing charge is set up.
maybe "move" is the wrong term, they distribute themselves across the surface.
you can test this by measuring the charge density at different areas across the surface of the baloon you charged up a min ago.
as for the induction we are interested in (non-contact induction) this can be tested by charging one layden jar,
then placing it in very close proximity to another layden jar. the first will actually charge the second, relinquishing (about half) of the charge it imparted onto the other jar, the other half also to note that the second jar is charged of opposite polarity.
This is called a charge amplifying system, because the net charge after the induction time is (at max) 50% greater the charge given up to "fill" the second layden jar. The theory behind this described it as "giving back" half of what it took, through the establishment of the opposing EMF's on a ramp scale function, a lot of that got into flux line physics that are beyond my understanding, so i had to take it at face value. But i had observed one jar charging the other in this fashion. I dont have accurate enough testing equipment to measure the charge densities of a layden jar (and im sure my layden jar construction isn't ideal or perfect) so i really dont know if there is truly a gain in charge as described, or an actuall loss of charge as one would assume in this type of process. But the jar does charge through induction - and will hold the charge until a path is established to the interior of the jar.
In the example of a Van-Degraff with plastic sphere around it - Toy seen museums and whatnot
Placing you hand will attract the charge (that you claim doesnt move) to the interior surface of the sphere, and it will actually travel long that surface attempting to reach your body (which is has a diffierent charge density and/or polarity).
STILL don't think that charges can move across an insulator? most people would be convinced by three working experiments, but i'll give you a 4th for posterity.
Take you a piece of PVC pipe, drill a hole in one end, and hang it from a tree with a piece of non-conducting string, like fishing-line or something.
then have someone ELSE take a cloth (wool or possibly silk, animal fur) wrap it around the pipe near the bottom end and rub it up and down, tell them don't go up past 1/4 of the pipe, so they dont physically put any ions onto the upper portion, and charge the heck out of the pipe.
then walk over and touch the top of the pipe with your Tongue. Repeat this step several times if you need more convincing.
Now, once they establish a uniform field (are evenly dispursed) across the surface of the insulator (or throughout the conductor) they remain "motionless" or rather in a state of potential motion. <<--- THIS is what is often refered to when they describe the charges as "motionless". HOWEVER they DO move when the conditions allow them to as you have seen by performing the above 3 (or 4 if you're just dense) experiments.
Burrrrkkkkk?
Lol. Thanks, that made my day!
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 16, 2007, 06:15:14 PM
as for the -/+ im sorry im an american, we label ours backwards here,
deleted
can you not read, i said i AM an american.
and i didnt slur anything.
i gave you FOUR examples to prove what i was saying if you are not willing to perform the experiments yourself, then thats your thing,
but to sit here and proclaim that "charges dont move" is absurd, whenever there is an imbalance the charges WILL and DO move (unles they are restricted from doing so).
deleted
technician telling an engineer the water in the pipe runs form the sewer into the tower above.. im not going to argue about that... its pointless and has no effect on our discussion.
the Charge moves from + to - as does the spark.
you want to say the "ions" run the other way thats fine, flip all your polarites around and we have the same scenario.
when you ionize a surface to apply a metallic ink/paint its the same thing as hooking two alligator clips to a piece of metal and aplying a charge. if you were able to somehow isolate that metal (diodes maybe?) the metal will hold that charge.
thats as simple as i can make it
deleted
yes that is a perfect explaination of conventional vs electron flow, as you see the only difference between the 2 is purely conceptual, labeling them backwards presents the exact same scenario. So to go back and forth over which way to label them is like the chicken/egg thing, but its good that we have identified this conceptual difference, as we were viewing the process in reverse form one another, drawing much confusion.
The measurements taken of charged object Neglect the time period during which the object is accumulating its charge. - as you see in the diagrams the charges are evenly dispursed. - However it says nothing about the time frame during charging, during which the charge is actually relocating itself around the surface of the material.
All they are looking at is the time AFTER charging, when the charge has nowhere to go, and is thus imobile.
If you examine the object WHILE it is charging, things are a bit different.
the charge does not apply itself instantly and evenly dispursed around the surface, form one point of contact. it has to move to get that way. plain and simple. you can even measure this movement by examining the lines of force as the object is charging.
"Admittedly, I have, for the sake of the argument, made this statement slightly too strong. There is one exception: If you have a conductor, negatively charged, and the conductor is connected to ground by a metallic wire, then the excess of electrons will bleed away through the wire." - quoted from Mr. Static page
This is a perfect explaination of the salt-water discharging process they used on the bottles - which coincidently was the only way they found to achieve the resired results as the actual charge was isolated under the dried ink and not subject to dissipation into the air.
deleted
it is possible, i believe, that oxidation (or a form thereof) could have created an insulating layer on the outside of the metalic ink, which would not be present between the ink and the bottle itself.
meaning that a charge would have a path of travel between bottle and ink
deleted
>"If the ink held a positive charge which should be the same as
as a superimposed charge over the original corona treatment
negative charge, then why was the interior so positively charged?"
This is completely wrong. the entire reason they USE the corona treatment is because the mettalic particles have an OPPOSITE charge and are ATTRACTED to the ions (temporary charging the bottles surface)
this NEGATIVE charge is what is inducing the POSITIVE charge inside the bottle.
this CANNOT happen any other way.
if it were the way you are trying to say it is, the charge inside the bottle would be nagative.
when the top of the bottles were opened the spark jumped from the neck to the liquid (or vise versa depending on you perspective of the charge imbalance) meaning the charge had to travel from the underlayer of ink across the surface of the bottle to the neck region where it jumped through the air. For this to occur, yes the air on the surface of the bottle (when charged) was partially "ionized/plazma gas". this occurs any time there is a charge imbalance and free moving air around the charged object. this layer of charged air is a result of the EMF created by the charge and is infinitely thin at very small charge levels and grows with the intensity of the charge.
The charge doesnt travel in the insulator, it travels ON the insulator. What occurs inside the insulator is more similar to solid-state electronics than static electric, but is a result of the static charge imbalance.
the outside of the bottle/capacitor DID in fact measure a charge, the portion of the bottle that did NOT, was the insulative outer layer of the ink. (possibly caused from oxidation, or as you inferred earlier "ionic platic"?)
deleted
>"Have you had a chance to perform those experiments you authoritively talked about?"
ive done the experiments with the baloons and plastic combs several times with the kids.
as far as the pvc goes, if your pipe is acting in a manner inconsistent with what i proposed then you are doing something, i.e.- holding he pipe with your hands ? that is allowing the charge to equalize with your body thus not shocking you, this is why i specifically stated to have SOMEONE else charge the pipe.
We used to shock each other with the (non-rubbed) ends of our pvc potato-guns in college, so i know the charge travels to the opposite end of the pipe. just as is does on the baloon-surface and all over the entire comb.
Now lets get back to this Corona Treatment. Think about this - a "negative" charge applied to the surface of the bottle would REPEL negatively charged metallic particles would it not? This would defeat the purpose of using it to apply the ink to the bottle. The charge applied to the bottle during painting - was POSITIVE. It does not work any other way.
deleted
deleted
deleted
deleted
We seem to have wandered off the original simple question - Can a high voltage capacitor 'self charge'?
My experience is yes, they can. I leave all of my good caps 'strapped' with an aluminium shorting bar.
There is much written on the matter. Be it dust particles migrating charge or whatever - the simple answer is that a GOOD capacitor will accumulate charge.
Leyden jars are rarely thought of as a good capacitor - they have a lossy dielectric that allows charge to bleed away. The answer then is strictly - NO. Not a Leyden jar - but a high quality HV cap will accumulate charge.
Just my 2 cents..
deleted
Sorry? We're talking about the "self-charging" Leyden jars right?
Leyden jars by definition ARE capacitors.
So if it is really a Leyden jar, then it must be a capacitor.
If it is not actually a Leyden jar at all, then what is it?
As far as I know the Testatica Leyden jars are exactly that: simple, primitive, but effective capacitors.
The use of electret materials in the Testatica has long been suggested, but a possible mode of operation without electret can be worked out as well.
As long as we're talking about electrets, I would like to point out the substantial difference between an electret and a corona triode.
You speak of them as if they are nearly the same thing. A triode is fundamentally different from an electret.
And the remark that the wax type electrets lose their polarity or may switch them within a few days is not really truthful either...
The original Carnauba wax electret for example retained its polarity and electret effect for years before losing it.
But to my knowledge the Testatica uses a Wimshurst-type electrostatic generator which both ionises the surrounding air and seperates charges, and it uses periodic discharges through a 'valve' which acts as a rectifyer, along with the principles of the electrostatic motor to keep it spinning, while at the same time electrostatic attraction and electron cascade effects absorb charges from the ionised air in different parts of the device such as the metal mesh 'capacitors' and the pulsed magnet+capacitor "cacade generator".
It does not necessarily need electrets...
deleted
Quote from: argona369 on November 27, 2007, 11:24:19 AM
>Sorry? We're talking about the "self-charging" Leyden jars right?
no.
Oh? Must have been mislead by the topic title then... ;)
Quote
>substantial difference between an electret and a corona triode.
>You speak of them as if they are nearly the same thing
You can?t read? Triode to form electret
My, my, grumpy are we?
Yes I can read and I know my electrical components and their functions.
"triode to form electret" makes as much sense as "transistor to make capacitor", which is very little.
The "corona triode" was mentioned in respect to generating ions. What that has to do with an electret remains unclear to me...
Unless you mean to say that ions can be produced by both... but that still does not make the triode into an electret.
For your information, as you seem to be somewhat confused:
QuoteElectret (formed of elektr- from "electricity" and -et from "magnet") is a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge or dipole polarisation. An electret generates internal and external electric fields, and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet.
Ergo one piece of dielectric material that maintains a charge on its surface.
QuoteA triode is an electronic device having three active electrodes. The term most commonly applies to a vacuum tube (or valve in British English) with three elements: the filament or cathode, the grid, and the plate or anode. The triode vacuum tube was the first electrical amplification device.
Ergo a construction in which applied charge stimulates electron emission between anode and cathode.
And if you still insist I don't understand what you wrote, then why don't you explain what you mean?
Clearly, a triode is NOT an electret, nor do you need a triode to make an electret.
deleted
>Oh? Must have been mislead by the topic title then...
I give up on this thread.
Its gotten muddled, confused, misunderstood and off topic.
Harti, could you delete it.
Its for the best i think.
You wouldn?t want these retards getting a hold of a new energy source would you?
Koen1 would undoubtedly use free energy for the dark and crazy side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eZBevXohCI
Lol!
"we wouldn't want these retards getting a hold of a new energy source"
wtf?! You're talking about the testatica here... if 50 years old qualifies as "new" in your book, then I wonder who's the "retard" here ;D
Besides that, I resent that remark!
It only goes to show your own ignorance.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 28, 2007, 10:05:52 AM
Besides that, I resent that remark!
Then stop being retarded!
For instance. when you were commenting on self chargin?.. Zzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzz
Zzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzz
that doesn't make much sense...
so you're calling me retarded because I joined in YOUR discussion thread about "self charging leyden jars"?
Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? ;)