Amazing simple experiment proving Dollard on dielectric capacitance

[Ernst]

nothing free there

Hi Phat,

That is called polarization of the dielectric. When you charge the caps you use a little bit more energy than you get out at the first discharge. This extra energy polarizes the dielectric, which remains polarized for a while even after discharging the cap.
The polarized dielectric recharges the cap.

I have a 5600 Volt DC power supply, with bridge rectifier and 29 uF smoothing caps.
(no bleeder resistor)
After using this power supply I have to discharge the caps 4-5 times.

interesting and dangerous

Ernst.

[Natusake]

You must be 10 years old, that video link you posted is:
Friction electrostatic generator


There is no friction on the plastic rod in freefall on my video.

Again, you have cheese tween' your ears.

There is no other video on youtube showing the freefall of a non-conductive plastic rod having retarded fall thru a set of magnets and the likewise copper tube.

There doesn't need to be friction for there to be separation of charges, this is well known. In fact, most Van De Graff generators work best when the belt does not touch the receiving metal spikes. Obviously you do not understand this phenomenon.

Thats not what is being shown in the video, son.

The point is using a RING magnet and causing dielectric induction (or exchange of capacitance IN the teflon rod likewise reflected and interacting with the magnets and copper tube)

Once again, it's hard to figure out much from the video. But you do seem to put special attention on what the plastic rod is doing before the magnets hit the top.

Stop talking about rubbing plastic ON things, son.

Once again, you should know that you do not need contact for the phenomenon to occur.

The Demo, poor video or not, is about a freefall THRU a specific set of magnetic and conductive rings by a 'non-conductive' plastic rod.

There doesn't need to be freefall for it to work, just movement against the two objects. Since you put special attention to what the plastic rod was doing before it was subject to hitting the magnet I thought you were talking about the plastic rod interacting with only the copper tube. I suppose not, but this puts more evidence towards the fact that it is very unclear what you mean.

[Phat]

Inducing a dielectric field in an insulator.

What I got from this video, yea not great quality, but give people reason
to reproduce said experiment. I'm going to attempt to intensify the effect
being tested. Rather than type on my tech, and tell this guy he isn't doing things right, and blah blah. I'm going to attempt to show close up video of
my experiment.
Being fresh to the scene, I would like to clarify the actual theory behind the
test. If I'm not mistaken, my opine is that the copper tubing is in an electrostatic condition, and when the magnetic fields produced by the magnets, that are on the insulating rod, are introduced to this electrostatic condition in the copper tubing, it induces a dielectric field that not only reacts
with the copper tubing but extends into the counter space of the insulator rod.
Causing the effect that is hard to notice but very much there, that retards the falling of the rod through tubing. Explanation for the effect I would consider the explanation for resistance when applying current to a wire. The dieletric field is inside and propagated out from said material, giving the idea that to me looks like a cookie cutter that looks like this ✳ and pushing it through a cylinder of clay. The force applied to the cutter being the intensity of the field/current and the clay representing the median that this effect is occurring from. This to me describes why insulators are conductors and visa versa and I'm sure we all understand the genius behind that conceptual framework by Prof. Dollard.

[Ernst]

Maybe you should finish that translation first?

Ernst.

[Phat]

Qwhat?

I'm not sure what you mean by finish the translation first. Or if that was even directed to me. Lol. I am sure there is plenty for me to learn. Hence the purpose of getting on this forum and tapping it out with others that have more experience in the field of study. Actually any suggestions or links of enlightenment?

[TheoriaApophasis]

There doesn't need to be friction for there to be separation of charges, this is well known. In fact, most Van De Graff generators work best when the belt does not touch the receiving metal spikes. Obviously you do not understand this phenomenon.

Thanks for the bloody obvious, I have owned 2 Van De Graff generators, son.

If you want to say the rubber belt reactance on one is "in principle" LIKE the falling plastic rod, sobeit.


However its qualitatively and quantitatively very different.

I said you cant find another video of a FALLING 'non-conductive' "insulator" thru that structure , ..... and you cant.


Ergo, close your pie hole. Its highly conclusive you may be autistic, since you miss the mark at every turn. The only remaining alternative is one not worth mentioning.


Lux et veritas

[TheoriaApophasis]

What I got from this video, yea not great quality, but give people reason
to reproduce said experiment. I'm going to attempt to intensify the effect
being tested. Rather than type on my tech, and tell this guy he isn't doing things right, and blah blah. I'm going to attempt to show close up video of
my experiment.
Being fresh to the scene, I would like to clarify the actual theory behind the
test. If I'm not mistaken, my opine is that the copper tubing is in an electrostatic condition, and when the magnetic fields produced by the magnets, that are on the insulating rod, are introduced to this electrostatic condition in the copper tubing, it induces a dielectric field that not only reacts
with the copper tubing but extends into the counter space of the insulator rod.
Causing the effect that is hard to notice but very much there, that retards the falling of the rod through tubing. Explanation for the effect I would consider the explanation for resistance when applying current to a wire. The dieletric field is inside and propagated out from said material, giving the idea that to me looks like a cookie cutter that looks like this ✳ and pushing it through a cylinder of clay. The force applied to the cutter being the intensity of the field/current and the clay representing the median that this effect is occurring from. This to me describes why insulators are conductors and visa versa and I'm sure we all understand the genius behind that conceptual framework by Prof. Dollard.

Thank you for intelligently, and rationally expressing by means of logical induction, what the principle is.

Your fellow board-kinsman Natusake should become your disciple and learn how deduction, induction, and retroductive thought processes work, or as meant the mechanics of rational thought.





Ernst
Maybe you should finish that translation first?


As for the Greek translation, I can multitask, and translating ancient Greek philosophical shorthand is a mind burning chore. Always need a break.

Heres one I recently did..., like it?.

5.1.5 Πολὺς οὖν οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῇ ψυχῇ· τῇ δὲ ὑπάρχει ἐν τούτοις εἶναι συναφθείσῃ, εἰ <μὴ ἀποστατεῖν>ἐθέλοι. Πελάσασα οὖν αὐτῷ καὶ οἷον ἓν γενομένη ζῇ ἀεί. Τίς οὖν ὁ τοῦτον γεννήσας; Ὁ ἁπλοῦς καὶ ὁ πρὸ τοιούτου πλήθους, ὁ αἴτιος τοῦ καὶ εἶναι καὶ πολὺν εἶναι τοῦτον, ὁ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ποιῶν. Ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμὸς οὐ πρῶτος· καὶ γὰρ πρὸ δυάδος τὸ ἕν, δεύτερον δὲ δυὰς καὶ παρὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς γεγενημένη ἐκεῖνο ὁριστὴν ἔχει, αὕτη δὲ AORISTον παρ´ αὐτῆς· ὅταν δὲ ὁρισθῇ, ἀριθμὸς ἤδη· ἀριθμὸς δὲ ὡς οὐσία· ἀριθμὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ ψυχή. Οὐ γὰρ ὄγκοι τὰ πρῶτα οὐδὲ μεγέθη· τὰ γὰρ παχέα ταῦτα ὕστερα, ἃ ὄντα ἡ αἴσθησις οἴεται. Οὐδὲ ἐν σπέρμασι δὲ τὸ ὑγρὸν τὸ τίμιον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ὁρώμενον· τοῦτο δὲ ἀριθμὸς καὶ λόγος. Ὁ οὖν ἐκεῖ λεγόμενος ἀριθμὸς καὶ ἡ δυὰς λόγοι καὶ νοῦς· ἀλλὰ AORISTος μὲν ἡ δυὰς τῷ οἷον ὑποκειμένῳ λαμβανομένη, ὁ δὲ ἀριθμὸς ὁ ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς εἶδος ἕκαστος, οἷον μορφωθέντος τοῖς γενομένοις εἴδεσιν ἐν αὐτῷ· μορφοῦται δὲ ἄλλον μὲν τρόπον παρὰ τοῦ ἑνός, ἄλλον δὲ παρ´ αὐτοῦ, οἷον ὄψις ἡ κατ´ ἐνέργειαν· ἔστι γὰρ ἡ νόησις ὅρασις ὁρῶσα ἄμφω τε ἕν.

5.1.5 translation: For number is not primary, a first (in Greek metaphysics, 1 isn’t a number, but the principle), the One is prior to the dyad/number, but the dyad is conceived of as second but nonetheless having its being in the One, has the One as its marshal, but in and of itself is aoristos by nature, but when defined (in extension) then becomes number (the second 1 in the golden section which goes 1 1 2 3 5 8…etc.). Therefore what is called number here in the noetic world and the (aoristos) dyad is the logos and the nous; but the dyad is aoristos when it is given any definition, or ideated in any manner. (meaning you cannot pin down the indefinite without giving it shape or form or limiting it profanely in some manner).

5.3.11 Διὸ καὶ ὁ νοῦς οὗτος ὁ πολύς, ὅταν τὸ ἐπέκεινα ἐθέλῃ νοεῖ, ἓν μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο, ἀλλ´ ἐπιβάλλειν θέλων ὡς ἁπλῷ ἔξεισιν ἄλλο ἀεὶ λαμβάνων ἐν αὐτῷ πληθυνόμενον· ὥστε ὥρμησε μὲν ἐπ´ αὐτὸ οὐχ ὡς νοῦς, ἀλλ´ ὡς ὄψις οὔπω ἰδοῦσα, ἐξῆλθε δὲ ἔχουσα ὅπερ αὐτὴ ἐπλήθυνεν· ὥστε ἄλλου μὲν ἐπεθύμησεν AORISTως ἔχουσα ἐπ´ αὐτῇ φάντασμά τι,

5.3.11 translation: Therefore this multiform nous in (naturally) thinking itself is going beyond itself, beyond what is One, but in the most straightforward way it is inclined to think itself, constantly coming up with compounded things made so by itself in thinking itself therefore moved itself not as it is, that of sight, but in creations and known in seeing, came outwards in aoristos (to itself) which the sight had wrought in seeing, always apprehending things in seeing which are compounded, not of sight but (indefinite) things of seeing (forms, shapes, etc.).

[Ernst]

Great story tellers, those ancient Greek!

I think it's the schizophrenic gardener, but there is going to be a twist somewhere, right?


Ernst.

[Natusake]

Thanks for the bloody obvious, I have owned 2 Van De Graff generators, son.

If you want to say the rubber belt reactance on one is "in principle" LIKE the falling plastic rod, sobeit.


However its qualitatively and quantitatively very different.

I said you cant find another video of a FALLING 'non-conductive' "insulator" thru that structure , ..... and you cant.


Ergo, close your pie hole. Its highly conclusive you may be autistic, since you miss the mark at every turn. The only remaining alternative is one not worth mentioning.


Lux et veritas

Falling isn't that much different from any other movement. Whats the difference if this rod accelerates 9.8 meters per second upwards from a rocket than it accelerating 9.8 meters per second downward from gravity?

You love to put so much on the FALLING rod, but that it is falling isn't really too important, the phenomenon would be the same if you accelerated it in a different way.

[Phat]

Natusake, the falling is the easiest to reproduce the same velocity time again.
not to mention it shows that the dielectric lines of force are, even at this
small scale and intensity, is still enough to conquer gravity even for a slight moment. What would the point be trying several directions when the first and easiest to test with is quite clear and concise. Any other directions would just leave you with 2 external forces acting on the rod when we can narrow it down and let nature show us.

TheoriaApophasis, that takes time and dedications to translate ancient Greek. I'd say its a good job. Not as intuitive as I thought it could be, but hey they thought miles differently then we do. It reminds me of several ancient mathematics that avoided zero, because to them, you couldn't have nothing just as much as you couldn't have infinite. I was told its a scary thought to apply 0 in there math.

[Natusake]

Natusake, the falling is the easiest to reproduce the same velocity time again.
not to mention it shows that the dielectric lines of force are, even at this
small scale and intensity, is still enough to conquer gravity even for a slight moment. What would the point be trying several directions when the first and easiest to test with is quite clear and concise. Any other directions would just leave you with 2 external forces acting on the rod when we can narrow it down and let nature show us.

Yeah, falling is the easiest method, I'm not bemoaning that method. I am saying that trying to section off dielectric induction between a phenomenon that is induced from the force of gravitation, and a phenomenon that isn't, is silly and unnecessary.

[TheoriaApophasis]

trying to section off dielectric induction between a phenomenon that is induced from the force of gravitation.

Do what? LOL


induction is occurring in some fashion between passing thru the magnets/copper combo ON the plastic rod.


remove gravity from the picture here chum.

If I did the same in 0G in outer space and FORCE the rod "downwards" the same resistance would occur.

[Natusake]

Do what? LOL


induction is occurring in some fashion between passing thru the magnets/copper combo ON the plastic rod.


remove gravity from the picture here chum.

If I did the same in 0G in outer space and FORCE the rod "downwards" the same resistance would occur.

Yes this is exactly what I'm saying. You were trying to point out that the rod is falling, but it really doesn't matter if it is falling or anything.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Yes this is exactly what I'm saying. You were trying to point out that the rod is falling, but it really doesn't matter if it is falling or anything.

Point,..... you missed it.



drop it via gravity, push the rod thru (course the magnets will also have to be dropping thru as well to produce the effect) in 0 gravity.

point is "X" induction on plastic in that configuration.


Move in with PHAT above, let him be your master, teach you.

[microwatt]

i have a question. have you ever considered making a tension rig out of springs? perhaps you could measure this force on the rod. We don't believe you when you say there is a reactive force. Need to see actual proof such as a spring being pulled.