«PACS-classification: 84.60.-h, 89.30.-g, 98.62.En, 12.20.-m, 12.20.Ds, 12.20.Fv Summary of a Scientfic Work by Claus Wilhelm Turtur Germany, ...»
The setup is uncomplicated, but it is suitable for the use in a vacuum chamber.
The rotor was rotating under air (see photo of fig.16), but there is a certain risk that it falls down when the voltage is applied, because of the forces, which have to be absorbed by the bearing. Especially if the lateral adjustment of the rotor axis in the minimum of the electric potential was not exact enough, this could happen rather easy. And this is not very easy to avoid, because there is no self-adjustment mechanism as it was known from the swimming rotor. Especially inside the vacuum chamber this was a problem: As soon as the voltage is switched on, the rotor tilts and falls down.
Under air it was possible to make the rotor spin with a voltage even in the range of 2... 3kV, coming to an angular velocity of several rounds per second. A moderate enhancement of the voltage to 3... 4... 5kV was enough to enhance the angular velocity up the several ten rounds per second.
Especially inside a metallic chamber (like a vacuum chamber), the absence of the selfadjustment mechanism is a serious problem, because the electrically conducting walls of the chamber influence the electric field drastically, so that an adjustment of the rotor in the minimum of the electrostatic potential is hardly possible. In this context we shall remember, that even an electric cable influences the electric field so much, that the rotation will be disturbed. Thus, the setup in fig.16 will lead to a rotation of few angular degrees, followed by a fall down of the rotor. This is the observation inside the vacuum chamber filled with air in the same way as inside the evacuated vacuum chamber. The rotor of fig.16 falls down, but the rotor of fig.14 tilts inside a metallic chamber. The rotor of fig.14 does not fall down inside the chamber because the glass dome prevents the fall. If the rotor tilts too much, it can not rotate because the force of friction between bottom end of the glass dome and the steel needle is to strong. This demonstrates that the electrostatic rotor reacts very sensitive to the presence of the walls of a metallic chamber.
52 4. Experiments to convert vacuum-energy into classical mechanical energy
After these tests it became clear, that it is the most effective method for the verification of the conversion of vacuum-energy, to use the self-adjustment mechanism even for the rotor in the vacuum chamber. To check this statement, a small rotor for an experiment inside a vacuum chamber was manufactured (see fig.17) and preliminary tested swimming on water in a simple metallic chamber without the possibility to evacuate. This was the first rotor spinning inside a metallic chamber. The self-adjustment mechanism began to work at about 1 kV and the rotation began unproblematic at about 2 kV with approx. 1 turn in 3…5 seconds. The angular velocity could be enhanced up to several turns per second at a voltage of about 4 kV.
In order to transfer this successful principle into the vacuum, the water had to be replaced by a fluid with low vapour pressure. Therefore a special vacuum-oil was used with the name „Ilmvac, LABOVAC-12S“, which has a vapour pressure of 108 mbar [Ilm 08]. Not perfectly ideal is the rather large viscosity of this oil (dynamic viscosity at 40°C of 94 milli Poise according to manufacturer information), which is more than two orders of magnitude larger
4.3. Experimental verification under the absence of gas-molecules 53 than the viscosity of water (dynamic viscosity at 40°C of 0.65milli Poise ). Thus, the swimming rotor on the oil needs remarkably larger force and torque than the swimming rotor on water if it shall rotate. The consequence is that the voltage to drive the rotor on oil has to be larger than the voltage applied to the rotor on water, and furthermore the rotor on oil goes much slower than the rotor on water. At pre-tests in air, two rotors, one with a diameter of 51mm and the other one with a diameter of 58mm have been tested. The voltage necessary to achieve rotation with the rotor on oil was minimally about 8... 12 kV in comparison to a voltage of about 1.5... 2 kV at which the rotation of the rotor on water begins.
And the angular velocity of the rotor on oil was only about one turn per 2 … 3 hours in comparison with an angular velocity of several turns per second of the rotor on water. The angular velocity of about 2 … 3 hours per one turn will be brought back to our mind later when the rotor is investigated in the vacuum.
The vacuum oil did not have a measurable conductivity (with our Ohmmeter), so the electric grounding of the rotor blades has been done with a thin copper filament (diameter 60 m ) from the rotor to the bottom of the metallic chamber, where is was not rigidly fixed, but it was allowed to slide. The Styrofoam floating bodies (see fig.17) have been replaced by balsa wood floating bodies, which have been sealed with blue lacquer in order to avoid permeation of the oil into the balsa wood. Because of the viscosity of the oil, the copper filament slows down the angular velocity of the rotor a little bit, but it did not prevent the rotation, so it was accepted. The rotor with balsa wood floating bodies can be seen in fig.18.
Two types of driving forces might possibly occur, namely (a.) attractive Coulomb-forces in connection with the conversion of vacuum-energy and (b.) recoil forces of ionized gas molecules (as said above). The force of (a.) is possible in air as well as in the vacuum, whereas the force (b.) is only possible at the tests with air. If the force (b.) would not exist at all, the rotor should have the same angular velocity in air as in the vacuum (if the electric field is the same). If the force (b.) exists additionally to (a.), the angular velocity in air should be larger than in the vacuum (with the same electric field in both cases). If the force (a.) would not exist at all, the rotor should rotate only in air but not in vacuum.
After the successful pre-tests inside a metallic chamber under air, two rotors (with diameters of 51mm (fig.19) and with 58mm (fig.18)) have been brought into a vacuum chamber with a diameter of 100 mm. The field source has a diameter of 63mm, is made of Aluminium and can be seen in fig.20.
The procedure of the experiment, at which finally the rotor rotated inside the vacuum, was
4.3. Experimental verification under the absence of gas-molecules 55 After the rotor was inserted into the vacuum chamber, the top flange with the field source was closed, bringing the field source into position. Then high voltage was applied (in the range of 10... 20 kV ) to test the rotation in air. At this phase of the experiment two forces driving the rotor were imaginable, the attractive Coulomb-force as well as force from the recoils of ionized gas particles. The electrostatic Coulomb-force does not produce an electric current, but forces from the recoils of ions do. At the begin of the pumping process an electric current could be measured, especially when the pressure passed the range at which according to Paschen’s law ionization is to be expected rather much [Ker 03], [Umr 97]. This is especially the case for a gas pressure between few 10 mbar until down to few tenths of a mbar, which is well in agreement with Paschen’s law: At a distance of about 19... 20 mm between the upper edges of the rotor blades and the field source, the Paschen-minimum of the breakthrough voltage (with p d 7.5 106 m atm, where p pressure and d distance of the capacitor plates) occurs at a pressure of about p 0.4 mbar. This means, that the gas has its maximal conductivity (and ionization) in this order of magnitude of the pressure.
The high voltage supply was operating with a current limitation (for instance at 50 A ), so that the voltage decreased down to 0.6 kV at a pressure in the range of several 10 mbar down to few tenths of a mbar. At this time, violet streamers could be seen optically (sometimes green streamers).
With further decreasing pressure only few single gas discharges occurred, which were visible (as soon as the room was beclouded) by looking into the window flange of the vacuum recipient and which were recognized as short-time peaks in the measurement of the electric current. When the pressure came down to about 103 mbar gas discharges did not occur any further. Below this pressure it is clear, that the drive of the rotor does not (dominantly) originate from ionized gas molecules.
Finally, the pressure was brought down to 6 105 mbar with the rotor of fig.19 and to 1 104 mbar with the rotor of Fig.18, which is sufficient to exclude gas discharges optically as well as by current measurement. A check of the reliability of the exclusion of gas discharges was done by enhancing the voltage. Beyond a critical voltage (approximately 17 kV at the 58mm -rotor) gas discharge began, visible clearly and easily under optical control as well as with current measurement.
Under full air pressure, the rotation was observed as usual (described above), but during the pumping procedure (at which electrical breakthrough and ionization occurred), no rotation could be observed any further (the voltage was too low). Even though gas ionization occurred at this pressure very much, it did not drive the rotor. It should be mentioned that the floating bodies as well as the oil degassed vehemently at the beginning of the pumping procedure, so that lots of bubbles have been produced in the vacuum oil. (There have been especially many bubbles at the 58mm -rotor, when the blue floating bodies have been replaced by a Styrofoam disc as floating body, because Styrofoam is not a material compatible with vacuum because of its outgassing. This material was only used in order to maximize the buoyant force of the floating body in order to minimize the friction between the floating body and the tough oil.) When degassing decreased during time, the production of bubbles decreased, coinciding with low pressure.
56 4. Experiments to convert vacuum-energy into classical mechanical energy Nevertheless the voltage was not switched off completely during the pumping procedure and the time of gas discharge in order to maintain the self-centering mechanism of the rotor within the flux lines of the electrical field of the field source. This was necessary to avoid an adhesion of the floating bodies at the walls of the vacuum chamber due to the oil. When the pressure decreased down to values at which gas ionization did not occur remarkably, the ionization current disappeared to a value smaller than the current measurable with the present amperemeter (1 A per each 10kV high voltage), so that the voltage came back to its high value (for instance to 16 kV with regard to the limit of 17 kV mentioned above, from which a certain distance was kept in order to avoid electrical breakthrough).
Together with the voltage, the rotation of the electrostatic rotor recurred. For example the 58mm -rotor, with a voltage of 16 kV and a distance of about 19... 20 mm between the upper edges of the rotor blades and the field source, produced an angular velocity of one turn per 2 … 3 hours. Please recognize these values from the pre-tests in air. But please also remember, that the voltage was smaller during the pre-tests in air. This demonstrates that both forces (a.) and (b.) mentioned above occur as long as the air is present, namely the Coulomb-force in connection with conversion of vacuum-energy as well as the force from the recoil of gas ions.
When the last-mentioned force was omitted due to the removal of the gas molecules, the Coulomb-force could be enhanced by enhancing the voltage (and the field strength of the electrostatic field) enough that the rotation was still observed.
This is the central proof that that the conversion of vacuum-energy into classical mechanical energy with the electrostatic rotor introduced by the present work, really occurs, with no gas discharge in the presence of the rotor.
A short look to the voltage necessary to obtain a rotation allows a rough first estimation of the relation between the forces of (a.) Coulomb-forces and (b.) ion recoils on the basis of the produced torque for the example of the performed experiment. Therefore, please have a look
to the following facts: