A Modified Van de Graaff Generator Part II

Transport of charge from outside the dome

In view of the difficulties with charge separation discussed last time, it seems that the only possibility for bringing charge to the inside surface of the charged dome without paying a full energy penalty is to generate it externally, and then shield it as far as possible while it is being transported.

There is no problem with getting rid of unwanted charge occurring from charge separation at an external location away from the dome, where the influence of the dome's voltage gradient is already low. There, all unwanted separated charge can easily be neutralised against Earth, for very little energy penalty.

The next requirement is to shield the wanted charge during its transport. Do the charge carriers really have to remain "exposed" against the entire voltage gradient between the dome and Earth?

Cross-sectional view of modified Pelletron design, with chains carrying hemispherical hollow metal shields.
Each shield has insulating links to its neighbours (not shown), similar to the pellet chain design.
The shields enclose, but never contact the charged pellets.

The above schematic drawing shows one way of solving this problem. It is a modified Pelletron design, with synchronized additional chains of hemispherical metal shields (green) that come together to enclose the charged pellets during their movement towards and away from the dome. The shields themselves are always uncharged, and so cannot experience a force from the dome's voltage gradient. (Any induced charge on the shields can be neutralised against Earth).

With charging/discharging by induction as before, and with the transported charges no longer paying an energy penalty from being exposed to the voltage gradient between the dome and Earth, it would seem entirely possible now to gain excess energy from this modification.

To recap: we could produce charge at relatively low voltage, and then ultimately access it at a very much higher voltage. We would obtain a "voltage multiplication", so to speak, while paying hardly any energy penalty for doing so. (Recall that the energy of a charge q at a voltage V is ½qV, so any increase in the voltage of the charge gives a corresponding increase in energy).

This is obvious?

The method discussed above is only a "first attempt" at a solution, with some problems still associated with it.

However, this general idea of transporting shielded charge and hence increasing voltage and electrical energy, without paying a full energy penalty, is so obvious that it surely must have occurred to others? It occurred to me many years ago as a physics student in the late 1960s. But I've not seen it described elsewhere except to some extent in the short article "Commentary and Experiment on Electric Fields and 'Free Energy'" by Philip Stone, Infinite Energy magazine Issue 53, Jan/Feb 2004, p56. That author also remarks on why something so obvious and of such importance should be so overlooked.

Increasing the low power levels

The major remaining practical problem is the very low power levels generally associated with electrostatic machines. There are other ways of transporting shielded charge, perhaps in higher quantities, which I'll discuss later. For now, I'll leave some last words to the foremost electrostatics expert of the last century, Professor Noël Felici of the University of Grenoble:—

"Production of electric flux does not require anything like a magnetic circuit or windings, but only electrified surfaces, with negligible power dissipation. The trouble arises due to the ease of ionization of the filling fluid, causing the field in the gap to collapse, and, therefore, suspending the operation of the generator.

...only a fluid of high permittivity (which must be a liquid) would allow wider gaps with smaller energy content. We know that such liquids, with sufficient resistivity, are not available at the present time. As long as the chemists have not found the clue to reduced ionization despite permittivity, any endeavour towards the immediate generation of direct current by electrostatic principles for power transmission purposes must be postponed." [Ref 1]

"So little effort has been spent in the whole world on these [electrostatic] problems, compared to the gigantic expenses devoted to many other developments, so great is still the path of empirical observation contributed by isolated individuals in the progress achieved so far, that we must consider the development of electrostatic machines as still following the paths of pre-atomic age. The fact that machines of very poor design, as seen from a purely scientific viewpoint, can be serious competitors for equipments embodying elaborate technology, is very comforting to the prospect of the immense wealth of possible progress still ahead of us." [Ref 2]

"The limitations of the electrostatic generator are related to the breakdown strength of the fluid medium surrounding the electricity carriers, not to the static character of their charge. If good insulating fluids were available, which allowed electrostatic forces comparable with the magnetic ones, nothing could prevent electrostatic generators from developing very high power outputs." [Ref 3]

Ref 1: "Developments in Regard to Electrostatic Generators for Direct Current" Professor N. J. Felici, DIRECT CURRENT, June 1953, p122.

Ref 2: "Recent Developments and Future Trends in Electrostatic Generation" Noël J. Felici, DIRECT CURRENT, December 1959, p192.

Ref 3: "Electrostatics and electrostatic engineering" N. J. Felici, 1967 Static Electrification Conference, p127.

Secrecy — in the past, and maybe today?

So, half a century later, are we really still waiting for the chemists to find suitable insulating fluids, which would solve the problem of low power levels, thus permitting high-power generation of free electrical energy generally as discussed above? Once again, many years ago, Prof. Felici made a comment on electrostatic technology that may still be generally relevant today (in Ref 1, my emphasis):— "Two important applications remain for the conducting segment type [of electrostatic generator]: infra-red tube supplies, and engine igniters. Since the first case is restricted by secrecy regulations, nothing may be published about it at the present time..."