Interesting paper

[d...@judy-dan.net]

Hi everyone:

Has anyone looked at this paper by Claus Turtur. It is called a "A
Motor driven by Electrostatic Forces". The paper is posted at
philica.com. It should be available at this link;

http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=119

The paper claims to describe a type of motor that seems to operate
without an aparent energy source. At least there seems to be no
obvious "normal" explanation for its behavior. The author claims that
the motor is obtaining energy from the vacuum. I am very interested
in understanding if this effect is real. I would like to have some
discussion here about this motor.

- Dan Solomon

[Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply]

In article
<b4bfbf9e-91a8-4938...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
d...@judy-dan.net writes:

> Has anyone looked at this paper by Claus Turtur. It is called a "A
> Motor driven by Electrostatic Forces". The paper is posted at
> philica.com. It should be available at this link;
>
> http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=119
>
> The paper claims to describe a type of motor that seems to operate
> without an aparent energy source.

Just this statement should be enough to demonstrate that the claim
cannot be true.

> At least there seems to be no
> obvious "normal" explanation for its behavior. The author claims that
> the motor is obtaining energy from the vacuum. I am very interested
> in understanding if this effect is real. I would like to have some
> discussion here about this motor.

Having briefly looked at the web page (I have better things to do), the
obvious question is: Why hasn't he built the motor? Here are some
quotes from the web page:

Reference [1] can be regarded as a preparation of the explanations
presented here. There it is demonstrated, that every electrical
charge permanently emanates energy carried by the electrical field
produced by this charge.

This is simply wrong. Only accelerated charges radiate energy.

Reference [1] is:

Turtur, Claus W. (2007). Two Paradoxes of the
Existence of electric Charge. arXiv:physics/0710.3253 v1

That is, by the same author. Being in the "physics" section should
make one wary.

An electrical charge q causes a permanent electrostatic force onto
the rotor and so it permanently drives the rotor, as long as the
practical setup guarantees, that the forces of friction are not
stronger than the driving electrostatic forces.

It's not completely clear what the author means by this. Of course,
with no friction at all, if I set something in motion, then it
remains in motion. But this is not a motor, which as usually
understood exerts a torque on a load.

In short, forget it. If it really worked, the author should be a
very rich man---simply use the motor to drive a generator and sell
the electricity to the power company. (In Germany, power companies
are obliged to buy any electricity private citizens generate and feed
into the grid.)

[d...@judy-dan.net]

Thanks for your reply.

> > The paper claims to describe a type of motor that seems to operate
> > without an aparent energy source.
>
> Just this statement should be enough to demonstrate that the claim
> cannot be true.
>
> > At least there seems to be no
> > obvious "normal" explanation for its behavior. The author claims that
> > the motor is obtaining energy from the vacuum. I am very interested
> > in understanding if this effect is real. I would like to have some
> > discussion here about this motor.
>
> Having briefly looked at the web page (I have better things to do), the
> obvious question is: Why hasn't he built the motor?

He did build the motor. I gave the wrong link. Look at the paper at
the link

http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=124

It is called "Conversion of Vaccum-energy into mechanical energy -
Successful experimental verification". In this paper he describes the
motor. It seems to work. The question is why.

So please look at this link and try to figure out if there is a
reasonable explanation for what is happening.

Best regards,

Dan Solomon

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

d...@judy-dan.net wrote:

>
> He did build the motor. I gave the wrong link. Look at the paper at
> the link
>
> http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=124
>
> It is called "Conversion of Vaccum-energy into mechanical energy -
> Successful experimental verification". In this paper he describes the
> motor. It seems to work. The question is why.
>
> So please look at this link and try to figure out if there is a
> reasonable explanation for what is happening.

"This aim is reached with a very special type of hydrostatic bearing
shown in fig.2. This type of "bearing" even makes the use of vacuum
unnecessary as well as the use of very high voltage. The system is a
rotor swimming on the surface of water, being supported by little
cuboids of Styrofoam."

Essentially what he has created is a turbine sitting over a bowl of
water. My guess is that evaporation is causing the turbine to rotate.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

[Igor Khavkine]

On Oct 2, 11:39 am, d...@judy-dan.net wrote:

> Has anyone looked at this paper by Claus Turtur. It is called a "A
> Motor driven by Electrostatic Forces". The paper is posted at
> philica.com. It should be available at this link;
>
> http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=119

Whether it's interesting is highly unlikely, as addressed by other
posters. I'd like to add a note about the source website: http://philica.com/

Philica [1] is is an experimental online academic journal with open
access and open peer review. In my understanding, anyone "professional
researcher" may register and post articles on Philica. These articles
cane then be reviewed anonymously by others registered with the site.
Each article is assigned a review score, the higher the score the
better the presumed quality of the article. What's different compared
to regular peer review is that the reviewer's comments are open for
everyone to see.

While this is an intriguing idea, it appears that this journal has yet
to reach a critical mass of users. Thus, even the highly rated
articles are still only of questionable quality. This becomes evident
upon browsing the articles posted under the Physics subject header. I
do wish Philica success, though. It would be interesting to see if
their approach to peer review is viable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philica

Igor

[d...@judy-dan.net]

Dirk:

Why do you think that evaporation explains this result? According to
the paper the rotor does not rotate until the voltage is applied.
Also I don't see how evaporation would force the rotor to move in a
particular direction.

- Dan Solomon

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

First, the rotor is not symmetrical so there is a preferred direction of
rotation depending on air/water vapour flow.
Second, what is the potential difference between the rotor, water and
other parts of the apparatus? Have ion winds been discounted?

That open water alone makes the whole expt dubious esp given the very
small forces involved.