A better Vandegraaf generator?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Generator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility and potential of a modified Van de Graaff (VDG) generator that utilizes particulates instead of a traditional moving belt for charge transfer. Participants explore the implications of this design for science projects, industrial applications, and safety concerns, while considering the theoretical underpinnings of charge generation and transfer in such a system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant recalls initial experiments using talcum powder and an impeller fan, suggesting that the increased surface area of particulates could enhance charge transfer efficiency compared to a belt.
  • Another participant shares experiences with sand blasters, noting that sparks were generated in the hoses, indicating potential charge generation, though they express uncertainty about charge collection methods.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while the VDG might charge faster with particulates, the maximum charge strength may still be limited by the insulation properties of the generator's dome.
  • One participant discusses the importance of the radius of curvature of the capacitor and the dielectric properties affecting voltage limits, suggesting that using stove pipe sections could be a practical design choice.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety of using particulates, with emphasis on the need to avoid combustible materials due to explosion risks.
  • Another participant speculates on the potential industrial applications of a high power, high potential DC device, noting that it could generate more power at the same voltage without the need for a large belt system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of enthusiasm and skepticism regarding the proposed design. While there is some agreement that the concept could lead to faster charging, there is no consensus on whether it could achieve a stronger charge than traditional methods. Safety concerns and practical implementation challenges are also highlighted, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge various limitations, such as the dependence on the choice of particulates for charge transfer efficiency and the unresolved nature of potential losses in the system. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the maximum achievable voltage and safety implications of the proposed design.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students, educators, and hobbyists exploring innovative designs for electrostatic generators, as well as professionals considering applications of high voltage systems in industrial contexts.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
I have never gotten serious about this but I remember thinking the idea seemed promising. I thought this might make for good discussion; if feasible maybe an interesting science fair or even an undergrad project if it gets that interesting. We actually played with this a bit many years ago and we did get some encouraging initial results using a very crude apparatus, but we never got back to it.

The basic idea is this: Use particulates in place of a moving belt. We used an impeller style fan and motor from a vacuum cleaner. In our first run I believe the fan was grounded. This was used to drive talcum powder through a closed system designed to transfer charge as does the belt in a normal VDG generator. Keeping in mind that it has been a long time, IIRC, and if I was thinking properly, the capacity to transfer charge increases dramatically due to the total surface area available in a dense particle stream.

The end effect would be a high power device, surely much more lethal than a normal VDG if it worked as I was thinking. I believe, at least in principle it appeared that that the surface area for charge transfer could be scaled up by orders of magnitude using particulates as compared to the belt transfer method, and given approximately the same size generator column. I assumed that the total power is limited by the size of the fan motor used, insulation issues, and the efficiency of the charge transfer to and from the dust. What actual losses one might find…I couldn’t be sure. AFAIK, this would be very difficult to calculate. Lossy, yes. Too lossy, I don’t know. I kept thinking that I can always use more power and more powder, and more collisions for charge transfer, to beat many problems. Does this offer the means to simply "watt your way" thought the issues [so to speak]. For example, if too many restrictions are placed in the system and they are impedeing the flow of the particulates, use multiple stage fans to increase the pressure. The prices is simply more power in.

Note that any combustible materials should be avoided. This could cause an explosion such as we see in grain chutes from time to time. Dust explosions are very, very dangerous! In fact someone I knew of in Portland just died in one a few years ago. Dust had gotten into a high voltage panel and it exploded when he opened the door. Anyway, we believed that talcum power was probably safe, but honestly, we didn’t know for sure.

What do you think, could it work?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For the last several years I worked with sand blasters, we used a fine (25micron) aluminum oxide "sand" and had long (3" to 6' ) polyurathane hoses, when conditions were right, we would see sparks from 6" to 2' long inside the hoses. I am not sure how to collect the charge but we sure were generating it!
 
It sounds like a gut idea for a science fair. The VDG would probably get charged up faster than with a belt. But I don't thin'k you could get a stronger charge than with a belt. Becouse as far as I know the limet is the insulation of the dome of the VDG which is limited to a few MW when placed in nitroge (I am not schure doe).
 
I think the maximum potential may be increased a bit since the amount of charge leaking off might be offset by the increased supply, but aside from the possibility of quickly replacing charge lost, thus kicking up the voltage a little, I think you are correct. The minimum radius of curvature found on the capacitor [charge accumulator] is a strong determining factor for of the upper voltage limit, as is the insulating column height and dielectric properties.

Also, it turns out that 8 -12" diameter stove pipe sections connected to form a square loop works reasonably well for the capacitor, as opposed to the more difficult globe or ellipsoid option. This may also be easier to incorporate with the particle stream idea suggested here.

Different types of particulates will make better or lesser carriers for excess charge. Also, I believe that most particulates have an affinity for either positive, or for negative charge. So, the choice of particulates used here may be a most important one; in addition to safety concerns of course.
 
Last edited:
One thing that I didn't mention - maybe other people will know if this is true. A very high potential, high power, DC device is difficult to come by. I thought that there may even be industrial applications for this idea.

The idea is that much more power can be generated at the same voltage, and without using a belt the width of a house. Again though watch out! If this is correct this thing could easily become highly lethal!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K