How does this specific Van de Graaff generator work?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the workings of a specific Leybold Van de Graaff generator, highlighting its unique design with three rollers instead of the typical two. The user notes that the generator charges negatively, contrary to expectations, and attributes this to the materials used in the rollers and belt, suggesting the belt is closer to the positive end of the triboelectric series. They detail an experiment using an electroscope to demonstrate the opposite charges between the dome and the electroscope, confirming the generator's unusual charging behavior. The conversation also touches on different operational principles of Van de Graaff generators, including variations in roller configurations. Overall, the thread explores the implications of the generator's design on its electrostatic performance.
greypilgrim
Messages
579
Reaction score
44
Hi.

I have access to following Leybold Van de Graaff generator:
vdg.png


The instructions and data sheet can be found here, but they don't give much insight.

I have found different working principles of VdG generators. Some need the rising and falling sides of the belt to be closely together from top to bottom to act as a capacitor, others don't rely on this at all. I haven't found other descriptions of VdG generators like this one where the sides are brought together only at one point (6).

I thought it might be an improvement to the following kind of VdG generators:
371px-Van_de_Graaff_Generator.svg.png

They might have brought together both sides of the belt where they placed the lower electrode such that more positive charge gets attracted to the outside of the belt (since now there's more negative charge on the inside of the belt close to the electrode).

However, I found that the dome actually gets charged negatively. Also, all three rollers seem to be made of the same kind of plastic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
greypilgrim said:
However, I found that the dome actually gets charged negatively

how did you determine this ?

greypilgrim said:
Also, all three rollers seem to be made of the same kind of plastic.

3 rollers ? I have only seen ones with 2 rollersDave
 
davenn said:
how did you determine this ?
I first charged an electroscope positively on the plus pole of a high voltage source (I later repeated this using the positive charge of a wool rubbed glass rod and got the same result). Then I charged a small isolated sphere on the dome of the generator and approached the top part of the electroscope, which made the spreaded leaves in the electroscope approach each other. If my understanding of electrostatic induction is correct, this means that the dome and the electroscope must be of opposite charge.

I repeated this with different parts of the generator, mainly the in- and outside of the belt and it seems to me that all charges are opposite compared to the second image I posted. So I guess they just used materials such that the belt is closer to the positive end of the triboelectric series than the rollers.

davenn said:
3 rollers ? I have only seen ones with 2 rollers
There are different working principles, some even use 4 rollers:

vdgself.jpg


But yeah, 3 rollers seem unusual. I still think the outside roller on my generator was added to attract more electrons from the lower electrode, because they now feel more positive charge from inside the belt (not only from the part going upwards but also from the part going downwards).
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top