Talk:Kelvin water dropper

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lacking description?

How are the rings made negative or positive in the first place? They must have a charge to begin with to start the system off- otherwise there would be no difference between the water droplets on either side and nothing would happen. Either way either the description is lacking- it needs to be added that the rings need to be intially charged or it needs to be stated how the rings become initially positive and negative on their own 81.179.187.5 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but this appears to work by amplifying the difference. So provided they don't start out at the exactly same charge they will migrate away from each other. --RadioElectric 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RadioElectric is correct. One of the cans is already randomly positive or negative, and to put it simply, the Kelvin Water Dropper mearly amplifies such an effect. By the way, someone should verify the thing about droplets being better than continuous streams. I am not sure if it is true at all, but it is definitely not true for the video. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm lazy, but any volunteers? --Armaetin (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A continuous stream wouldn't work because it would effectively electrically connect the two buckets and thus equalise the charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.33.53 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the operation of the generator depends upon the separation of the charges, the droplets keep the separation as they break away and carry their charge with them. A continuous stream of a conductive liquid allows a discharge and neutralizing path, as the previous entry states. However non conductive liquids such as fuels, and similar liquids will carry their charges with the flow and accumulate and build to dangerous levels in the containers they fill unless they are properly bonded and earth grounded.1bobwhite (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to video doenst work

"This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender's friend request." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.244.191 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

efficiency

How much power does this thing generate? Can it be used to generate a stream of power instead of lightning bolts? What is a good efficiency comparison to say... a turbine generator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.139.24 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is there a solid state implementation

can it be implemented as solid state? (i.e. without water with electrons and magnets..., something without moving parts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.234.81 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

principles of operation

It is my humble opinion that the reference to hydroelectric power in the last paragraph does not agree with the topic of electrostatic generators and the production of static charges. 1bobwhite (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "As with other forms of hydroelectric power, the energy here ultimately comes from the gravitational energy released by letting the water drops fall." Were this true, it would seem that increasing one or more of the vertical dimensions would increase the power produced. Yet, it is far from obvious how this could happen. Surely it is the proximity of the rings to the water source that allows them to attract water with opposite charge. And it is difficult to see how the distance to the bucket could affect the power. If nothing else, there's some explaining to do in the last paragraph. JKeck (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I realized that, while it's the electrostatic force that pulls the charged water to the oppositely charged ring, it's gravity that has to pull the water to the like-charged bucket (and keeps the charges "together"). While the energy wording is of course correct, phrasing it in terms of force may make for a clearer explanation. JKeck (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

chemical reaction

So what is happening anyway? From what i can tell, OH- and H3O+ naturally exists in the container. The electric field guides the ions to the positive and negative container. But then, how does is the potential increased? There are no free electrons or something... 130.89.234.108 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential increases due to the work of gravity on the drops separating charges. This is not a chemical reaction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where does the charge in the drops come from? 130.89.233.218 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears randomly, as the drops separate from the dripper, or by absorbing an ion from the air. A cosmic ray could knock off a few electrons. Once a difference exists the machine amplifies it. That's why article speaks of 'positive feedback' the slightest imbalance in charge is amplified; just like a bullhorn squeeling, or a laser begining to generate light.

71.139.165.48 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now how does it amplify? I ask because as water doesn't conduct, explaining it by electrostatic induction seems odd. 130.89.167.48 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But a moving drop of water with a charge on it does conduct. Water does have enough conductance to balance the charge out in time scales under a millisecond. See Water (properties)#Electrical conductivity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned article only argues in favor of ion conduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.232.35 (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]