Hello, Could anyone please point out any problems with this idea before I go ahead and try to build it? 
This concept came about in a search for a way to implement a motionless version of "Lord Kelvin's Water Dropper" experiment, without the need for dripping water. http://overunity.com/17431/kelvins-water-dropper-thunderstorm-without-drops/msg510496/#msg510496
The way I see it, it should generate a perpetual charge buildup and eventual spark discharge, but there is no obvious energy source, apart from the dipole.
Many thanks in advance,
Leo

Can't see any reason for you not to go ahead and just build it.
You've got nothing to lose, except perhaps for some money and spare time, both of which I me mysef tend to lose on my experiments, but I'm still happy regardless of the outcome of my builds, knowing that I've atleast tried ;)

Quote from Lynx on September 14th, 2017, 07:36 AM

Can't see any reason for you not to go ahead and just build it.
You've got nothing to lose, except perhaps for some money and spare time, both of which I me myself tend to lose on my experiments, but I'm still happy regardless of the outcome of my builds, knowing that I've at least tried ;)

OK! I'm gonna build it, but if it rips a hole in the fabric of spacetime and destroys the Entire Universe.....  oh, what the hey ... :D

Quote from captainradon on September 14th, 2017, 02:32 PM

OK! I'm gonna build it, but if it rips a hole in the fabric of spacetime and destroys the Entire Universe.....  oh, what the hey ... :D

That's the spirit.

Let the world know one man can change everything.  :-)

Quote from Matt Watts on September 14th, 2017, 02:57 PM

That's the spirit.

Let the world know one man can change everything.  :-)

....as long as everyone shares the blame!  ;) ;) ;)

step 3 can be used to make something work. as the plus and minus are equalised.
put a coil inbetween and it generates a magnetic field

Welcome to the forums captainradon.

    I will take you up on evaluating your idea.
First is the initial charge on the pails, if you start with both pails in the
same medium such as open air then what gives them their opposite
charge?  If you precharge them they will equal each other in a short
time due to ionized air that is omnipresent. 
   
     In farradays water dropper experiment he used the initial
charge that is true but he built up the charge over time using water as
the dielectric because it is Bipolar and isolated from all the other water
dropplets thereby creating multiple charge carriers.  Gravity is used as
the work function in that setup. Since I do not see any work being done
to maintain the pail charges then no gain will form.

     Second is the capacitors.  When you have a charged capacitor and
connect another that is discharged to it the energy will distribute itself
between the two.  The capacity of the buckets is very small so when
you connect any other plate capacitor of larger value to them you will
not have enough power to align the molecules of the capacitors
dielectric between the plates. 
   
     The charge in a standard capacitor is held very tightly in place by
the dielectric field lines that close themselves between the plates
through the dielectric so that if you tried to short 1 plate of one capacitor
to another capacitors oppositely charged plate it will not release any
energy from either cap so the last diagram will not hold true of having q*2. 

     Last is the amount of work it will take to switch the capacitors
in and out of the circuits will far outweigh any gain of the system in its
current format.
     
     Having said that, there are a few things that can be conveyed to help
you on your journey.   If you truly want to make a motionless electrostatic
generator then there is no better example than a Tesla coil.  If you want
to stay in the same framework as the dropper then you can only modify
certain characteristics of the setup and not its modus operandi.  First
thing to figure out is what will you use as a charge carrier?  what would
hold the most charge per weight, how many carriers can be moved, and
how fast can they be made to move from point A to point B. 

     Electrostatic induction from the water droplets falling through the
rings induces a charge of opposite polarity to the drops till they hit the
buckets and through electrostatic conduction they give the buckets the
same charge as the drops which in turn adds more charge to the
oppositely wired rings thereby continuing the cycle until you discharge
the buckets together neutralizing them and the process repeats itself.

    A man named Robert Van de Graaff patented one of the first Electrostatic generators based on the same concept as Farradays thunderstorm.  Here is another patent that uses the same concept.

     If you want to discuss this any further or try another direction like
using moving charged plates near each creating voltage gain for example, let me know. 

 

Quote from chuff1 on September 15th, 2017, 07:26 PM

First is the initial charge on the pails, ... they will equal each other in a short
time due to ionized air that is omnipresent.

Thank you very much for taking the time to evaluate the device.
As far as initial charge goes, I was hoping the micro-imbalances in the pail charge
will be amplified by positive feedback, just as how "Kelvin's Thunderstorm" powers up
initially. After that, I'd have to be quick and keep adding charges faster than they get
lost through the air.

Quote

.......... Since I do not see any work being done to maintain the pail charges then no gain will form.

That's exactly what I was hoping for - No pain and all gain!  :D

Quote

Second is the capacitors.  ..... you will
not have enough power to align the molecules of the capacitors
dielectric between the plates. 
     ..... if you tried to short 1 plate of one capacitor
to another capacitors oppositely charged plate it will not release any
energy from either cap so the last diagram will not hold true of having q*2.

Thanks for that; this is the real crux of my uncertainty, whether it was even possible to short out
capacitor in the manner I proposed.

I'm not sure if this would make any difference either, but I thought of combining
Step 3 (shorting out outer plates) and Step 4 (discharging inner plates to the pails),
as these steps could happen simultaneously:

You probably realised that the reason I short out the charge on the outer plates (and waste it)
is to allow the charge on the inner plates to escape to the pails.
As the outer plates lose their charge by shorting,  they lose their grip on the inner plates' charge,
which can leak up to the pails as both plates discharge together. 

So one capacitor discharges into two other capacitors.
I was also hoping the Faraday Pail effect, (where charge wants to spread out as far as
possible across the surface of a conductor) would provide enough incentive for
the inner plates to discharge to the pails.

Quote

Last is the amount of work it will take to switch the capacitors
in and out of the circuits will far outweigh any gain of the system in its
current format.

Thanks, now that is probably the killer!  Opening and closing switches in highly charged wires
does take energy, and even if the pail charges did build up as I hoped, the switching cost
would rise accordingly.

Quote

If you truly want to make a motionless electrostatic
generator then.......

Since my aim was to try to get free energy for nothing,
not simply generate high voltages at a cost, I may have to admit defeat, unless
that last idea about the simultaneously discharging plates makes any difference.
Thank you very much for bringing me back to reality!

Quote from evostars on September 15th, 2017, 03:36 AM

step 3 can be used to make something work. as the plus and minus are equalised.
put a coil inbetween and it generates a magnetic field

Thanks for that idea, but it looks like I may have to go back to the drawing board
and try to get the basics right!  :-[

     I edited my original post to convey a more positive message.  :)
The term "free energy" has become taboo,  no one today with
any clout in the scientific world will touch it.  There is a good
argument against it "You can't get something from nothing".
That statement is true, But we are not working with nothing.
To quote one of the greats T Henry Moray, "We live in a sea
of energy". All one has to do is find 1 way to tap into this sea
and we all win.  There are multiple ways in which to go but
my advice is to pick one and stick with it.  Electrostatic
devices that suck the charge out of the air such as Henry Plauson
and Nikola Tesla or Roy Meyers.  After researching what mechanism they used
to get results I found that the key to it is to use dissimilar metals
one that is High on the chart of Electronegativity and a metal that is low
on the chart.  The highest rated ones are not even metal.  Take
oxygen, It reacts with quite a few other minerals and oxidizes them.
When you choose two atoms with the most difference the more energy
can be extracted from them trying to neutralize themselves.

I like this thread just fine :thumbsup2: :-D

My 2 cents is that in order to find "interesting unknowns" you have to go beyond what normally constitutes "accepted parameters" in experiments, I.E by using higher voltages, discharge higher currents, apply your circuits to physically bigger builds/things, as I do believe that would be one way to 'break on through to the other side'.

Using a 30V bench power supply to power your experiments just won't cut it IMO, especially if you're looking into "bending" the (known) laws of physics a bit.

Thank you all for your constructive criticisms. Like failure, it helps to unblock the
thought processes and to let go of what doesn't work.

I agree the term "free energy" may be a misnomer, but if anything is to be done about global
warming, then we jolly-well had better find something quick, that works, is practically free, is a plug-in
substitute for fossil fuels; and can be manufactured in any small village in the developing world.

That's a tall enough order as is, but additionally we must forget about getting any sort of personal
financial gain or ownership by way of patents.

Well, enough pep-talk for now, it's back to the drawing board tomorrow. Good night!