This is correspondance between myself and James Batchelor regarding his Cellular Gravitation - Gravitator experiments of James Batchelor and is reproduced by me with his permission. In my opinion, despite what I say below and due to what I've learned since, it indicates to me that the cause of the movement may have been the ionization of the air by the bare wires that the device was suspended from. This excellent work by Jean-Louis Naudin explains how this would be the case. It gives an explanation for why a capacitor would move in the positive direction if bare feed wires are used (or if the voltage is sufficiently high to cause leakage through insulated feed wires).
=======================================================================
From:James Batchelor
To:Steven Dufresne
Subject:Cellular gravitators
Date:Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:00:48 -0000
> Hi James,
>
> I consider it one more thing done to achieve our common goal. On the
> other hand, there is something you could do, if you haven't already.
> Could you do some more tests on your ceramic cellular gravitator?
> Specifically,
> 1. Test it with one polarity.
> 2. Then, without disturbing the wiring near the gravitator, change the
> polarity by reversing the wires at the power supply.
> 3. Then turn the device so it is pointing in the opposite direction and
> test again.
> 4. Then, without disturbing the wiring near the gravitator, change the
> polarity by reversing the wires at the power supply.
Sure - I'll do that! Why so much interst in the crusty old cellular
gravitator all of a sudden though? Freenrg-l has been buzzing with it of
late. I'll get those tests sone and let you know. Won't take long as all I
got to do is hook it up and turn it on.
Jame
=======================================================================
From:James Batchelor
To:Steven Dufresne
Subject:RE: Project Winterhaven
Date:Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:04:04 -0000
> Hi James,
>
> I consider it one more thing done to achieve our common goal. On the
> other hand, there is something you could do, if you haven't already.
> Could you do some more tests on your ceramic cellular gravitator?
> Specifically,
> 1. Test it with one polarity.
> 2. Then, without disturbing the wiring near the gravitator, change the
> polarity by reversing the wires at the power supply.
> 3. Then turn the device so it is pointing in the opposite direction and
> test again.
> 4. Then, without disturbing the wiring near the gravitator, change the
> polarity by reversing the wires at the power supply.
I replied, then suddenly realised a few things. For point four, do you mean
I need to discharge the gravitator before reversing polarity? It'd be
dangerous if not, but if it was discharged, I can't see what difference it
would make, since the plates are identical in size. The enamel on the tiles
might be important though. I've had a shock off this particular toy, and it
HURTS a lot. I'll do the tests anyway though.
James
=======================================================================
From:Steven Dufresne
To:James Batchelor
Subject:Re: Project Winterhaven
Date:Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:57:22 -0500 (EST)
Hi James,
See below.
> > I consider it one more thing done to achieve our common goal. On the
> > other hand, there is something you could do, if you haven't already.
> > Could you do some more tests on your ceramic cellular gravitator?
> > Specifically,
> > 1. Test it with one polarity.
> > 2. Then, without disturbing the wiring near the gravitator, change the
> > polarity by reversing the wires at the power supply.
> > 3. Then turn the device so it is pointing in the opposite direction and
> > test again.
> > 4. Then, without disturbing the wiring near the gravitator, change the
> > polarity by reversing the wires at the power supply.
>
> I replied, then suddenly realised a few things. For point four, do you mean
> I need to discharge the gravitator before reversing polarity? It'd be
> dangerous if not, but if it was discharged, I can't see what difference it
> would make, since the plates are identical in size. The enamel on the tiles
> might be important though. I've had a shock off this particular toy, and it
> HURTS a lot. I'll do the tests anyway though.
Yes, discharge the gravitator before between each step. Each step
is an independent test. However, it is important that between steps
1 and 2 and between steps 3 and 4 you do not disturb the gravitators or
the portion of the wires that are connected to the gravitator. Can you
discharge the power supply from the power supply without disturbing
the gravitator?
I realize your plates are identical in size. This sort of sequence of
tests is intended to find artifacts caused by the wires. Let me
illustrate by telling you what happened to me recently.
I had an 8" diameter wax gravitator. I sat a 5 foot high PVC
tube on my scale and sat the gravitator on the top of the PVC tube.
# <== gravitator
+-+
| |
| | <== PVC tube
| |
+-+
----- <== scale
-----
I then connected my positive wire to the top end of the gravitator
and the negative wire to the bottom end of the gravitator.
-------------- wire
/
|
+------------+
| | <== gravitator
+------------+
|---------------- wire
The test results were:
1. - on top, + on bottom <== weight loss
2. + on top, - on bottom <== no change
So I flipped the gravitator around:
3. - on top, + on bottom <== weight loss
4. + on top, - on bottom <== no change
Had I stopped after 1, then I would not have noticed the weirdness.
I then changed the geometry of the top wire so that it moved straight
towards the gravitator instead of hanging down to it as in the diagram
above. So now it was like:
|---------------- wire
+------------+
| | <== gravitator
+------------+
|---------------- wire
Repeating the above 4 steps, there was no movement for any of them
I repeated the entire series of tests a few times hoping for something
else. The results were always consistent. I concluded that when the
top wire was protruding down to the gravitator and was negatively charged,
it would pull the gravitator up.
The series of tests I've suggested are not so much to test if the
wires are producing the force but to search for unexpected behaviour
as in above.
Thanks for taking the time to do this,
Steve
=======================================================================
From:James Batchelor
To:Steven Dufresne
Subject:RE: Cellular gravitators
Date:Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:56:12 -0000
> In fact, if I still have any mileage left on what you claim you
> owe me though this may be taking you too long from your studies,
> have you tried it in an inflated plastic bag yet?
I've not tried that yet either, but will certainly give it a go, as you
mentioned it. I am at a loss to explain why sometimes I am getting positive
results where you are not. All I can imagine is that there are small
differences in what we are doing which makes the difference. I pulsed the
power supply, but since there was no exposed metal, ionisation must have
been little/none. An EHD effect might be to blame, as you say, but the
plastic bag would be an eliminating test. Why not just shrink wrap the
gravitator like a joint of meat though? Then wrap that in grounded aluminium
to eliminate any stray electric field which might be causing movement of the
air. Plenty to think about, I'll get on it.
I'm a bit annoyed with my inability to update my site. It was supposed to be
brought up to speed with my petro tests ages ago, but something keeps on
distracting me whenever I need to do the write-up. Not to worry about
distracting me from my studies though - diversions welcome ;)
I'll let you know what I come up with.
James
=======================================================================
Hi James,
I'm trying to duplicate your cellular gravitator as closely as
I can but some things are unclear on your webpage:
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/EclipseLab/2k1/EG/cellgrav.html
First you show two pictures of the tiles with foil on them,
presumably laid out on a table. In both pictures there
are 6 tiles, each tile with a foil sitting on it.
But, in the picture of the hanging gravitator there are
6 tiles too. Are there also 6 foils? Is one foil exposed to air?
I guess I'm wondering for the parallel experiment ...
- how many tiles?
- how many foils?
... and for the series experiment:
- how many tiles?
- how many foils?
Thanks,
Steve
=======================================================================
From:James Batchelor
To:Steven Dufresne
Subject: RE: Gravitator consutrcion question
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:06:34 -0000
> But, in the picture of the hanging gravitator there are
> 6 tiles too. Are there also 6 foils? Is one foil exposed to air?
Yes, thats right. I think I wrote about there being less exposure in one
version than the other, but I'm not sure.....just checking now. I do know
that any exposed metal was taped over with common or garden sellotape to
prevent ionisation.
> I guess I'm wondering for the parallel experiment ...
- how many tiles? 6
- how many foils? 6
> ... and for the series experiment:
- how many tiles? 6
- how many foils? 6
Sorry, I think I might have misled people with my site. In both tests, one
endplate was visible, although you cannot see it in my pictures. This was
sellotaped over to prevent ionisation (but would have done nothing for EHD).
The only difference I could note was that it was tough to perfectly insulate
the charging tabs on the parallel version, so a bit of ionisation might have
occurred there.
Hope this helps,
James
=======================================================================
From:James Batchelor
To:Steven Dufresne
Subject: gravitator action
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:12:22 -0000
I have some quick'n'dirty results for you regarding my gravitator and the
tests you requested I do.
1) Reversal of polarity without disturbing the wires made no difference that
I could detect to the gravitator thrust - just changed the direction in
which it thrusted.
2) The plastic bag liked to deform itself maddeningly in the intense
electric field, but I finally got this fixed. I can't guarantee a perfect
insulation, but I'm still getting some type of thrust. It's very exciting to
be able to nearly rule out other factors! I might try the faraday cage idea
I mentioned in order to eliminate absolutely the EHD possibility.
I'll keep you posted,
James
=======================================================================
Hi James,
> I have some quick'n'dirty results for you regarding my gravitator and the
> tests you requested I do.
> 1) Reversal of polarity without disturbing the wires made no difference
> that I could detect to the gravitator thrust - just changed the direction
> in which it thrusted.
This helps rule out wires as the cause. By the way, how do you tell
which direction it thrusts in since it is a pendulum? Do you go by
which direction it thrusts for the first swing or is the swing
larger in one direction than the other.
> 2) The plastic bag liked to deform itself maddeningly in the intense
> electric field, but I finally got this fixed. I can't guarantee a perfect
> insulation, but I'm still getting some type of thrust. It's very exciting
> to be able to nearly rule out other factors! I might try the faraday cage
> idea I mentioned in order to eliminate absolutely the EHD possibility.
Is the plastic bag touching the device? How far away is the closest
edge?
You say you are still getting some type of thrust. Is the thrust
significantly less?
Thanks for going through all this. It is important. I'll build
and try to test one tonight. I don't have 7 cm tiles though.
Mine are 5 cm which will probably arc. I have some larger ones but
they weigh a ton. I'll keep looking for 7 cm ones.
Cheers,
Steve
=======================================================================
From:James Batchelor
To:Steven Dufresne
Subject:RE: gravitator action
Date:Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:06:10 -0000
> This helps rule out wires as the cause. By the way, how do you tell
> which direction it thrusts in since it is a pendulum? Do you go by
> which direction it thrusts for the first swing or is the swing
> larger in one direction than the other.
Just the direction it initially moves in. The swinging motion is
interesting, but a gravitator is unidirectional under normal conditions, so
I just mention the direction it initially moved towards.
> Is the plastic bag touching the device? How far away is the closest
> edge?
About 6-7 centimetres. I fixed it by inflating the bag with more pressure.
Its no longer a problem.
> You say you are still getting some type of thrust. Is the thrust
> significantly less?
Aha - the magic bullet! The thrust is (very roughly) about 70% of what it
was, but I've not actually tested the total swing-up times for full pendulum
period yet - just that it moves at all. Full tests are on the way.
> Thanks for going through all this. It is important. I'll build
> and try to test one tonight. I don't have 7 cm tiles though.
> Mine are 5 cm which will probably arc. I have some larger ones but
> they weigh a ton. I'll keep looking for 7 cm ones.
Wouldn't that be a bonus? Anything heavy has got to be good. Interestingly,
I notice some types of toothpaste have titanium dioxide in them. Probably
worthless as a dielectric because of the other ionic conductors most likely
present. For a keen chemist, it could be somewhere to begin though, if the
ions therein could be neutralised to make the solution as nonconductive as
possible.
Anyway, enough mad ideas,
James
=======================================================================
From:James Batchelor
To:Steven Dufresne
Subject:RE: gravitator action
Date:Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:33:50 -0000
> I built the 5cm ones last night and did a simple test for arcing.
> It arced. The arc slipped from between the tiles of one layer
> around to the foil on top (the one that is not between layers).
> I'll try putting the top foil in wax instead of just covered with
> black electrical tape. I'll also look again for 7 cm ones and
> try my heavier ones. Sadly, I am on the road all of next week.
> By the way. From the picture on your website it is not clear
> how you are connecting the wires. Are you suspending the device
> from the wires or something else? About what gauge are your wires and
> how well insulated?
The device is suspended from the power lines. Gauge, I have no idea,
possible #24, but not really sure at all. Insulation is the rubber coating
they were dipped in, maybe 500micrometres thick.
Sorry this is so brief - I have a negative amount of time right now!
James
=======================================================================
Hi James,
I found some 7cm square tiles today. They are ceramic though, not
earthenware. I've found that ceramic often leaks through the surface
itself - porous I guess. So, I'll put layers of parawax saturated
cotton in as well. Probably like:
tile - cotton - electrode - cotton - tile - ...
Anyway, I'll build and test it this weekend. If I get a chance, I'll
go back to the same store and see if they have some earthenware.
I couldn't remember that term when I was there today.
By the way. I'd like to suggest one more test, if I may. The last
email between us you said you were suspending your gravitator from the
wires themselves. Could you try suspending it from thread or something
instead and just hang the wires loosely from the side such that the
wires are not under tension? Then, as long as you still get results,
repeat the variations - polarity reversals, plastic bag, ...
Anyway, good experimenting,
Steve
=======================================================================
Hi James,
I found some tiles made by Pavisolo, the same company that makes yours.
I don't know if they are the same material though. I had the store
cut them into 7cm x 7cm squares. Today I assembled a capacitor as
follows:
tile+parowax saturated cotton+electrode+parowax saturated cotton+tile+
parowax saturated cotton+electrode+parowax saturated cotton+tile
The reason for the cotton layers was to help prevent the breakdown that I
find in ceramic tiles. The tiles are porus and often the breakdown
is straight through them.
I put opposite polarities on the electrodes and charged it up.
It broke down and turned into a short. I guess these tiles breakdown
very easily.
Oh well. Back to the drawing board.
Cheers,
Steve
=======================================================================
