Kelvin's Thunderstorm - Create lightning from water and gravity!

Did you know that you could recreate thunderstorm lightning in your own home?

It's possible and is really easy to do. Granted, it's not nearly as exciting as a good old fashion thunderstorm, but the effect is still pretty cool and this lightning won't kill you!

The scientific name for this experiment is a water-drop electrostatic generator.

Watch the video for a quick overview, then check out the detailed instructions to see how to build your own! (Scientific explanation is on step 6)

WARNING: This experiment can generate several thousand volts out of thin air, possible injuring or even killing a harmless little gnat or even a fly!

Video overview:

Step 1 Supplies

Here's a list of supplies you will need for this experiment. You can get them all at your local hardware store.


- Garden Hose
- Two buckets - 8 quart or larger are perfect
- Packing Styrofoam
- Hose 'Y' Adapter with flow-control valves
- One foot of 3/4" plastic tubing
- Two 3/4" end caps
- Nylon thread or string
- Wire - any kind of conducting wire works, even alligator leads.
- Two bottomless soup or coffee cans
- A drill with a small bit

Comments

[Ewade15]

I just tried this experiment and it didn't work. We ran it for about 3 minutes and didn't see a spark. the cans got a little wet but not very much. it also rained earlier in the day. We used just a piece of metal wire as the conducting wire. Could someone please point out where I may have gone wrong? Do I need to get new conducting wire? Do the cans need to be COMPLETELY dry? Was the rain making it too humid? its only like 50 degrees here

[cupcake9621]

How big is the spark suppose to be? How big did the spark get?

[dungeon runner]

I think I should just make this clear to people worried about the dangers of high voltage: There is none. You could get hit with several million volts right now and not even notice it. It's the amperage of the current that counts.

[ahmaddaniels]

Thank You soo much for stating this for those "Fear Mongers" out there, and those people who just love to be scared of everything they don't fully understand.

[fundash]

yea, I saw a video on yotube, where it was only 2 volts, but high amps and it melted a wire! XD

[Langarulz]

umm? wheres the video thingy?

[sizcer]

Hi!
excusme
how do i connect the power source to the hose?
and the adaptator of how many volts?
tnks (:

[framistan]

i built this same thing in 7th grade.  We found it DIFFICULT to make the spark because the water MUST not touch the metal cans as it falls... and the cans must sit on a DRY NON CONDUCTIVE surface... or else the electric charge would LEAK from one metal can to the other.  It is NOT EASY to keep the area DRY when you are dripping water everywhere!  So this is just a note in case anyone tries to construct one. It does work but you must not be messy with the water.

[stefannasehi]

what would the flux cap do

[stefannasehi]

?

[AlexWillisson]

Time travel

[thierrywalt]

Do you have any idea on how I could connect this generator to this motor: http://www.instructables.com/id/E3ZNG7N7UFEP286FJA/ ?

Thanks!

[phyck]

ok i now almost nothing of this science , but hypothetically if you could curculate the same water with a pump , (or gravity suction tube thing) , and some how harness the electricity isnt that potencially a pretty damn easy renewable energy resource ?

please enlighten me if this is possible with the correct enginereing , or if its just a quick idea that wont work
-thx =)

[shakna]

Well it's a good idea... But it has one fatal floor before all the math of conservation works... It's STATIC electricity. Not DC/AC, and you can't actually convert between static and AC or DC. Static can be used to burn things, but as for powering them, it has a few problems.

[mousewrites]

Well, as those below have said, even in a 'nearly perfect' system, you will slowly lose energy to the system itself. But if you're using kentic energy that has been stored by something else (like a waterfall), you could get some tiny bit of energy out of it using this system. It's all about letting something else put energy INTO the system you want to get it out of.

[Zanpakutou]

It won't work. No matter how hard you tried, you would always be putting more energy into the pump than you would be getting back. And you can't circulate water by gravity alone.

[spikeychops]

Yep, can't get more out than in, conservation of energy, just like an 'A' bomb...hang on,..no that's not right is it..slightly more energy out than the TNT or tiny A bomb used to set the main A bomb off.. Ok, then...the atom itself. The atom demonstrates the laws of conservation perfectly, doesn't it? The electron(s) spin(s) around the nucleus until it runs out of ener...oh dear..no, that's another bad example really isn't it. OK, got it this time...the solar system! That, needs to be constanly fed new energy in order to maintain orbits, planes etc..hang on a moment! That doesn't work either, does it. Hmmm..this conservation of energy 'law' is a bit of a flakey law really isn't it. The only poeple this so called 'law' has served, is the people that try to convince the rest of us that this law exists and is valid 100% of the time. The truth of it, is that it's only valid MOST of the time. A bit like saying 99 out of 100 UFO sightings are not really space/dimentional craft, but other normal objects, therefore, UFO's don't exist. Fine until you realise that because most are not 'real', if just 1 of 100 IS 'real', then the other 99 count for zilch.

[Noego]

Please, spikeychops, there is no evil conspiracy in the CoE law. The law works on mechanical principles, not nuclear ones (until you get down to the sub-at level, where it really still does). You really have to look into laws like this with a (decently) educated background. Once you know all the facts of it you will find that it does work, 100% of the time. Not saying no conspiracies exist period- just that if you look for them everywhere you will make them up with a combination of incomplete and flawed knowledge and vindictive imagination.

[josephlebold]

what happens when the electrons in matter run out of energy and they stop spinning around the protons? do they finally meet up with the protons and cease to exist? since no energy is left in the atom does it just vanish silently?

[Pie Ninja]

Ugggh, Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed into aother form...wait, why am I writing all this out?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_conservation_of_energy

Why is it that the people who know the least, know it the loudest?

[rivetgeek]

*sigh* God I hope you haven't passed 5th grade science yet. splitting the atom simply releases energy storing in the form of nuclear binding forces. It doesn't create energy. Energy can not be created. Ever. It can only be converted from one form to another.

[Pie Ninja]

I apologize if i was unclear, I was merely explaining to him the law of conservation of energy, I am perfectly aware that E = mc^{2 and that by splitting an atom you release energy equal to its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, i.e an astronomically large amount.}

[Pie Ninja]

And can anyone tell me how to get my text back to normal after I make it superscript?

[Zanpakutou]

The law does exist and is valid 100% of the time. Regarding the A-Bomb, you've got to remember that matter and energy are equivalent; energy was put in, in the form of matter, which was converted to energy during the explosion. As for the orbits of planets and electrons, they aren't losing any energy as they orbit, because there is no friction from air etc., so no more energy needs to be added in order for them to maintain their orbits. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the law still holds in each example.

[spikeychops]

Hi Again, I think you have it wrong when you say there is no friction on the planets. Cosmic dust and debris smash into the planets and have done to a greater or lesser extent for billions of years. Thousands and thousands of tonnes of dust, rock, metal falls through our atmosphere every year, the same is true of all other planets. The friction is evidenced everytime we see meteor trails burning in the sky. Also, space is not 'empty'. It has billions of tonnes of charged particles whizzing around, it has loosely spaced atoms of virtually ALL elements, perhaps a few atoms every cubed foot or so, but x that by infinity (for space) and x that by 4.5 billion years (approx age of our planet), and that makes for a lot of resistance. What about electrons? Well, they have to contend with forces too. Electromagnetic attractions and repulsions, chemical interactions, quantum particle interaction, all have an effect, but an electron (as far as we can tell at our present tech) will orbit it's nucleus at a constant speed and distance until the end of time. But where does the 'energy' or driving force come from that causes this to be so? If the electron (or scale up exactly the same model for a solar system, a spiral galaxy, perhaps even this whole universe itself), isn't an example of (I'll NOT say perpetual motion, even though it is) 'obtaining energy through non apparent means', then I can't think of a more obvious or apt example to prove the existence of this phenomena. All we ridiculous humans have to do, is discover and replicate the effect, and we'll all be moving to the stars, to start our own private family planets!

[rivetgeek]

electromagnetism. It's a basic force. Next.

[davecollinsnz]

Err, actually the planets are losing energy, because the sun's gravity is tugging on the planets, making them orbit instead of flying off in a straight line. So eventually (ignoring the future expansion of the sun) the planets would crash into the sun.

[Langarulz]

but the planets have momentum so we would never crash into the sun (ignoring the expansion of the sun)

[chriskarr]

Matter and energy are not equivalent. Matter can not be turned into energy, just as energy can not be turned into matter, but, instead, the energy that's already in the atom can be forced out. If you think about the fact that the atom's nucleus will explode at nearly the speed of light (thanks to the SNF - that's the strong nuclear force) because of the energy already contained within the atomic structure. There is no such thing as a conversion from matter to energy.

[PyromaniacDaniel]

"matter and energy are not equivalent" actually we now know that what we perceive as matter is really just the interaction of different energys and everything is energy and theoretically could be converted from one form to another. everything is made up of atoms. atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. these are made up of quantum particles which just recently have been found to be forms of energy themselves. Correct me if I am wrong. which this is off the top of my head not from a source. but its late and I don't feel like looking it up.

[davecollinsnz]

Ever heard of this small equation?
E=MC²
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared
Thats the basic theory (I think) behind a nuclear bomb, matter is converted to energy.
:D

[chriskarr]

Matter is NOT converted to energy. The strong nuclear force is being over-powered by the initial blast in the bomb. This causes rapid atomic decay, in which the protons of the atom are shot out at speeds near to, at, or exceeding the speed of light. Matter is not converted to energy, but, instead matter gives off energy. An easy way to describe this is in a similar manner to an exothermic or endothermic reaction; in an exothermic or endothermic reaction, the reactive material gives off energy or pulls in energy, respectively. In an exothermic reaction, bonds are generally broken; because it takes energy to make those bonds, the reaction puts off energy. In an endothermic reaction, the opposite is true. The same basic principle applies in a nuclear reaction, only on a MUCH larger scale (with smaller parts!). Isn't science wonderful?

[BlackFang171]

Matter IS being converted into energy, as is evident in the difference of mass that is exhibited between the mass of a particle you split, and the sum of the masses of the resulting particles. This is elementary physics.

[chriskarr]

Sorry; I am going to need to take back my prior comment, to a degree. Matter is, in fact, not being *converted* to energy...matter is naught more than condensed energy receiving mass from its interaction with a sort of 'grid', according to the standard model of particle physics and the theory of Higgs interaction.

This is quantum physics.

[Dirtie Hippie]

I had not thought of it before, but you are right. Matter is not converted into energy. Even in an atomic blast. The protons, neutrons, and electrons are still there just as they were before. Good old E=mc2 only refers to the release of the energy bonds. The electromagnetic bond of the electron/proton is broken and the electron goes flying off and photons carrying that energy go flying off. The nuclear bonds of the proton/neutron are broken and they go flying off and photons carrying that energy. The matter (i.e. proton, neutrons, and electrons) are all still present, just not bonded together.

And as for some particles exceeding the speed of light. Why even get into that? Yes, some tiny, tiny, tiny amount of them do. But that's this crazy quantum mechanical, they can do it cause we can't observe them thing. It just confuses people. By people I mean laymen, students, advanced physicists with three doctorates. :)

[davecollinsnz]

"in which the protons of the atom are shot out at speeds near to, at, or exceeding the speed of light." Something tells me that the above statment is flawed. Matter, travelling near the speed of light? Yes. (LHC particle beam 99.999%) At the speed of light? Nearly impossible. (Massive amount of energy) Exceeding the speed of light? No. Photons travel so very fast because they have little to zero mass. When I talk of matter to energy, I'm meaning matter to photons (aka electromagnetic radiation). I know that a neutron can be split into a proton and an electron, which then bombard other sub-atomic particles, thus setting up a nuclear chain reaction, in the right materials. For the exothermic and endothermic reactions, you sorta had a comparision, since as the molecules interact and electrons moved about, they emitt or require infra-red radiation to react. :D

[Pie Ninja]

Actually to travel at the speed of light you'd need infinite energy. sry for bein a pedant.

[Pie Ninja]

Also you can travel faster than light, you just need to go back in time, and to do that, all you have to do is go faster than the speed of light. :P

[wilddog]

According to quantum physics you can't go faster than light...

[Langarulz]

quatum physics is right but u can move across the galxy in a matter of secong if u had an incredible ammount of anti-matter