Personally, i'm a bit excited that the Dec. 11th power gen is upon us. If Inteligentry demonstrates a working engine then we can feel confidence in the possible commercial availability of this technology. I think this is a critical moment.
Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #1.
http://www.rexresearch.com/papp/2pappats.htm
There is an interesting paragraph in the Papp patent that interested me greatly; yes, it hit one of my hot buttons very hard. It is quoted as follows:I have come to believe that the separation and concentration of charge carriers relax the coulomb barrier in general proximity to the spark.Quote “Similarly, atoms which exhibit alpha particle emission (which generally involves strong interaction between nucleons), are capable of being utilized. Although alpha decay is normally slow and have half-lives which are longer due to electrostatic barriers that make it difficult for alpha particles to escape, the present invention utilizes periodic discharges of electrical energy which speed up the escape of alpha particles and permit the reactions to be utilized effectively in the method of the present invention.”
Ken shoulders believes that this lowering of the coulomb barrier is ultimately related to the modification of the magnetic permeability of the vacuum.
Anderson localization is a means to support the separation and concentration of charge carriers in helium as follows:In radioactive isotopes in a dense helium environment, the relaxation of their coulomb barriers will greatly increase the emission rates of associated alpha, beta and gamma radiation emitters.Quote ELECTRON MOBILITY IN DENSE HE GAS
A.F. Borghesani
Experiments on the mobility of electrons in dense helium gas elucidated how localized electron states develop when the gas density gas is increased. Up to 77 K, the density dependence of the mobility clearly shows that the formation of electron bubbles is a continuous phenomenon.
Localization of electrons in bubbles also appears at high temperatures if the density is so large that the free energy of the localized state is negative enough.
Percolation and hydrodynamic models have been devised to explain the continuous transition from high mobility states to low-mobility states.
It is shown that density-dependent, quantum multiple scattering effects modify the energy of the nearly free electron in a way that can be accurately described by heuristically modifying the kinetic theory prediction.
This greatly increased nuclear radiation will ionize helium based penning noble gases mixes.
Xenon is a known nuclear diode (converts nuclear radiation to electrons).
Cross posted on vortex
“It is important however that the spark gap 31 of the electrode assembly extend slightly below the bottom of the two activating cells so that when the cylinder or chamber is in its collapsed or minimum volume position, the spark gap extends into the aqueous medium of de-oxygenated water in the bottom of the chamber. Similarly, it is desirable that the extreme lower ends of the activating cells contact or are in very close proximity to the water in the bottom of the chamber when the chamber is in its collapsed position.”
“The variable volume chambers may contain a precharge composed of between 10% and 25% of de-oxygenated water by volume,”
Phosphorus and rubidium and its isotopes are examples of elements adapted for use in the activating cells 20 and 21…
… Mesothorium I or radium D can be used in the activating cells to good advantage, although they have a shorter half-life than rubidium. Elements useful in the activating cells are preferably those capable of emitting electrons, alpha rays, beta rays, gamma rays and x-rays, negative beta rays being particularly useful since they are directed to exert their force (as hereafter described) in the direction of the movement of the end wall of the expanding chamber.
Could be wrong but it kind of sounds like the excuses are starting already.
http://inteligentry.com/report.html
Hope I’m wrong and a working engine appears.
It’s a wait and see, best of luck to them.
element 119
Well I don’t know!!!Quote from Babble on December 9th, 2012, 02:44 PM Personally, i'm a bit excited that the Dec. 11th power gen is upon us. If Inteligentry demonstrates a working engine then we can feel confidence in the possible commercial availability of this technology. I think this is a critical moment.
Could be wrong but it kind of sounds like the excuses are starting already.
http://inteligentry.com/report.html
Hope I’m wrong and a working engine appears.
It’s a wait and see, best of luck to them.
element 119
I am confused, am I reading the proper patent? Did Papp change his design after the patent was awarded?
Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.
http://www.rexresearch.com/papp/2pappats.htm
I have been reading the Papp patent to understand what Papp originally had in mind and was really doing. It looks to me like no present day replicators that I know about are doing what Papp did.
As an example from the patent as follows:This segment of the patent tells me that Papp was producing cavatation in water when he initiated the spark discharge.Quote “It is important however that the spark gap 31 of the electrode assembly extend slightly below the bottom of the two activating cells so that when the cylinder or chamber is in its collapsed or minimum volume position, the spark gap extends into the aqueous medium of de-oxygenated water in the bottom of the chamber. Similarly, it is desirable that the extreme lower ends of the activating cells contact or are in very close proximity to the water in the bottom of the chamber when the chamber is in its collapsed position.”
The water reference from the patent:Also from the patent regarding the electrodes as follows:Quote “The variable volume chambers may contain a precharge composed of between 10% and 25% of de-oxygenated water by volume,”What we are calling the "buckets" are filled with radioactive elements and are actually what we think of as the spark discharge electrodes. These electrodes extend into the water as they produce the cyclic spark discharge.Quote Phosphorus and rubidium and its isotopes are examples of elements adapted for use in the activating cells 20 and 21…
… Mesothorium I or radium D can be used in the activating cells to good advantage, although they have a shorter half-life than rubidium. Elements useful in the activating cells are preferably those capable of emitting electrons, alpha rays, beta rays, gamma rays and x-rays, negative beta rays being particularly useful since they are directed to exert their force (as hereafter described) in the direction of the movement of the end wall of the expanding chamber.
Correct me if I am wrong, what the Rohner brothers (and Russ Gries as a Rohner replicator) are doing have nothing to do with the original Papp reaction design.
I am confused, am I reading the proper patent? Did Papp change his design after the patent was awarded?
Axil, You did see my post in this one yes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foIWltOShO0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Hmmmmm.....Interesting...watched it 3 timesQuote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 10th, 2012, 07:45 PM Axil, You did see my post in this one yes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foIWltOShO0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Russ I think this may work.
12-volt battery hooked up to power inverter
http://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result?q=power+inverter
12 volts is converter to 110/120 ac
110/120 ac goes to bridge rectifier = 100 + dc volts going to capacitors
Caps are hooked to electrodes.
HV is also hooked to electrodes.
When HV is pulsed then caps discharge.
Battery should be safe from HV because of bridge rectifier and power inverter in between.
Advantage of using battery with power inverter is portability of system and battery can be recharged from an alternator.
I’ve tried looking at what would happen by hooking HV to the dc + and – outputs of a bridge rectifier instead of the normal ac inputs and from what I can tell I don’t think any HV will pass back into the ac supply. So power inverter should safe.
This is theoretical so should be tested with precautions.
I watched your live show (cap stuff) and noticed you stacked many 12 batteries to raise the dc voltage so a power inverter should solve that problem by using only one 12 V battery.
element 119
Hello Russ and everyone else.
So i built the timer circuit!
I have a really anoying problem thoo.
I cannot get the second 555 to trigger!!!!!
the first and the third one works great but i cannot find the problem with the second.
I get the fire pulses from U1 and i have nice wave forms out from U3.
the problem is with the monostable duration timer ,U2
i get negative edge trigger pulses on pin 2 , pin 3 is allways high!!
I have checked the circuit many times and i cannot find any error.
i use 220 nF and 10k resitors for the edge.
im suspecting the "timing capacitors and/or resistors C5 C6 R7 R8 but i cant really get it working.
Please Russ or anyone else that have an idea what this can be, please post a reply.
Regards /Janne Ström
Janne - check how low the trigger pulses are going. They need to be below 1/3Vcc for the odd microsecond or so, and better at 0.2Vcc (2.4V here). It's worth putting a diode across R6 (cathode to +12V) to shorten the recovery time of your edge-detect, but this isn't the cause of the problem. If you're having problems with the trigger-edge not going low enough, then use a larger resistor for R6, up to 100K if needed but 33K will probably be far enough. It could be that the 555s you're using are the older version and not CMOS, so leakages are higher - if you're unsure on this then put up the exact part number of the bits you're using. Using a polypropylene or mica cap for C4 may give you a sharper edge, but in general most types will be OK.Quote from woody0068 on December 12th, 2012, 02:53 AM Hello Russ and everyone else.
So i built the timer circuit!
I have a really anoying problem thoo.
I cannot get the second 555 to trigger!!!!!
the first and the third one works great but i cannot find the problem with the second.
I get the fire pulses from U1 and i have nice wave forms out from U3.
the problem is with the monostable duration timer ,U2
i get negative edge trigger pulses on pin 2 , pin 3 is allways high!!
I have checked the circuit many times and i cannot find any error.
i use 220 nF and 10k resitors for the edge.
im suspecting the "timing capacitors and/or resistors C5 C6 R7 R8 but i cant really get it working.
Please Russ or anyone else that have an idea what this can be, please post a reply.
Regards /Janne Ström
Janne - check how low the trigger pulses are going. They need to be below 1/3Vcc for the odd microsecond or so, and better at 0.2Vcc (2.4V here). It's worth putting a diode across R6 (cathode to +12V) to shorten the recovery time of your edge-detect, but this isn't the cause of the problem. If you're having problems with the trigger-edge not going low enough, then use a larger resistor for R6, up to 100K if needed but 33K will probably be far enough. It could be that the 555s you're using are the older version and not CMOS, so leakages are higher - if you're unsure on this then put up the exact part number of the bits you're using. Using a polypropylene or mica cap for C4 may give you a sharper edge, but in general most types will be OK.Quote from woody0068 on December 12th, 2012, 02:53 AM Hello Russ and everyone else.
So i built the timer circuit!
I have a really anoying problem thoo.
I cannot get the second 555 to trigger!!!!!
the first and the third one works great but i cannot find the problem with the second.
I get the fire pulses from U1 and i have nice wave forms out from U3.
the problem is with the monostable duration timer ,U2
i get negative edge trigger pulses on pin 2 , pin 3 is allways high!!
I have checked the circuit many times and i cannot find any error.
i use 220 nF and 10k resitors for the edge.
im suspecting the "timing capacitors and/or resistors C5 C6 R7 R8 but i cant really get it working.
Please Russ or anyone else that have an idea what this can be, please post a reply.
Regards /Janne Ström