Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.

simonderricutt

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1200, on December 30th, 2012, 09:15 AM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 30th, 2012, 06:19 AM
60's or 80's.... you still need a way to get there... to either one that worked.. (if there are two ways that worked, as you seem to suppose)

But more important, what are the properties of chlorinated water that are useful for the reactions?
How did it function and was there the cascade danger?

And can we put something of this into the testsheets?
EZ - There's also the cannon demo to think about. I'd say that the Chlorine/water addition did have a cascade danger by looking at the first two (Feynman exploding engine and the cannon) although we still really don't know what was in the gas mix. It seems reasonable to think that the noble-gas-only 3rd version was a response to the problems of explosions if the control wasn't good enough. Given that the cannon demo blew apart some pretty thick steel, Russ would need to take a lot more safety precautions if he was working with that mix. Maybe also miniaturise the popper size to reduce the danger, too.

You're right that analysing the residues could have value even if we're not seeing over unity overall. Good thinking. Note that chemical reactions are around the 4eV per atom range, whereas nuclear ones are of the order of 1MeV, so we'd be looking for isotopic changes in the residues and possible chain reactions that would deliver the 100s of MeVs per initial atom to comply with the "6 months before refilling" claim from Papp. With the water added, we don't need as much per atom since there are a lot more in liquid than there are in the same volume of gas at normal pressures. If the chain reaction involved the water (or the Hydrogen or Oxygen in the water to be precise) then this could be why the original engine exploded when insufficiently controlled. At the moment I'm not aware of what this reaction might be, but fusing Hydrogen into Helium would be energetic enough if it could be persuaded to happen at these low temperatures and pressures. By current theory, that can't happen, of course.

Matt Watts

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1201, on December 30th, 2012, 12:45 PM »
Quote from simonderricutt on December 30th, 2012, 09:15 AM
At the moment I'm not aware of what this reaction might be, but fusing Hydrogen into Helium would be energetic enough if it could be persuaded to happen at these low temperatures and pressures. By current theory, that can't happen, of course.
A fair amount of work by the LENR folks indicate transmutation of materials, i.e.  Aluminum into Silicon, Nickel into Copper and so forth.  Very likely something in the mix or in the chamber itself is combining with Hydrogen and becoming a new element with a deuterium ion being released.  I certainly wouldn't rule it out at this point.

FaradayEZ

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1202, on December 30th, 2012, 02:54 PM »Last edited on December 30th, 2012, 03:27 PM by FaradayEZ
Quote from simonderricutt on December 30th, 2012, 09:15 AM
EZ - There's also the cannon demo to think about. I'd say that the Chlorine/water addition did have a cascade danger by looking at the first two (Feynman exploding engine and the cannon) although we still really don't know what was in the gas mix. It seems reasonable to think that the noble-gas-only 3rd version was a response to the problems of explosions if the control wasn't good enough.
We don't know if the 3rd version had chlorine/water or not do we?
With Feynman the electric control was off. It was a separate control from a plug outside of the engine. Maybe because when using the engine's electric, the process builds and builds till it explodes. (and papp was not a building circuitry man)
I don't think Papp made 3 mixes that are very different. He found one explosive mixture after understanding what the process needed (and we can find that out also) he tuned it electricly. The Feynman accident shows Papp still used the potent mixture.
Quote
Given that the cannon demo blew apart some pretty thick steel, Russ would need to take a lot more safety precautions if he was working with that mix. Maybe also miniaturise the popper size to reduce the danger, too.
For sure, every time when "we" put a new reactant in it that should make the reaction stronger, it must be done with extra safety measures. Especially when Russ likes to nuke the things...you can't do that with the right potion...
Quote
You're right that analysing the residues could have value even if we're not seeing over unity overall. Good thinking. Note that chemical reactions are around the 4eV per atom range, whereas nuclear ones are of the order of 1MeV, so we'd be looking for isotopic changes in the residues and possible chain reactions that would deliver the 100s of MeVs per initial atom to comply with the "6 months before refilling" claim from Papp. With the water added, we don't need as much per atom since there are a lot more in liquid than there are in the same volume of gas at normal pressures. If the chain reaction involved the water (or the Hydrogen or Oxygen in the water to be precise) then this could be why the original engine exploded when insufficiently controlled. At the moment I'm not aware of what this reaction might be, but fusing Hydrogen into Helium would be energetic enough if it could be persuaded to happen at these low temperatures and pressures. By current theory, that can't happen, of course.
Ok, so we already know by deduction that there must have been fluid in the chamber. Otherwise there would not have been enough atoms to get so many strokes (6 x months(30,5) x 24 hours x 60 x 1500 reps/minute etc.395.280.000) So the third mixture must have had it also...papp was "lazy"..and so his engine has a danger to run wild and explode...that's why Bob warned us also. Thus the road to success is by using a highly potent mix. And knowing that we have another puzzlepiece for the reaction scheme. Plus that a papp engine won't easily get approved by law. I wonder if this is why JP makes his engines with a system to puff some reactant in it automaticly after noticing (how?) depleation of the mix.

Lets not worry to much about current theories, if its nuclear or chemical. There is inputmix in the chamber and after depleation there is outputmix. What gets depleated (also in amount) can be compared with the amount of strokes.  
Maybe we already can figure out what the reaction scheme is without testing the reality, but if we cant or are not sure, then we need to study the residues after prolonged popping. I don't see any other way forward.

For now its just waiting till someone can test these suggestions.

Maybe it helps if we can get more people to test, maybe with a more simple setup. Like with using two tungstenrods in a upside down beker with helium?
(add. won't work, plasma arc will blow out the gas..)

And we need a contact that can analyze gas and solids.

I don't want to criticize but we haven't gone really forward in months. (in relation to solving the mystery)




Babble

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1203, on December 30th, 2012, 03:47 PM »
Quote from k c dias on December 29th, 2012, 11:58 AM
Quote from Babble on December 29th, 2012, 10:08 AM
Russ, I don't see anything worth patenting at this point.  You do get some movement of a piston but the energy in appears much great than what comes out.  A proper patent can cost a lot of money (using an attorney) and there is a maintenance fee so make sure you have a working engine before ever thinking of this route.  I think you wanted this to be open source anyway which would not use a patent.  KC has done a lot of work but I still see nothing of a running engine here.  Just a lot of theory thrown about.  Janne appears to be working on it too.
We all (I hope I speak for most of the members here) want open source aka public disclosure.  If, for example, I have a totally new invention (and I don't) and I disclose it publicly, it starts a clock.  I then have exactly a one year period to get a patent application filed, otherwise it truly becomes public domain.  If Mr. X reads what I disclosed, and decides that he wants to patent it, he can't. He can try, but the patent search not only looks at issued patents and applications, but also published documents.  Also, by simply making the application, he would be committing perjury.  If, by chance, he was thinking of the same exact thing, he would need to show proof that he had actually thought of it first (working papers in a bound journal, periodically reviewed and signed by at least one independent witness) or an actual patent application that predates the public disclosure.  This is to the best of my knowledge, I'm not an attorney, please consult your own counsel on these matters.

And a link: http://www.grad.wisc.edu/research/ip/publicdisclosure.html

kcd
KC, applying for a patent on something previously disclosed, is not perjury (which is lying).  While the internet helps today, it is not possible to search all publications.  One does a patent search before applying.  I have filed for two patents, one many years before the internet, which was patented by someone else (so it was rejected) and one through an employer which showed no prior patent.   You are right about the one year limit after public disclosure which most people are not aware of.  

FaradayEZ

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1204, on December 30th, 2012, 04:01 PM »
Quote from Babble on December 30th, 2012, 03:47 PM
Quote from k c dias on December 29th, 2012, 11:58 AM
Quote from Babble on December 29th, 2012, 10:08 AM
Russ, I don't see anything worth patenting at this point.  You do get some movement of a piston but the energy in appears much great than what comes out.  A proper patent can cost a lot of money (using an attorney) and there is a maintenance fee so make sure you have a working engine before ever thinking of this route.  I think you wanted this to be open source anyway which would not use a patent.  KC has done a lot of work but I still see nothing of a running engine here.  Just a lot of theory thrown about.  Janne appears to be working on it too.
We all (I hope I speak for most of the members here) want open source aka public disclosure.  If, for example, I have a totally new invention (and I don't) and I disclose it publicly, it starts a clock.  I then have exactly a one year period to get a patent application filed, otherwise it truly becomes public domain.  If Mr. X reads what I disclosed, and decides that he wants to patent it, he can't. He can try, but the patent search not only looks at issued patents and applications, but also published documents.  Also, by simply making the application, he would be committing perjury.  If, by chance, he was thinking of the same exact thing, he would need to show proof that he had actually thought of it first (working papers in a bound journal, periodically reviewed and signed by at least one independent witness) or an actual patent application that predates the public disclosure.  This is to the best of my knowledge, I'm not an attorney, please consult your own counsel on these matters.

And a link: http://www.grad.wisc.edu/research/ip/publicdisclosure.html

kcd
KC, applying for a patent on something previously disclosed, is not perjury (which is lying).  While the internet helps today, it is not possible to search all publications.  One does a patent search before applying.  I have filed for two patents, one many years before the internet, which was patented by someone else (so it was rejected) and one through an employer which showed no prior patent.   You are right about the one year limit after public disclosure which most people are not aware of.
Keshe is aware of it. His patents he lets expire this way so they become for the public...


Axil

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1205, on December 30th, 2012, 11:13 PM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 30th, 2012, 06:19 AM
60's or 80's.... you still need a way to get there... to either one that worked.. (if there are two ways that worked, as you seem to suppose)

But more important, what are the properties of chlorinated water that are useful for the reactions?
How did it function and was there the cascade danger?

And can we put something of this into the testsheets?
I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at the bottom of that flask.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tuk31pS2M&feature=player_embedded

Is that liquid clorinated water?

simonderricutt

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1206, on December 31st, 2012, 01:07 AM »
Quote from Axil on December 30th, 2012, 11:13 PM
I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at the bottom of that flask.


Is that liquid clorinated water?
Axil - It looked to me that all the flasks had some fluid in them, and it's reasonable to suspect that this fluid is chlorinated water. It's still likely that there was something else in there too, but we also know that none of the gas mixes were individually flammable.

FaradayEZ

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1207, on December 31st, 2012, 04:17 AM »Last edited on December 31st, 2012, 04:27 AM by FaradayEZ
Quote from simonderricutt on December 31st, 2012, 01:07 AM
Quote from Axil on December 30th, 2012, 11:13 PM
I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at the bottom of that flask.


Is that liquid clorinated water?
Axil - It looked to me that all the flasks had some fluid in them, and it's reasonable to suspect that this fluid is chlorinated water. It's still likely that there was something else in there too, but we also know that none of the gas mixes were individually flammable.
And i thought thoose where flascs with gas, but also in a fluid vorm, the gas hoovering above the fluid...

Or did he chlorinate every gas there? Strange, it shows me that what i think i see doesn't have to be the case, we can't assume anything!

Chlorine is a gas no?

simonderricutt

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1208, on December 31st, 2012, 04:40 AM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 31st, 2012, 04:17 AM
Quote from simonderricutt on December 31st, 2012, 01:07 AM
Axil - It looked to me that all the flasks had some fluid in them, and it's reasonable to suspect that this fluid is chlorinated water. It's still likely that there was something else in there too, but we also know that none of the gas mixes were individually flammable.
And i thought thoose where flascs with gas, but also in a fluid vorm, the gas hoovering above the fluid...

Or did he chlorinate every gas there? Strange, it shows me that what i think i see doesn't have to be the case, we can't assume anything!

Chlorine is a gas no?
EZ - all the noble gases are gas at room temperature. Xenon boils at -108°C (165.1K) and that's the highest temperature among them. Those flasks were not capable as pressure vessels, so not enough pressure to liquefy any of the gases. Try http://www.webelements.com/xenon/physics.html to explore the periodic table and get a load of useful data.

Papp wanted to keep the secret of what he was actually doing from the government until they paid him for the technology. Given that they could see and measure the hardware used, what was in the gas mix is the thing he made confusing. Keep trying to think up alternate explanations and maybe we'll find one that does the job.

FaradayEZ

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1209, on December 31st, 2012, 05:40 AM »Last edited on December 31st, 2012, 05:53 AM by FaradayEZ
Quote from simonderricutt on December 31st, 2012, 04:40 AM
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 31st, 2012, 04:17 AM
Quote from simonderricutt on December 31st, 2012, 01:07 AM
Axil - It looked to me that all the flasks had some fluid in them, and it's reasonable to suspect that this fluid is chlorinated water. It's still likely that there was something else in there too, but we also know that none of the gas mixes were individually flammable.
And i thought thoose where flascs with gas, but also in a fluid vorm, the gas hoovering above the fluid...

Or did he chlorinate every gas there? Strange, it shows me that what i think i see doesn't have to be the case, we can't assume anything!

Chlorine is a gas no?
EZ - all the noble gases are gas at room temperature. Xenon boils at -108°C (165.1K) and that's the highest temperature among them. Those flasks were not capable as pressure vessels, so not enough pressure to liquefy any of the gases. Try http://www.webelements.com/xenon/physics.html to explore the periodic table and get a load of useful data.

Papp wanted to keep the secret of what he was actually doing from the government until they paid him for the technology. Given that they could see and measure the hardware used, what was in the gas mix is the thing he made confusing. Keep trying to think up alternate explanations and maybe we'll find one that does the job.
Right, but to make the final chemical reaction scheme, we need to know both sides of the equation, plus a cascading side/option.
And i'm no chemist, to whom or where can we put these questions? Even if we (let) analyze the popp residu, we still may need a decent chemist.

I had chemistry at (european) highschool level, but was lazy with making homework and found reactionchemes difficult. Still we had a lot of subjects, stereometrie, organic and anorganic, base/acid and redox scheme's, esthers, polymere's etc. the whole mickmack 30 years ago.

But with trying to find alternate sollutions, we stay paddling in air. We need the/more hard evidence and we have the setup to get to that.

So still the key lays with Russ or with a new simple experiment that more of us could do. Or let be done. Plus we need to get connected. Mail a chemist proffessor...find a company or school that can analyse... etc.

We are an open-sourcing forum, so Russ doesn't object if we plant some seeds elsewhere also, if we put our findings and questions to people outside this forum. So let us then also feel free to do so.

Jeff Nading

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1210, on December 31st, 2012, 05:49 AM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 31st, 2012, 05:40 AM
Quote from simonderricutt on December 31st, 2012, 04:40 AM
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 31st, 2012, 04:17 AM
Quote from simonderricutt on December 31st, 2012, 01:07 AM
Axil - It looked to me that all the flasks had some fluid in them, and it's reasonable to suspect that this fluid is chlorinated water. It's still likely that there was something else in there too, but we also know that none of the gas mixes were individually flammable.
And i thought thoose where flascs with gas, but also in a fluid vorm, the gas hoovering above the fluid...

Or did he chlorinate every gas there? Strange, it shows me that what i think i see doesn't have to be the case, we can't assume anything!

Chlorine is a gas no?
EZ - all the noble gases are gas at room temperature. Xenon boils at -108°C (165.1K) and that's the highest temperature among them. Those flasks were not capable as pressure vessels, so not enough pressure to liquefy any of the gases. Try http://www.webelements.com/xenon/physics.html to explore the periodic table and get a load of useful data.

Papp wanted to keep the secret of what he was actually doing from the government until they paid him for the technology. Given that they could see and measure the hardware used, what was in the gas mix is the thing he made confusing. Keep trying to think up alternate explanations and maybe we'll find one that does the job.
Right, but to make the final chemical reaction scheme, we need to know both sides of the equation, plus a cascading side/option.
And i'm no chemist, to whom or where can we put these questions? Even if we (let) analyze the popp residu, we still may need a decent chemist.

I had chemistry at (european) highschool level, but was lazy with making homework and found reactionchemes difficult. Still we had a lot of subjects, stereometrie, organic and anorganic, base/acid and redox scheme's, esthers, polymere's etc. the whole mickmack 30 years ago.

But with trying to find alternate sollutions, we stay paddling in air. We need the hard evidence and we have the setup to get to that.
I really do think if we could ever get Terry Dixon back to the forum, he could help us out with these questions. Here are his 7 posts.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/search.php?action=results&sid=ada7d5d29f274b991f06747d52776703

Chan

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1211, on December 31st, 2012, 05:51 AM »
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

To titillate your little Grey cells go here:

http://fr0g.awardspace.co.uk/Plasma.html

And Russ, may you, your wife and your children
enjoy the fruits of your discovery in the years
to come. All your friends here appreciate your
willingness to share.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

To titillate your little grey cells go here:

http://fr0g.awardspace.co.uk/Plasma.html

And Russ, may you, your wife and your children
enjoy the fruits of your discovery in the years
to come. All your friends here appreciate your
willingness to share.

Chan

FaradayEZ

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1212, on December 31st, 2012, 06:52 AM »
Quote from Jeff Nading on December 31st, 2012, 05:49 AM
I really do think if we could ever get Terry Dixon back to the forum, he could help us out with these questions. Here are his 7 posts.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/search.php?action=results&sid=ada7d5d29f274b991f06747d52776703
He sure knows his formula's. Is there any reason known as to why he doesn't post anymore?

Jeff Nading

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1213, on December 31st, 2012, 07:18 AM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 31st, 2012, 06:52 AM
Quote from Jeff Nading on December 31st, 2012, 05:49 AM
I really do think if we could ever get Terry Dixon back to the forum, he could help us out with these questions. Here are his 7 posts.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/search.php?action=results&sid=ada7d5d29f274b991f06747d52776703
He sure knows his formula's. Is there any reason known as to why he doesn't post anymore?
Well, he did much research, then work with the calculations and not many showed any interest, but myself and maybe one or two other's, so I think he felt "what's the point". It's a crying shame. Terry is soooo knowledgeable about gasses and manipulating them to do work on a molecular level, he literally blew me away. He was a great asset to the forum and no one realized it. I guess he was over everyone's head but a few.:huh::exclamation:

FaradayEZ

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1214, on December 31st, 2012, 08:32 AM »
Quote from Jeff Nading on December 31st, 2012, 07:18 AM
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 31st, 2012, 06:52 AM
Quote from Jeff Nading on December 31st, 2012, 05:49 AM
I really do think if we could ever get Terry Dixon back to the forum, he could help us out with these questions. Here are his 7 posts.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/search.php?action=results&sid=ada7d5d29f274b991f06747d52776703
He sure knows his formula's. Is there any reason known as to why he doesn't post anymore?
Well, he did much research, then work with the calculations and not many showed any interest, but myself and maybe one or two other's, so I think he felt "what's the point". It's a crying shame. Terry is soooo knowledgeable about gasses and manipulating them to do work on a molecular level, he literally blew me away. He was a great asset to the forum and no one realized it. I guess he was over everyone's head but a few.:huh::exclamation:
So if we know what comes out of the pop residue, if we really have a good nut to crack we could still email him personal to guide as with the formula's. Or even that he knows how to analyze the residue, still has the contacts?


Jeff Nading

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1215, on December 31st, 2012, 08:58 AM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 31st, 2012, 08:32 AM
Quote from Jeff Nading on December 31st, 2012, 07:18 AM
Quote from FaradayEZ on December 31st, 2012, 06:52 AM
Quote from Jeff Nading on December 31st, 2012, 05:49 AM
I really do think if we could ever get Terry Dixon back to the forum, he could help us out with these questions. Here are his 7 posts.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/search.php?action=results&sid=ada7d5d29f274b991f06747d52776703
He sure knows his formula's. Is there any reason known as to why he doesn't post anymore?
Well, he did much research, then work with the calculations and not many showed any interest, but myself and maybe one or two other's, so I think he felt "what's the point". It's a crying shame. Terry is soooo knowledgeable about gasses and manipulating them to do work on a molecular level, he literally blew me away. He was a great asset to the forum and no one realized it. I guess he was over everyone's head but a few.:huh::exclamation:
So if we know what comes out of the pop residue, if we really have a good nut to crack we could still email him personal to guide as with the formula's. Or even that he knows how to analyze the residue, still has the contacts?
This could be possible, I have tried emailing him with no response in the past. So maybe other's here could do the same, to show their interest. Then maybe he would come back to the forum.


Axil

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1217, on December 31st, 2012, 01:48 PM »Last edited on December 31st, 2012, 04:46 PM by Axil
Why use water vapor and chlorine in the Papp gas mix? It may all come down to negative ion formation.

The process of plasmoid formation starts out during the formation of the spark discharge. In turn, spark discharge starts with corona formation.

A corona is a process by which a current flows from an electrode with a high potential into a neutral fluid, usually air, by ionizing that fluid so as to create a region of plasma around the electrode. The ions generated eventually pass charge to nearby areas of lower potential, or recombine to form neutral gas molecules.

In the case of the Papp reaction, the corona is negative because Papp uses electronegative gases in his gas envelope. Papp also uses sharply pointed electrodes. Ideally, to produce a negative corona, the cathode should be sharply pointed and the anode should be blunt.

A negative corona is a non-uniform corona, varying according to the topology of the curved conductor. It often starts out on the sharpest edge of the cathode, the sharpness of the cathode determines the strength of the ionizing field.

The form of negative coronas is a result of its source of secondary avalanche electrons (see below). It appears a little larger than the corresponding positive corona, as electrons drift out of the ionizing region, and so the plasma continues some distance beyond it. The total number of electrons, and electron density is much greater than in the corresponding positive corona.

However, they are of a predominantly lower energy, owing to being in a region of lower potential-gradient. The increased electron density will increase the reaction rate, the lower energy of the electrons will mean that reactions which require a higher electron energy may take place at a lower rate.

A further feature of the structure of negative coronas is that as the electrons drift outwards, they encounter neutral molecules and, with electronegative molecules (such as chlorine and water vapor), combine to produce negative ions. These negative ions are then attracted to the positive uncurbed electrode, completing the 'circuit'.

A negative corona can be divided into three radial areas, around the sharp electrode. In the inner area, high-energy electrons inelastically collide with neutral atoms and cause avalanches, while outer electrons (usually of a lower energy) combine with neutral atoms to produce negative ions

The Papp gases are all highly electronegative. Electronegative molecules (such as oxygen(3.44) and water vapor, hydrogen(2.20), Kripton(3.00),Xenon(2.60), Fluorine (3.98), and Cloriene(3.16)) will aid in the formation of the spark discharge.

See

Electro negativity of the elements in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity

On the most basic level, electronegativity is determined by factors like the nuclear charge (the more protons an atom has, the more "pull" it will have on negative electrons) and the number/location of other electrons present in the atomic shells (the more electrons an atom has, the farther from the nucleus the valence electrons will be, and as a result the less positive charge they will experience—both because of their increased distance from the nucleus, and because the other electrons in the lower energy core orbitals will act to shield the valence electrons from the positively charged nucleus).

The opposite of electronegativity is electropositivity: a measure of an element's ability to donate electrons.

As the spark formation process begins, the electric potential difference increases sharply between the electrodes, the electronegative gas molecules will be drawn to the cathode and repelled from the anode.

In a negative corona that forms just before the spark discharged is triggered, the electrons drift outwards from the sharply pointed cathode toward the anode; these electrons encounter a dense concentration of neutral electronegative gas molecules and, with electronegative molecules, combine to produce negative ions.

In other words, these positively charge molecules will gorge themselves on electrons and become negative ions. As the spark formation process advances, these negative ions are then be attracted to the positive uncurbed anode, completing the ‘plasma circuit'.

This negative corona is divided into three radial areas, around the sharp electrode. In the inner area, high-energy electrons inelastically collide with electronegative neutral atoms and cause electron avalanches, while outer electrons (usually of a lower energy) combine with neutral atoms to produce negative ions. In the intermediate region, electrons combine to form negative ions, but typically have insufficient energy to cause avalanche ionization.

Papp could have used water vapor and chlorine as a way to ionize the spark gap during pre-spark discharge preparation.

Because many of these electronegative elements are corrosive, he may have decided that his cylinder would last longer if he confined his design to noble gases.
 
However, a non-corrosive cylinder design made of plastic, nickel, and noble metal electrodes may be able to fully utilize the complete set of electronegative gases.

When the spark discharge produces the plasmoid, it will be comprised of heavy concentrations of negative gas ions and electrons in circulation around its outer surface.

The positively biased dielectric gas outside the boundary of the plasmoid will accelerate the plasmoid through electrostatic attraction and zero-point energy in an over unity chain reaction as explained in my previous posts.



Cross posted to vortex.


 

 




Axil

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1218, on December 31st, 2012, 04:35 PM »Last edited on December 31st, 2012, 05:07 PM by Axil
Quote
ChrisZell wrote:


http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P4.pdf

Intermolecular energy, dudes. Could be O2, N2 ----------- or water vapor. Graneau did the math and the test results and got overunity.
Regarding document:

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P4.pdf

This type of experiment can be explained by the formation of a water based plasmoid which accelerates through the action of zero point energy and electrostatic attraction of an ambient electronegative water vapor atmosphere beyond the boundary of the circulating negative ion current around the outer perimeter of the plasmoid.

See my post titled “Why use water vapor and chlorine in the Papp gas mix?”  for some background theory.

Of note: this referenced paper shows the formula that defines the energy of the upward moving piston as

E = mgh = 9.8mh

Where E is the energy in joules, g is gravity at 9.8  meters/second*2 m is the mass in kilograms and h is the height in meters.

Where:

1 newton – 1 kg/meter/second*2

A joules is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one meter (1 newton meter or N•m) = 1 kg•m2/s2

Side note: See the following for the reason for Dimensional analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Dimensional analysis is then

J (joules) = kg•m2/s2 = mgh = ((kilograms) (9.8)( (meters)/(seconds)*exp2) (meters)

 

 Cross posted on vortex

Quote from heero yueh on December 31st, 2012, 09:33 AM
Thanks Ruby; A great video from Ruby Carat.

Russ used air in one demo and got relativly poor results. Hydrogen was somewhat  better and helium was the best so far.

Heinz Klostermann uses air because his cannon system cannot be made gas tight.

A linier motor can be made completely gas tight; as tight as a compressed gas tank.

The lack of a pop when the projectile leaves the tube tells me that the system does not use gas pressure to apply energy to the projectile.

I believe that a plasmoid hitting the face of the projectile is the means of energy transfer between the spark discharge and the projectile.

Cross posted on vortex
Quote from heero yueh on December 31st, 2012, 09:33 AM
Like other areas of LENR, the strength of the reaction is based on the details of the design.

In the Papp reaction, the strength of the plasmoid can be relatively small when produced in air, but stronger when more reactive electronegative gases are used in the reaction.

In keeping with other LENR terminology, one can call plasmoids produced in air a “Papp reaction plasmoid”.

A plasmoid developed in helium as a “Papp+ plasmoid reaction” and a plasmoid developed in a noble gas mix together with chlorine and water vapor as a “Papp++ reaction plasmoid”.

These reactions differ in strength in ascending order based on the exact chemistry and proportionality of the electronegative gas mix.

 


FaradayEZ

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1219, on December 31st, 2012, 05:15 PM »Last edited on December 31st, 2012, 05:17 PM by FaradayEZ
Quote from Axil on December 31st, 2012, 01:48 PM
Papp could have used water vapor and chlorine as a way to ionize the spark gap during pre-spark discharge preparation.
But ionizing is not depleting the molecules. It is making the start of the plasma easier and uses less input power. Sure needed, but it does not explain why the gas gets depleted in and after use

Plus ionization is then compared as with a natural magnet, that the fluid has a power to constantly give of electrons, which it doesn't. Or that it acts like a pump, while i think it is a reservoir..?

woody0068

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1220, on January 1st, 2013, 10:13 AM »
Hello Russ and everyone else.
Hope you had a nice time with your families over the holidays.
As a reply to your questions on Youtube :
I would really like to see you hook up those coils you wound earlier, really exited to see if it has an effect on the plasma expansion.
Regards /Janne Ström

Axil

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1221, on January 1st, 2013, 01:24 PM »
Accounting for the Papp vacuum

Contrary to the beliefs of many, I consider it probable that the force that moves the piston in the Papp cylinder is produced by electromagnetic forces and not by an increase in pressure in the gas within the cylinder.

If this opinion is true, this electromagnetic force not only produces energy when it moves the piston upward, it also produces energy by creating a vacuum in the cylinder as the piston moves upward.

If this vacuum production is happening, then how do we add in this energy in the production of the vacuum when we determine total energy output applied to the upward movement of the piston?

It seems to me that the easiest thing to do in this situation is to remove vacuum production from the energy measurement.

By placing an inflated flexible gas reservoir on the spark side of the spark discharge cylinder volume, no vacuum will be produced.

As the piston rises, gas will flow into the cylinder from the reservoir and no vacuum will form.

A gas filled balloon connected to the cylinder volume where spark discharge takes place will do this vacuum removal function nicely.

Bob Rohner may be underestimating the energy produced in his popper because he does not account for the production of suction from a vacuum generated inside his cylinder.

The energy of this vacuum is only recovered on the backstroke of the reciprocation cycle.

A weight based kinetic energy assessment on the upward movement of the piston does not account for the production of this vacuum energy.





Lynx

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1222, on January 1st, 2013, 01:43 PM »
Quote from Axil on January 1st, 2013, 01:24 PM
Accounting for the Papp vacuum

Contrary to the beliefs of many, I consider it probable that the force that moves the piston in the Papp cylinder is produced by electromagnetic forces and not by an increase in pressure in the gas within the cylinder.

If this opinion is true, this electromagnetic force not only produces energy when it moves the piston upward, it also produces energy by creating a vacuum in the cylinder as the piston moves upward.

If this vacuum production is happening, then how do we add in this energy in the production of the vacuum when we determine total energy output applied to the upward movement of the piston?

It seems to me that the easiest thing to do in this situation is to remove vacuum production from the energy measurement.

By placing an inflated flexible gas reservoir on the spark side of the spark discharge cylinder volume, no vacuum will be produced.

As the piston rises, gas will flow into the cylinder from the reservoir and no vacuum will form.

A gas filled balloon connected to the cylinder volume where spark discharge takes place will do this vacuum removal function nicely.

Bob Rohner may be underestimating the energy produced in his popper because he does not account for the production of suction from a vacuum generated inside his cylinder.

The energy of this vacuum is only recovered on the backstroke of the reciprocation cycle.

A weight based kinetic energy assessment on the upward movement of the piston does not account for the production of this vacuum energy.
How would you go about pumping the vacuum in the popper if you were to
add a gas filled balloon acting as a reservoir to it at the same time?
Please excuse if this seems to be a really stupid question, so by all means,
don't be afraid of explaining it to me using four letter words.

Thanks.

Babble

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1223, on January 1st, 2013, 01:51 PM »
In the Klostermann video, there is a pretty strong reaction that drives the projectile while using air.  Since Russ has shown that air does not work as well as Hydrogen or He, the question is why is Russ's reaction less potent than the one in the video?   What is Klostermann doing better?  I think that is the tract that needs to be investigated to see if it is just air expansion or something liberation of extra energy.   He does state that he used 600 joules and 500 V.  That is a large amount of power to be pulsed rapidly for an engine, which he doesn't do here.  Getting a powerful reaction using a low joule input is the real issue.

Its difficult to tell here but he might be getting magnetic repulsion.  Normally, I would say this should not happen in a solid aluminum piston because it would short a circular current but if the pulse was fast, a current might circle around the outside edge of the piston due to skin effect.  In HF transformer design, litz or multi filar magnet wire is used because of this.

Axil

RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
« Reply #1224, on January 1st, 2013, 02:16 PM »Last edited on January 1st, 2013, 06:11 PM by Axil
What do you mean by “pumping the vacuum”?


Let us say that the balloon was filled with an amount of gas that is 5 times the volume of the  cylinder before piston movement.

After the spark fires, let us now say that the piston moves upward and creates a new expanded volume of 5 times more than before the spark discharge.

In this situation, the gas will have been sucked from the balloon into the expanded volume of the cylinder.

At all times, the pressure of gas would be near ambient.

The balloon would be used only during the measurement of energy production of the popper.

 
See at 1:20 into this video how a balloon can be mounted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkX69BA35_A