Quote from Axil on January 15th, 2013, 12:08 PM

Boron doped carbon is my choice for the electrode material assuming plasmoid production which I favor.

If hydrogen is included in the gas mix, it might be fine in the boron-only-hydrogen environment.

grate post Axil.

one thing i do know about boron is that :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron

Quote

The boranes (boron hydrogen compounds) and similar gaseous compounds are quite poisonous.

and scene we are vaporizing it... and with hydrogen... lol might not be the best choice for health reasons? none the less if we can just test it to see the results... so be it.

now, carbon rods... i can do that. i have some ( but there too short) so i will need to get some longer bigger ones. but... we can test this in my other had chamber ( this is what the electrodes are for anyway)
i think carbon will explode with cap discharge....

here is my current set up ( old video but with carbon) Just HV...
you may ask why im posting this. well its because carbon puts off this crazy amount of noise and light... ( compared to lets say brass...)  so is there some x rays in there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwzT7QkAK3M

also this one:

dose any one see any radiation in the CCD imager of the cam???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91nRCiWU4kk

oh, and for those who haven't seen this one... its worth a watch. but watch it all the way through... :) BOOM! haha this is why my caps are in a box and that's also why there is only 2 now... :) the weekist loses first...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXD3ZFkXyw8

and lastly here is some photos of the Americium 421. 2 microcuries.

[attachment=3043]

and it next to the other old source i had. and it next to a dime for size reference...

[attachment=3044]

and lastly the radiation measurements:

small source: 140 uSv/H

[attachment=3045]
and bigger sorce: 650 uSv/H

 [attachment=3046]

ok off for more research... to much to do... not enough time... :)

Hi Russ , If your goal is to have a running motor you'll need to have a much faster off / on spark. A 2 cycle engine running at 3000 rpm has to fire 50 times a second . In one of Joe papp's engines he used 2 different caps 1 was 1 .2 mfd and the other was 2.2 mfd I don't remerber if any working voltage was given .I love the sparks and arcs  but beleive they have to be faster. The research goes on Ed Hemphill

Quote from edxhemphill on January 16th, 2013, 08:17 AM

Hi Russ , If your goal is to have a running motor you'll need to have a much faster off / on spark. A 2 cycle engine running at 3000 rpm has to fire 50 times a second . In one of Joe papp's engines he used 2 different caps 1 was 1 .2 mfd and the other was 2.2 mfd I don't remerber if any working voltage was given .I love the sparks and arcs  but beleive they have to be faster. The research goes on Ed Hemphill

This is correct Ed, those are in the plans... But for now we got to start somewhere ;) thanks for the tips. ~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on January 15th, 2013, 11:28 PM

hummm..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus-32

Quote

Phosphorus has a short half-life of 14.29 days and decays into sulfur-32

?
~Russ

Russ,
That is an interesting detail.  I wonder how often the buckets had to be reloaded.
kcd

Quote from edxhemphill on January 16th, 2013, 08:17 AM

Hi Russ , If your goal is to have a running motor you'll need to have a much faster off / on spark. A 2 cycle engine running at 3000 rpm has to fire 50 times a second . In one of Joe papp's engines he used 2 different caps 1 was 1 .2 mfd and the other was 2.2 mfd I don't remerber if any working voltage was given .I love the sparks and arcs  but beleive they have to be faster. The research goes on Ed Hemphill

Papp spent his whole life trying to get a high rpm engine to run properly, and he never could. It is a good bet that none of the developers trying to duplicate what Papp did can exceed what Papp actually accomplished.

There may be a severe risk to development success in equating what a gasoline engine can do to what a Papp engine will do.

There are many who fantasize that they might be able to remove their gas engine from there muscle car and replace it with a high revving Papp engine. I fear that this opinion is commonplace.

What the Papp engine may eventually turn out to be is closer to an electric motor that can only run at a constant RPM.

At the end of the day, designs and plans to produce a fast revving Papp engine may be wasted work destine to crush hopes and desirers to retain the comfort of past concepts from another antithetical technology.

Axil,

I agree.  One of Papp's first engines was supposed to run a bus.  No bus demo ever done.  No biggie, I can just let the engine hum away while it recharges my Tesla car.  I'll settle for that.

Of course, I got to get us guys here to figger out the process, then I need to build a larger engine.  Oh yea, I got to get the Tesla! :D

So much to do, so little time!

kcd

Quote from k c dias on January 16th, 2013, 10:34 AM

Axil,

I agree.  One of Papp's first engines was supposed to run a bus.  No bus demo ever done.  No biggie, I can just let the engine hum away while it recharges my Tesla car.  I'll settle for that.

Of course, I got to get us guys here to figger out the process, then I need to build a larger engine.  Oh yea, I got to get the Tesla! :D

So much to do, so little time!

kcd

This one:
http://www.amazon.com/Tesla-Roadster-Car-16-Scale/dp/B001T1ED7K/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Lol ~Russ

Ps. Yes. We are indeed competing Against the electric motor... That's what the Papp motor really is...

In my humble opinion, there is incoherence in the thinking commonly held about why Papp designed his engine the way he did.

For example, the reason why Papp used coils around the outside of his cylinder walls was that he used multiple spark discharges in his ignition cycle.

He used those coils to focus and constrain the energy produced by these multiple sequential plasma discharges onto the head of the piston.

If we use only one big spark discharge being totally enclosed within the dome of the piston head, all the ions will immediately hit the surface of the piston head. These energetic particles will instantaneously transfer their power to that nearby surface of the piston.

This single shot firing cycle is over in a few nanoseconds. De-energized plasma, its energy spent, will be gently floating around in the wake of the outward moving piston.

Papp did it differently, so his cylinder design needed to be different.

The bottom line, multiple spark discharge requires constraining coils, single spark discharge does not.


 

Quote from k c dias on January 16th, 2013, 10:34 AM

Axil,

I agree.  One of Papp's first engines was supposed to run a bus.  No bus demo ever done.  No biggie, I can just let the engine hum away while it recharges my Tesla car.  I'll settle for that.

Of course, I got to get us guys here to figger out the process, then I need to build a larger engine.  Oh yea, I got to get the Tesla! :D

So much to do, so little time!

kcd

I'm opting for an MYT engine on Pappmix  ;)
 

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 11:02 AM

In my humble opinion, there is incoherence in the thinking commonly held about why Papp designed his engine the way he did.
For example, the reason why Papp used coils around the outside of his cylinder walls was that he used multiple spark discharges in his ignition cycle.
He used those coils to focus and constrain the energy produced by these multiple sequential plasma discharges onto the head of the piston.
If we use only one big spark discharge being totally enclosed within the dome of the piston head, all the ions will immediately hit the surface of the piston head. These energetic particles will instantaneously transfer their power to that nearby surface of the piston.
This single shot firing cycle is over in a few nanoseconds. De-energized plasma, its energy spent, will be gently floating around in the wake of the outward moving piston.
Papp did it differently, so his cylinder design needed to be different.
The bottom line, multiple spark discharge requires constraining coils, single spark discharge does not.

Axil,

I'm liking what you are saying, it is well worth investigating!  I have nothing against the folks here working on their mega-joule capacitive discharges, but if it is found that the gas mix can be and is ultimately condensed down in volume, then try lower and multiple-lower joule discharges first to characterize what happens, then crank up the joules slowly from there.  Just a thought.

kcd

Hey Russ.  I just looked at the link.  Now that's one I can afford LOL!:D

Thanks!

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on January 16th, 2013, 12:05 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXD3ZFkXyw8

With reference to the exploding capacitor shown above in the video as follows:
Could the failure of the capacitor be caused by the feedback current produced by the stimulation of the Argon by spark discharge?

It would be interesting and informative if Russ could rerun an experiment like the referenced one shown in the video and test for the existence of and quantify the magnitude of a feedback charge.

Current theory discussed on this thread suggests that a feedback current should develop when a noble gas is excited by a spark.

This is the second destructive incident that I have seen in Russ’s videos that might be caused by a feedback current; the first one being the burn up of high power diodes in the circuit that fed the Popper.

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 11:02 AM

In my humble opinion, there is incoherence in the thinking commonly held about why Papp designed his engine the way he did.

For example, the reason why Papp used coils around the outside of his cylinder walls was that he used multiple spark discharges in his ignition cycle.

Is your second line fact or opinion?

Quote

He used those coils to focus and constrain the energy produced by these multiple sequential plasma discharges onto the head of the piston.

I can't see that happening. When current runs through a coil, either the top or the bottom act like a north and south side of a magnet. Inside the coil the b-lines are parallel, depending on the current either going up or down.
If an electron moves inside from bottom to top, its current vector can be pointed downwards. So inside we have current and b-lines running along or in 180 degree opposite. A magnetic F force is only found when current and b-lines are at a 90 degree angle. That's from the stuff i had in highschool.

If we look at the diameter of the cylinder and a electron goes from center to outer rim. The force on it will be either to the left or to the right, giving a twirling motion. Not a motion to the center.

As i understand it, you need rotating b-lines to get a magnet force to the center or going outwards, depending on the directions of current and b-lines, and by using the cork screw rule.

Quote from FaradayEZ on January 16th, 2013, 05:49 PM

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 11:02 AM

In my humble opinion, there is incoherence in the thinking commonly held about why Papp designed his engine the way he did.

For example, the reason why Papp used coils around the outside of his cylinder walls was that he used multiple spark discharges in his ignition cycle.

Is this fact or opinion?

Quote

He used those coils to focus and constrain the energy produced by these multiple sequential plasma discharges onto the head of the piston.

I can't see that happening. When current runs through a coil, either the top or the bottom act like a north and south side of a magnet. Inside the coil the b-lines are parallel, depending on the current either going up or down.
If an electron moves inside from bottom to top, its current vector can be pointed downwards. So inside we have current and b-lines running along or in 180 degree opposite. A magnetic F force is only found when current and b-lines are at a 90 degree angle. That's from the stuff i had in highschool.

If we look at the diameter of the cylinder and a electron goes from center to outerrim. The force on it will be either to the left or to the right, giving a twirling motion. Not a motion to the centre.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080327144125AAwva3v

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 12:38 PM

With reference to the exploding capacitor shown above in the video as follows:
Could the failure of the capacitor be caused by the feedback current produced by the stimulation of the Argon by spark discharge?

I'm dumping 20 joules at 30 pulses per second (600 joules/sec) using booster caps and have already blown an IGBT in my Mallory Hyfire CDI, so yes, plamsa does things unexpected.  I'll say this again for people that haven't heard it:

What has a lower resistance than a direct short?


A plasma arc.

Also notice how Russ' camera went wonky when he had it close to the chamber.  There is some serious radiation of some sort being generated in there.  I can assure you that radiation will find a way out and destroy common solid state components.  I've also blown the PS2 keyboard circuits on a computer that was four feet away from my spark gap.  The stuff is a little hairy to deal with.

Quote from Dog-One on January 16th, 2013, 06:07 PM

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 12:38 PM

With reference to the exploding capacitor shown above in the video as follows:
Could the failure of the capacitor be caused by the feedback current produced by the stimulation of the Argon by spark discharge?

I'm dumping 20 joules at 30 pulses per second (600 joules/sec) using booster caps and have already blown an IGBT in my Mallory Hyfire CDI, so yes, plamsa does things unexpected.  I'll say this again for people that haven't heard it:

What has a lower resistance than a direct short?


A plasma arc.

Also notice how Russ' camera went wonky when he had it close to the chamber.  There is some serious radiation of some sort being generated in there.  I can assure you that radiation will find a way out and destroy common solid state components.  I've also blown the PS2 keyboard circuits on a computer that was four feet away from my spark gap.  The stuff is a little hairy to deal with.

It has to induce some kind of signal wave or could be a "Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse" found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
Interesting reading. The more I think about it from reading this, I think it is what they call an EMP "electromagnetic pulse".:huh:

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 06:05 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on January 16th, 2013, 05:49 PM

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 11:02 AM

In my humble opinion, there is incoherence in the thinking commonly held about why Papp designed his engine the way he did.

For example, the reason why Papp used coils around the outside of his cylinder walls was that he used multiple spark discharges in his ignition cycle.

Is this fact or opinion?

Quote

He used those coils to focus and constrain the energy produced by these multiple sequential plasma discharges onto the head of the piston.

I can't see that happening. When current runs through a coil, either the top or the bottom act like a north and south side of a magnet. Inside the coil the b-lines are parallel, depending on the current either going up or down.
If an electron moves inside from bottom to top, its current vector can be pointed downwards. So inside we have current and b-lines running along or in 180 degree opposite. A magnetic F force is only found when current and b-lines are at a 90 degree angle. That's from the stuff i had in highschool.

If we look at the diameter of the cylinder and a electron goes from center to outerrim. The force on it will be either to the left or to the right, giving a twirling motion. Not a motion to the centre.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080327144125AAwva3v

So i take it that you are agreeing with me

Quote from Dog-One on January 16th, 2013, 06:07 PM

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 12:38 PM

With reference to the exploding capacitor shown above in the video as follows:
Could the failure of the capacitor be caused by the feedback current produced by the stimulation of the Argon by spark discharge?

I'm dumping 20 joules at 30 pulses per second (600 joules/sec) using booster caps and have already blown an IGBT in my Mallory Hyfire CDI, so yes, plamsa does things unexpected.  I'll say this again for people that haven't heard it:

What has a lower resistance than a direct short?


A plasma arc.

Also notice how Russ' camera went wonky when he had it close to the chamber.  There is some serious radiation of some sort being generated in there.  I can assure you that radiation will find a way out and destroy common solid state components.  I've also blown the PS2 keyboard circuits on a computer that was four feet away from my spark gap.  The stuff is a little hairy to deal with.

Dog One, I don't agree with the assessment that a plasma arc has lower resistance that a "dead short".  A truly dead short would only occur in superconductivity.  All normal shorts have resistance.  But this is a side issue.
HV arcs generate EMI and that can disrupt electronic circuits (as seen by the camera).  In a switching supply (your CDI for example) it could cause the pulse drive to act up.  If the drive to the FET or IGBT is too long the xfmr core saturates and loses inductance.  The current spikes and destroys the device.  This is likely the scenario even though it should be somewhat shielded, perhaps the noise was conducted.

Quote from FaradayEZ on January 16th, 2013, 06:46 PM

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 06:05 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on January 16th, 2013, 05:49 PM

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 11:02 AM

In my humble opinion, there is incoherence in the thinking commonly held about why Papp designed his engine the way he did.

For example, the reason why Papp used coils around the outside of his cylinder walls was that he used multiple spark discharges in his ignition cycle.

Is this fact or opinion?

Quote

He used those coils to focus and constrain the energy produced by these multiple sequential plasma discharges onto the head of the piston.

I can't see that happening. When current runs through a coil, either the top or the bottom act like a north and south side of a magnet. Inside the coil the b-lines are parallel, depending on the current either going up or down.
If an electron moves inside from bottom to top, its current vector can be pointed downwards. So inside we have current and b-lines running along or in 180 degree opposite. A magnetic F force is only found when current and b-lines are at a 90 degree angle. That's from the stuff i had in highschool.

If we look at the diameter of the cylinder and a electron goes from center to outerrim. The force on it will be either to the left or to the right, giving a twirling motion. Not a motion to the centre.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080327144125AAwva3v

So i take it that you are agreeing with me

I was wrong about the direction of the force.

When current flows around the perimeter of the cylinder, the magnetic field that the current induces generates a force that acts to push ions and electrons radially toward or away from the walls of the cylinder respectively based  upon the polarity of the particle.

By the way, what did Papp want to compress and confine toward the axis of the cylinder, the ions or the electrons? Or am I wrong again?

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 06:05 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on January 16th, 2013, 05:49 PM

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 11:02 AM

In my humble opinion, there is incoherence in the thinking commonly held about why Papp designed his engine the way he did.

For example, the reason why Papp used coils around the outside of his cylinder walls was that he used multiple spark discharges in his ignition cycle.

Is this fact or opinion?

Quote

He used those coils to focus and constrain the energy produced by these multiple sequential plasma discharges onto the head of the piston.

I can't see that happening. When current runs through a coil, either the top or the bottom act like a north and south side of a magnet. Inside the coil the b-lines are parallel, depending on the current either going up or down.
If an electron moves inside from bottom to top, its current vector can be pointed downwards. So inside we have current and b-lines running along or in 180 degree opposite. A magnetic F force is only found when current and b-lines are at a 90 degree angle. That's from the stuff i had in highschool.

If we look at the diameter of the cylinder and a electron goes from center to outerrim. The force on it will be either to the left or to the right, giving a twirling motion. Not a motion to the centre.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080327144125AAwva3v

Can anyone tell me the difference between a solenoid type EM and a solid core EM?  A relay pulls the metal actuator to the solid core and a solenoid repels a solid core out.  It also seems the magnets are not always on in the papp, so i cant assume full magnetic field strentgh is formed in the nano-millisecond pulse of current it recieves. Is there any good info on field strentgh upon energizing an EM?  I also believe that the coil on bob's single cylinder machine is not in contact with the actual cylinder wall. Will that not affect the magnetic field or its strength to the center of the core?  Papp's patent appears to have said coil actually on the cylinder wall. Just bouncing ideas.  Appreciate any input.

Tim

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 08:41 PM

By the way, what did Papp want to compress and confine toward the axis of the cylinder, the ions or the electrons? Or am I wrong again?

that's correct, your right and the coil will "compress" the plasma in the tube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_%28plasma_physics%29

Quote

Consider a cylindrical column of fully ionized quasineutral plasma, with an axial electric field, producing an axial current density, j, and associated azimuthal magnetic field, B. As the current flows through its own magnetic field, a pinch is generated with an inward radial force density of j x B. In a steady state with forces balancing:

    ∇p = ∇(pe + pi) = j × Β

where ∇p is the magnetic pressure gradient, pe and pi is the electron and ion pressures. Then using Maxwell's equation ∇ × B = μ0 j and the ideal gas law p = N k T, we derive:

    2 N k(T_e + T_i) = \frac{{\mu_0}} {4 \pi} I^2 (the Bennett relation)

where N is the number of electrons per unit length along the axis, Te and Ti are the electron and ion temperatures, I is the total beam current, and k is the Boltzmann constant.

however i do not agree with this statement:

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 08:41 PM

The bottom line, multiple spark discharge requires constraining coils, single spark discharge does not.

i agree that papp may have used (need to read again the patent and look at the diagrams, i know there is talk about a sequence of events in the chamber.) multiple spark discharge. but even in a single spark discharge we can "pinch" the plasmoid for the short duration its there...

thoughts.

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on January 16th, 2013, 09:51 PM

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 08:41 PM

By the way, what did Papp want to compress and confine toward the axis of the cylinder, the ions or the electrons? Or am I wrong again?

that's correct, your right and the coil will "compress" the plasma in the tube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_%28plasma_physics%29

Quote

Consider a cylindrical column of fully ionized quasineutral plasma, with an axial electric field, producing an axial current density, j, and associated azimuthal magnetic field, B. As the current flows through its own magnetic field, a pinch is generated with an inward radial force density of j x B. In a steady state with forces balancing:

    ∇p = ∇(pe + pi) = j × Β

where ∇p is the magnetic pressure gradient, pe and pi is the electron and ion pressures. Then using Maxwell's equation ∇ × B = μ0 j and the ideal gas law p = N k T, we derive:

    2 N k(T_e + T_i) = \frac{{\mu_0}} {4 \pi} I^2 (the Bennett relation)

where N is the number of electrons per unit length along the axis, Te and Ti are the electron and ion temperatures, I is the total beam current, and k is the Boltzmann constant.

however i do not agree with this statement:

Quote from Axil on January 16th, 2013, 08:41 PM

The bottom line, multiple spark discharge requires constraining coils, single spark discharge does not.

i agree that papp may have used (need to read again the patent and look at the diagrams, i know there is talk about a sequence of events in the chamber.) multiple spark discharge. but even in a single spark discharge we can "pinch" the plasmoid for the short duration its there...

thoughts.

As i added in my first post, to get the ions or electrons towards the middle, we need a circular b-field. Like in the theory called the z-pinch. This is not done by the normal coil, we need the coiling like with a tokamak. More like an EPG running around the cylinder..

Why it is then that 3 wires rapped around a can will crush it? A single wire with current has a circular b-field around itself. Putting 100 close together like in a coil
stretches them to form the well known magnetlike linings. And so they run from south to north inside the coil. And when putting an iron rod or a cylinder in it, the magnetic lines will concentrate on the outside of the rod or cylinder.

As i understand it.

Quick stucy.
http://lenr.6te.net/
Jed

For those that need a little brush up on electromagnetic there are some good tutorials on the subject. I jumped in and grabbed lesson 7, it is a good example of the rules. He gives different examples in the other lessons.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/electricity-and-magnetism/v/magnetism-7

Hope this helps.

So if you have a gap, dependent upon the magnetic permeability of the cylinder wall material, that should determine how far into the cylinder the magnet can protrude.  Obviously also current and windings will be a factor.  But as far as whats in the middle of that coil with a stainless steel cylinder wall is going to be different than what permeates through an aluminum or steel cylinder wall.  Will this not affect the overall strength of the internal field?  I don't understand enough about magnets, but have a general idea of how they work.  I am just uncertain about how this field would be affected internally and with such a brief energization.  Probably a good reason this is a slow response, lower RPM engine/motor.

attached is a picture of an ion thruster, not sure of its validity, as it came from wikipedia.  Bonjour

Tim

Quote from FaradayEZ on January 16th, 2013, 05:49 PM

Is your second line fact or opinion?

Quote

He used those coils to focus and constrain the energy produced by these multiple sequential plasma discharges onto the head of the piston.

I can't see that happening. When current runs through a coil, either the top or the bottom act like a north and south side of a magnet. Inside the coil the b-lines are parallel, depending on the current either going up or down.
If an electron moves inside from bottom to top, its current vector can be pointed downwards. So inside we have current and b-lines running along or in 180 degree opposite. A magnetic F force is only found when current and b-lines are at a 90 degree angle. That's from the stuff i had in highschool.

If we look at the diameter of the cylinder and a electron goes from center to outer rim. The force on it will be either to the left or to the right, giving a twirling motion. Not a motion to the center.

As i understand it, you need rotating b-lines to get a magnet force to the center or going outwards, depending on the directions of current and b-lines, and by using the cork screw rule.

EZ - have a look at the magnetron design. The idea there is that electrons from the filament are accelerated electrostatically towards the anode, but the magnetic field makes them go in a helix rather than a straight line. This "electron tornado" blowing across the resonant cavities gives you the microwaves. In the same way, a magnetic field in the Papp cylinder will put a twist on the path of any off-axis charged particles, and thus there will be some reduction in the amount of them hitting the walls.