Quote from FaradayEZ on February 7th, 2013, 10:33 AM

Quote from k c dias on February 7th, 2013, 10:00 AM

I am working on shrinking some gas aka forming gas clusters.  It is working, but it is too early to start bragging :D

Well well, the incredible shrinking man process beam whatjemecallit.. and already he doesn't need the plasma anymore...found a new love ay? ;)

Don't get too smittenth, science can be a harsh lady, can't be easy to maintain the clusters and or get them back the same after combustion.

But its bold/good to do some elemental research, are you using coils for it? :D

I edited my post to (I think) it is working...  You got me quoted before I got it changed..

I do feel a bit like Rick Moranis.  Been debating whether or not to wear a spaghetti strainer on my head or not. :P  It is all very preliminary at this stage - I'll keep you posted.

Quote

Is your R constant for a conglomerate of the working gases?  I thought heliums constant was 1.6?  The other thing with the rohner and Papp engines is that you're getting 3-4 fires per stroke. Can we then divide overall torque and pressure by 3-4?  If you were capable of firing an ICE 3-4x a downstroke would that not also increase the torque?  Or like using single phase vs polyphase ac?  And what happens if the R Value is not so constant after plasma introduction?  What if the constant doubles or triples?  That should bring the temp value down as well. Or if the physical size of the working gas atoms change in the plasma state?  

Tim

Quote

Are you referring to 'ni' = 1.4?  That is the polytropic index.  I used a value of 1.4 as an estimate for an isentropic expansion.  The main thing to remember is the torque is proportional to the area under the curve.  And, I don't believe that plasma is the driving force in the Papp engine - sorry. :(

kcd

Yeah, i am referring to 'ni'.  If you are using helium or any noble gas the number should be 1.6.  I think di-hydrogen falls into this category as well.  I don't think it will show much difference overall, but it will show some minor differences that may make a difference in planning.

From wikipedia:
In an isentropic process, system entropy (S) is constant. Under these conditions, P1 V1γ = P2 V2γ, where γ is defined as the heat capacity ratio, which is constant for an ideal gas. The value used for γ is typically 1.4 for diatomic gases like nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), (and air, which is 99% diatomic). Also γ is typically 1.6 for monatomic gases like the noble gases helium (He), and argon (Ar). In internal combustion engines γ varies between 1.35 and 1.15, depending on constitution gases and temperature.

This shows that the constant can vary, which is very interesting and doesn't really make it a constant, but yet again it is from wikipedia:(

Plasma may not be the driving force in the engine, but if masses of electrons in an instant are required to make the process happen, then plasma will be inevitable.  If we didn't need all that energy you could make the piston move with just a HV arc. IMO plasma is nothing more than an area highly saturated with electrons.

Hopefully your UV theory works out and this will  lessen the energy input needed:)  Are you still working with your modified 2 stroke?

I will hopefully be building soon and can start making measurements of my own, just trying to piece everything together.



Do these look familiar from some of the videos?  I think from Bob's, but I've seen so many videos in the last month I truly cant recall which one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Xstatics-Mini-Cap-50-10-Farad-an-Innovative-High-Capacitance-Super-capacitor-/150991081778?pt=US_Car_Audio_Video_Capacitors&hash=item2327c51132

Tim

Quote from Slickhanz on February 7th, 2013, 11:27 AM

Yeah, i am referring to 'ni'.  If you are using helium or any noble gas the number should be 1.6.  I think di-hydrogen falls into this category as well.  I don't think it will show much difference overall, but it will show some minor differences that may make a difference in planning.

From wikipedia:
In an isentropic process, system entropy (S) is constant. Under these conditions, P1 V1γ = P2 V2γ, where γ is defined as the heat capacity ratio, which is constant for an ideal gas. The value used for γ is typically 1.4 for diatomic gases like nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), (and air, which is 99% diatomic). Also γ is typically 1.6 for monatomic gases like the noble gases helium (He), and argon (Ar). In internal combustion engines γ varies between 1.35 and 1.15, depending on constitution gases and temperature.

This shows that the constant can vary, which is very interesting and doesn't really make it a constant, but yet again it is from wikipedia:(

Plasma may not be the driving force in the engine, but if masses of electrons in an instant are required to make the process happen, then plasma will be inevitable.  If we didn't need all that energy you could make the piston move with just a HV arc. IMO plasma is nothing more than an area highly saturated with electrons.

Hopefully your UV theory works out and this will  lessen the energy input needed:)  Are you still working with your modified 2 stroke?

I will hopefully be building soon and can start making measurements of my own, just trying to piece everything together.

Do these look familiar from some of the videos?  I think from Bob's, but I've seen so many videos in the last month I truly cant recall which one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Xstatics-Mini-Cap-50-10-Farad-an-Innovative-High-Capacitance-Super-capacitor-/150991081778?pt=US_Car_Audio_Video_Capacitors&hash=item2327c51132

Tim

Tim thank you!  I searched high and low for some values for the polytropic index - you found'em!  Yes, change the value to 1.6, and the pressure column will be recalculated for that value. :)

For now, the engine has been shelved.  Working on gas processing.  

If you are referring to the 'super cap', I am not using them.  They have a very high ESR and are not much good for pulse caps.  Plus, they are too expensive!

kcd

Quote

Tim thank you!  I searched high and low for some values for the polytropic index - you found'em!  Yes, change the value to 1.6, and the pressure column will be recalculated for that value. :)

For now, the engine has been shelved.  Working on gas processing.  

If you are referring to the 'super cap', I am not using them.  They have a very high ESR and are not much good for pulse caps.  Plus, they are too expensive!

kcd

kcd,

No problem.  Glad I could add something to someones project. :D  I am looking at putting together a super-cap bank(ELDC).  Seems they should have good charge and discharge response.  I'm looking at around 15V and 15F.  Thats a little more than 1.6 kJ and 225 coulombs of energy storage.  As far as the module that I posted, it seemed like one that I had seen in a Bob video that seemed to be in question previously in the forum.  I'm guessing its 6 10F ELDC/super/ultra caps in series with balancing circuitry.  $250 is a touch too expensive for me as well.  It seems that it will cost around $50-$75 for a capacitor bank.  I'm looking around to try to keep my cost to around $30-40 for 1 bank.

Heres some caps with 24 kJ worth of storage.  

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ultra-Heavy-Duty-Capacitor-/290858918824?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43b88ae3a8

What gas mixture are you using kcd?  out of curiosity.  Straight He or the papp mixture or something else you have devised?  Theres also some more info on entropy involved with thermodynamics on the wikipedia page as well that could be useful.

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

Tim

Tim, thanks for all the info.  I am currently working with the lower 3 gases, the 2 expensive ones are due to arrive mid month.  So I'll see if I can do any good then :)

nice work/thoughts all.

   Slickhanz, supper caps are not good for pulse systems. Low internal resistance is what you want. this si why high voltage caps low capacitance are best for pulse caps... my caps are on the edge of this balance. although mine have lower internal resistance than most i still don't know how they will react when all at full power... :) to shrink some quarters the rise and fall time may not be fast enough to get the full effect.

FYI. i have edited some posts but just fixed the quotes... did not change anything...

man i can wait to gat back in the game... feel left out. lol i did however acquire some more goodies from the trash bin... some stuff that will rely help the research... :) more on the next update video.

HINT on one of the goodies.. its a measuring device... one that is priced at just over 800$ :) i love when things get replaced... this was a "flaky" sensor... it seems ok to me... lol

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on February 8th, 2013, 04:12 AM

i did however acquire some more goodies from the trash bin...
~Russ

Russ, Dumpster diving can be so much fun!! :D:P

kcd

Quote

Slickhanz, supper caps are not good for pulse systems. Low internal resistance is what you want. this si why high voltage caps low capacitance are best for pulse caps... my caps are on the edge of this balance. although mine have lower internal resistance than most i still don't know how they will react when all at full power... :) to shrink some quarters the rise and fall time may not be fast enough to get the full effect.


HINT on one of the goodies.. its a measuring device... one that is priced at just over 800$ :) i love when things get replaced... this was a "flaky" sensor... it seems ok to me... lol

~Russ

Russ,
How low is the ESR of your caps?
Here is what I was looking at:

http://www.newark.com/nichicon/jjc0e156melz/capacitor-dbl-layer-15f-2-5v-0/dp/58R4104?Ntt=jjc0e156melz

Glad you could find usable "trash".  :)  Found some geiger counters on electronics goldmine for around $100.  I'm really hoping we don't have neutrons or x-rays.  Although neutrons would be pretty cool. ;)

Tim

You guys can ignore this again but to get a high current rise time on the 350V DC arc you need to reduce inductance first.  This can be done by using twisted wires from the cap bank to the contacts.  The second thing is to use a HV mylar cap right at the terminals of the arc contacts on the engine.  This will provide the initial fast rise time that gives the main current a chance to catch up.  I would suggest a cap like Mouser part number 598-935C4W3-2K-F  which is 3uF/400V rated for high current.  If you plan to go higher than 400V then I would get a higher voltage rating.  

Quote from Babble on February 8th, 2013, 12:56 PM

You guys can ignore this again but to get a high current rise time on the 350V DC arc you need to reduce inductance first.  This can be done by using twisted wires from the cap bank to the contacts.  The second thing is to use a HV mylar cap right at the terminals of the arc contacts on the engine.  This will provide the initial fast rise time that gives the main current a chance to catch up.  I would suggest a cap like Mouser part number 598-935C4W3-2K-F  which is 3uF/400V rated for high current.  If you plan to go higher than 400V then I would get a higher voltage rating.

A friend of mine whose dad worked on high powered radar told me about a trick that sounds a bit like the dual capacitor approach:

First you take a measurement of the system's transfer function by introducing, as an input, the desired wave form at the point of output.  This then produces a transformed wave form back at the power source.  The Fourier transform of the wave form received back at the power source.  Then you set up a bank of capacitors with trigger phasing, capacity and frequency characteristics you require to get the desired waveform at output point.

PS:  I'm still not sure why one wouldn't just use an inductor to get the fast rise time, backed up by a capacitor to deliver the sustaining current.

PPS:  I'm also still not sure why the plasmoid's collapse on the return stroke doesn't deliver exactly the right characteristic pulse to the reciprocating cylinder -- as its relativistic electrons flowing in a stellarator-topology represent an enormous amount of magnetic pressure "deflating" into the other cylinder.

Quote from jabowery on February 9th, 2013, 10:38 AM

A friend of mine whose dad worked on high powered radar told me about a trick that sounds a bit like the dual capacitor approach:

First you take a measurement of the system's transfer function by introducing, as an input, the desired wave form at the point of output.  This then produces a transformed wave form back at the power source.  The Fourier transform of the wave form received back at the power source.  Then you set up a bank of capacitors with trigger phasing, capacity and frequency characteristics you require to get the desired waveform at output point.

PS:  I'm still not sure why one wouldn't just use an inductor to get the fast rise time, backed up by a capacitor to deliver the sustaining current.

That method sounds very similar to using an impulse to determine the system response, at which point you calculate the Z-transform equation that you will use to control the system.  The trick here is to use multiple impulses and combine the final Z-transform functions so you get a very accurate mathematical representation of the actual system you are attempting to control.  And from that point you call up your electrical engineer to map out components to match your mathematical model of your controller.  Twenty years ago, I could do this stuff, but it makes my head hurt now to even think about it, let alone write machine code to process it.  hehe

Quote from Babble on February 8th, 2013, 12:56 PM

You guys can ignore this again but to get a high current rise time on the 350V DC arc you need to reduce inductance first.  This can be done by using twisted wires from the cap bank to the contacts.  The second thing is to use a HV mylar cap right at the terminals of the arc contacts on the engine.  This will provide the initial fast rise time that gives the main current a chance to catch up.  I would suggest a cap like Mouser part number 598-935C4W3-2K-F  which is 3uF/400V rated for high current.  If you plan to go higher than 400V then I would get a higher voltage rating.

Don't use any length of wire, use the piston as the relay itself.

The length of wire doesn't count any more if the piston is the relay. Cause the caps will fill the wire also as in their system.

Quote from Dog-One on February 9th, 2013, 10:48 AM

Quote from jabowery on February 9th, 2013, 10:38 AM

A friend of mine whose dad worked on high powered radar told me about a trick that sounds a bit like the dual capacitor approach:

First you take a measurement of the system's transfer function by introducing, as an input, the desired wave form at the point of output.  This then produces a transformed wave form back at the power source.  The Fourier transform of the wave form received back at the power source.  Then you set up a bank of capacitors with trigger phasing, capacity and frequency characteristics you require to get the desired waveform at output point.

PS:  I'm still not sure why one wouldn't just use an inductor to get the fast rise time, backed up by a capacitor to deliver the sustaining current.

That method sounds very similar to using an impulse to determine the system response, at which point you calculate the Z-transform equation that you will use to control the system.  The trick here is to use multiple impulses and combine the final Z-transform functions so you get a very accurate mathematical representation of the actual system you are attempting to control.  And from that point you call up your electrical engineer to map out components to match your mathematical model of your controller.  Twenty years ago, I could do this stuff, but it makes my head hurt now to even think about it, let alone write machine code to process it.  hehe

Yes I believe you're correct.

In fact, the trigatron was probably used to achieve the proper input wave, just as Axil notes it was used in the AEROPS engine.

Quote from Slickhanz on February 8th, 2013, 11:56 AM

Quote

Slickhanz, supper caps are not good for pulse systems. Low internal resistance is what you want. this si why high voltage caps low capacitance are best for pulse caps... my caps are on the edge of this balance. although mine have lower internal resistance than most i still don't know how they will react when all at full power... :) to shrink some quarters the rise and fall time may not be fast enough to get the full effect.


HINT on one of the goodies.. its a measuring device... one that is priced at just over 800$ :) i love when things get replaced... this was a "flaky" sensor... it seems ok to me... lol

~Russ

Russ,
How low is the ESR of your caps?
Here is what I was looking at:

http://www.newark.com/nichicon/jjc0e156melz/capacitor-dbl-layer-15f-2-5v-0/dp/58R4104?Ntt=jjc0e156melz

Glad you could find usable "trash".  :)  Found some geiger counters on electronics goldmine for around $100.  I'm really hoping we don't have neutrons or x-rays.  Although neutrons would be pretty cool. ;)

Tim

my current cap bank...

[attachment=3219]

using a B43570-A1338-Q 3300uf 350V

theses are rated at ESR max 100HZ 20 C is only 20Mohm each.

I have 50 in parallel right now... if i calculated this correct. ( i think i did that wrong some one fix me)

each bank of 5 is .004ohm
and all of them is .0008ohm

your looking at 2.5V 15F with an ESR of .12ohms. ?

This is just a different application. look up "pulse cap" and see whats best.

the caps i have look HUGE but there dezighned with a Pulse system in mined... and thats what there originally for. there out of a Freq drive. 10,000A drive to be exact. thats what i was told... :)

~Russ

Quote from Babble on February 8th, 2013, 12:56 PM

You guys can ignore this again but to get a high current rise time on the 350V DC arc you need to reduce inductance first.  This can be done by using twisted wires from the cap bank to the contacts.  The second thing is to use a HV mylar cap right at the terminals of the arc contacts on the engine.  This will provide the initial fast rise time that gives the main current a chance to catch up.  I would suggest a cap like Mouser part number 598-935C4W3-2K-F  which is 3uF/400V rated for high current.  If you plan to go higher than 400V then I would get a higher voltage rating.

we did not ignore it. or at least i did not. :)

~Russ

PS i have 165,000uf in the bank i'm using now. to get that with theses caps i would need 55,000 of them. thats @ 1,000 for $1.03 each you do the math. lol

but your right making a bank would be a grate idea.

i will try the wisted wires idea i remember when you stated this the first time. but i haven't tested sense then.. :) will try it.

Quote from jabowery on February 9th, 2013, 10:38 AM

Quote from Babble on February 8th, 2013, 12:56 PM

You guys can ignore this again but to get a high current rise time on the 350V DC arc you need to reduce inductance first.  This can be done by using twisted wires from the cap bank to the contacts.  The second thing is to use a HV mylar cap right at the terminals of the arc contacts on the engine.  This will provide the initial fast rise time that gives the main current a chance to catch up.  I would suggest a cap like Mouser part number 598-935C4W3-2K-F  which is 3uF/400V rated for high current.  If you plan to go higher than 400V then I would get a higher voltage rating.

A friend of mine whose dad worked on high powered radar told me about a trick that sounds a bit like the dual capacitor approach:

First you take a measurement of the system's transfer function by introducing, as an input, the desired wave form at the point of output.  This then produces a transformed wave form back at the power source.  The Fourier transform of the wave form received back at the power source.  Then you set up a bank of capacitors with trigger phasing, capacity and frequency characteristics you require to get the desired waveform at output point.

PS:  I'm still not sure why one wouldn't just use an inductor to get the fast rise time, backed up by a capacitor to deliver the sustaining current.

PPS:  I'm also still not sure why the plasmoid's collapse on the return stroke doesn't deliver exactly the right characteristic pulse to the reciprocating cylinder -- as its relativistic electrons flowing in a stellarator-topology represent an enormous amount of magnetic pressure "deflating" into the other cylinder.

hummm Hinze told me something similar. he use to be an X-ray Tech... :)  

~Russ

Each cap is 2.5v at 15F. The listed ESR IS .12ohms. I know this is very high compared to yours, but I don't think I need a full discharge of the cap either.     Probably closer to 1/3-1/4 discharge of the cap. I was planning on using 6 of these in series for what I feel should become a 15v 15F cap bank. I could be wrong. I know your caps look big. Because they are. What you have is for quick discharge high potential, low current. I thought it would be interesting to try lower potential and higher current to see if that would saturate the spark gap more or less effectively. I hate wasting money though, if this is wrong then it's fundamentally wrong. I am also using copper electrodes for now and may be something to help your discharge consistentcy. I think tungsten has an IACS of 58%. Is 32% conductivity worth the hardness difference?  I am worried about strength with the copper, but I will have to see how much schlagg I get if can even get a plasma jump with the lower V higher I cap setup.  This is my "plan" as of now. Oh, I'm going JPR style too, going to use a single COP for my high voltage arc.  Early stages, but gotta get ball lightening first.

Tim

Quote from Slickhanz on February 9th, 2013, 10:04 PM

Each cap is 2.5v at 15F. The listed ESR IS .12ohms. I know this is very high compared to yours, but I don't think I need a full discharge of the cap either.     Probably closer to 1/3-1/4 discharge of the cap.

How are you planning on stopping a cap that is discharging at high current?  This may sound funny but it's a little like a guy trying to stop in the middle of urinating.  Not so easy.

With my plasma spark setup, the high voltage, low current spark triggers the lower voltage, high current plasma discharge.  It doesn't stop until the cap voltage drops below the diode bias voltage.  Those caps discharge as rapidly as they possibly can and if the diodes cannot handle the current, it blows them out.  Keep this in mind, the only thing with a lower resistance than a direct short is a plasma arc.  So when the plasma forms, it quite literally pulls the juice out of the caps.  So take the little peeing example above and imagine having suction associated and trying to stop.  Sorry it sounds a little vulgar, but you get what I mean right?

The only way I can see controlling how much juice you leave in the caps is by having them go through a diode and set the bias voltage accordingly which is going to be really hard with only 2.5 volts to start with.  You just don't have much resolution to pick from with a diode capable of handling the amperage you will have.

Also, six 15F caps in series is only 0.4F.

If you haven't done it already, I encourage you to play with the calculator here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html#c2

It really helped me a lot to understand what to expect.

Quote from Slickhanz on February 9th, 2013, 10:04 PM

Each cap is 2.5v at 15F. The listed ESR IS .12ohms. I know this is very high compared to yours, but I don't think I need a full discharge of the cap either.     Probably closer to 1/3-1/4 discharge of the cap. I was planning on using 6 of these in series for what I feel should become a 15v 15F cap bank. I could be wrong. I know your caps look big. Because they are. What you have is for quick discharge high potential, low current. I thought it would be interesting to try lower potential and higher current to see if that would saturate the spark gap more or less effectively. I hate wasting money though, if this is wrong then it's fundamentally wrong. I am also using copper electrodes for now and may be something to help your discharge consistentcy. I think tungsten has an IACS of 58%. Is 32% conductivity worth the hardness difference?  I am worried about strength with the copper, but I will have to see how much schlagg I get if can even get a plasma jump with the lower V higher I cap setup.  This is my "plan" as of now. Oh, I'm going JPR style too, going to use a single COP for my high voltage arc.  Early stages, but gotta get ball lightening first.

Tim

tim, just don't forget. I have not had any luck with my low voltage discharge. anything under 100V is almost impossible to discharge across the gap... i could not even get my big bank to discharge at 100V i did not go over that. but all other testing seems that over 160v will work. so just an FYI on 15V...

let us know if you have more questions/ thoughts and we will do our best to help you not waist money.  

~Russ

I originally agreed that  the capacitance in series is .4 F.  But I think I only lose 1/6 of the capacitance because they are all "equal".  So shouldn't that leave me with 2.5F?  So, I need 15*6 F.  90F or better should do the trick by those numbers? LOL$$ Total series capaciatance=1/(1/c1+1/c2+1/c3....)?  Still leaves me with the 15v problem and probably cost the same as what Russ is using or more.

I like the urination reference.


I am estimating a max of 350A on the electodes LVDC to get the plasma jump..  I was looking at some IGBTs in the 1000-1200v range  to actuate the ground side of the electrodes/to caps and HV Low I  Something around 500-600a for both Then button control the IGBTs.  I also figured on a HV diode for between the input of the electordes and the output.

Thanks for the link:)  

Thanks for the support Russ

Quote from Slickhanz on February 9th, 2013, 11:26 PM

I originally agreed that  the capacitance in series is .4 F.  But I think I only lose 1/6 of the capacitance because they are all "equal".  So shouldn't that leave me with 2.5F?  So, I need 15*6 F.  90F or better should do the trick by those numbers? LOL$$ Total series capaciatance=1/(1/c1+1/c2+1/c3....)?  Still leaves me with the 15v problem and probably cost the same as what Russ is using or more.

I like the urination reference.


I am estimating a max of 350A on the electodes LVDC to get the plasma jump..  I was looking at some IGBTs in the 1000-1200v range  to actuate the ground side of the electrodes/to caps and HV Low I  Something around 500-600a for both Then button control the IGBTs.  I also figured on a HV diode for between the input of the electordes and the output.

Thanks for the link:)  

Thanks for the support Russ

yes. i will be testing some TGBT's that i have from some old freq drives. i don't have any rated that high but i looked about 3 weeks ago on eBay and it seemed the ones you are looking for were from 30-60$ for used ones...

i'm currently working on revising the papp timer circuit to pulse the IGBT. it will just lose the gated pulse and use the 2 timers to pulse the igbt. im not going to use diodes to start with... we will see how it goes...

pose some updates here soon as well as a video i hope with in 2 weeks... we will see how it goes.

~Russ

some of the IGBT's i have... :
[attachment=3221]
[attachment=3222]
[attachment=3223]
[attachment=3224]
[attachment=3225]
also the TL250 I'm using on my driver will handle IGTP's just fine so its a easy transition.

you can see the current transducer in the first photo... those may come in handy... :) but its a bit low on voltage... lol

~Russ

What does the energy (in/out) ratio look like at the moment.

Is the force-distance that the popper piston delivers over unity?

Have you experimented with pre-exciting the noble gas mixture with the
27.105 Mhz through the RF antenna prior to delivering the ignition arc?

Does the magnetic containment field help to increase the force as well?

Have you made any new videos since January?

From recent postings on this blog it seems that the focus has shifted more toward brute forcing the plasma reaction with lots of amps of
current from capacitors instead of finessing the plasma with magnetic fields and RF pre-excitation.  Have you proven to your satisfaction that
the lower energy approaches cannot generate the plasma transition?

If generation of more power out than in is the goal, I would think that
lower energy approaches would be considered in preference to higher energy approaches to making plasma.  Am I wrong?

Quote from BarryMead on February 10th, 2013, 06:37 PM

What does the energy (in/out) ratio look like at the moment.

so far we have proven that the brought force approach works. this was the starting place.

Quote

Is the force-distance that the popper piston delivers over unity?

right now no where close. but again this is proof of concept.

Quote

Have you experimented with pre-exciting the noble gas mixture with the
27.105 Mhz through the RF antenna prior to delivering the ignition arc?

no, this is on the back burner but is still on the list of things to do.

Quote

Does the magnetic containment field help to increase the force as well?

haven't got to those tests yet.

Quote

Have you made any new videos since January?

dec 4 update 19. papp tech

all other videos are not really related to papp tech.

Quote

From recent postings on this blog it seems that the focus has shifted more toward brute forcing the plasma reaction with lots of amps of
current from capacitors instead of finessing the plasma with magnetic fields and RF pre-excitation.  Have you proven to your satisfaction that
the lower energy approaches cannot generate the plasma transition?

what is happening now is a lot of really good theory based on past testing. with this theory we can do tests that lean in to that theory to prove or diss-prove it to be accurate. one of the things I'm currently doing is working on the controlling circuit to apply short burst of energy rather than an uncontrollably amount of power going in to the popper.

This will overall lower the input energy. the "finessing the plasma with magnetic fields and RF pre-excitation" may work but possibly only with radiation " buckets" of witch we don't have. so we must find another way to help the process. so cap discharge had been found to be effective. along with other sources of input energy like magnetic fields and RF pre-excitation.

Quote

If generation of more power out than in is the goal, I would think that
lower energy approaches would be considered in preference to higher energy approaches to making plasma.  Am I wrong?

this is an accurate statement. and i would say your not wrong. but the main part is the " crossover" part of the papp motor that we just don't have with the current popper setup. so this is where testing theory's and making the process better will prove us the future testing of a motor type of application where we can reach those lower level energy input stages of testing...  

as of goals. here is some of the past goals we haven't gotten to yet:

http://open-source-energy.org/rwg42985/popper/POPPER%20TEST%20SHEETS%20v1.6.doc

 but will once the weather clears up a bit. ( 0-40 degrees F out there)  i work out of a crappy center block garage "lab" and it has no heat. so i'm doing inside projects at the moment. family time and reorganizing the "basement lab" so its usable.

 so as it stands everything is slowly moving forward and i hope to get back in the grove soon.

blessings. hope this explained some of whats in the works.

~Russ

Quote from BarryMead on February 10th, 2013, 06:37 PM

If generation of more power out than in is the goal, I would think that
lower energy approaches would be considered in preference to higher energy approaches to making plasma.  Am I wrong?

Certainly we would like to see overunity.  From what I can tell studying the Papp engine, he was getting far more power out than put in.  I can only guess there must have been some form of controlled LENR process going on and I'm still unclear exactly what it was.  I also still don't fully know if there is some threshold necessary that must be crossed power-wise before you start to see the overunity effect.  If there is a transmutation process that needs to happen, I would expect you need sufficient energy before it kicks in; from there you start to get a whole bunch more out than you put in.

Russ could probably tell you what data he has collected and whether it makes any sense or not.