Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 20th, 2012, 12:10 PM

KCD, nice work again! Who needs all those other parts! ? Lol

~Russ

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 20th, 2012, 01:56 PM

Nice machine shop KC, you could build a tractor inside there i guess?:D

Shame to throw away those screws young man!!:@

EZ...mumble..always handy some screws..yeah like screw around

Thanks you guys!!  BTW, I did save the bolts! :D

Quote from jprohner on September 20th, 2012, 04:46 PM

Quote from k c dias on September 20th, 2012, 11:42 AM

Just some update photos - the last major part, the flywheel, in the works.  And speaking of parts, the Leftovers, LOL.:)

kcd

KC
I do know of a person that did build a single cylinder PTP engine using a "lawn mower" engine for parts. He did get it running and such. But he also had it blow up on him because the control was not right and the crank would not take the load. So ne careful of the crank and timing systems as they are NOT designed for the type of power produced in the cylinder. But be advised that there has been at least one "Briggs & Straton" PTP engine conversion already. PS taking the cooling fins off is another fairly easy task if you are careful.

Good Luck
John

John,

Thank you very much for your input and your help on staying safe!  I was wandering about the B&S bottom end holding up, especially with the added weight to the piston.  Was also thinking of using a knock sensor initiated shutdown for safety, primarily as an early detection of trouble and to possibly save the engine case.  When you say 'blow up', do you mean it a traditional sense as to throw a rod, or do you mean a Feynman/Papp type explosion, or as I called it earlier, an "unexpected and instantaneous house remodeling event."

Thank you,

kcd

Finally uploaded...

First test run!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYNW9gbgySg

Conclusion. When even the smallest amount of plasma is formed, there is a pressure release. It's actually more violent in "air" than in the enert gasses. BUT! Releases some nasty stuff... Some chemical changes happen in just "air" the inert gases have their special purposes...

The coil, and Rf, and radioactive material must be tried...

More to come on testing! ;)

Ps. Popper kit came today. Uploading a video about it right now...

~Russ  

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 21st, 2012, 10:56 AM

Finally uploaded...

First test run!

Conclusion. When even the smallest amount of plasma is formed, there is a pressure release. It's actually more violent in "air" than in the enert gasses. BUT! Releases some nasty stuff... Some chemical changes happen in just "air" the inert gases have their special purposes...

The coil, and Rf, and radioactive material must be tried...

More to come on testing! ;)

Ps. Popper kit came today. Uploading a video about it right now...

~Russ

Cool!!  I'm downloading on dial-up, should be finished by tomorrow sometime LOL.

kcd

Good job Russ.:cool::D:P

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 21st, 2012, 11:42 AM

Good job Russ.:cool::D:P

Thanks Jeff! Did you like my shirt? ;) ;) ;) ~Russ
It just so happen to be today when I wore it... Sweet!

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 21st, 2012, 12:07 PM

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 21st, 2012, 11:42 AM

Good job Russ.:cool::D:P

Thanks Jeff! Did you like my shirt? ;) ;) ;) ~Russ
It just so happen to be today when I wore it... Sweet!

I didn't see the shirt, I was looking at the popper the whole time.:cool::D:P

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 21st, 2012, 12:35 PM

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 21st, 2012, 12:07 PM

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 21st, 2012, 11:42 AM

Good job Russ.:cool::D:P

Thanks Jeff! Did you like my shirt? ;) ;) ;) ~Russ
It just so happen to be today when I wore it... Sweet!

I didn't see the shirt, I was looking at the popper the whole time.:cool::D:P

"who's got yours"

@ Russ Gries

Some feedback from your appreciative audience follows:

Great demo…

I offer some ideas to make the science and the show better.

Details, details, details… the details of how your spark works is important.

The time it takes the spark to rise is important. The faster the spark rises and subsequently falls, the more powerful and effective the spark will be. The rise time that the electrical energy takes to release is a central factor in the power produced. This is why “pulse power” is stronger than an ordinary spark.

Capacitive spark discharge is what makes pulse power work. The spark should rise in about 50 nano-seconds or less. It would be good if the spark did not last very long to help what John Rohner calls recombination. The voltage of the spark should be about 150,000 volts minimum according to J Rohner.

The circuit you design is important to get the spark (pulse power) signal just right.

I would like to know the rise time of your spark and the fall time, its voltage and amperage.

Also, you need feedback about the power that the popper is making. You should also come up with a way to quantify the power coming out of the popper. A compressed air cylinder with max pressure readout would be ideal. Or a pressure readout profile of the power tester that is reflected on your oscilloscope would be neat.

It would be interesting to compare the spark coming off the J Rohner popper with the timing and power profile of your spark. The Rohner spark may serve as a spec for your spark.



Since you do all the work and we only see the fun, all these suggestions are humbly offered and I will not be offended if you ignore them. You may know all this already.

 

Quote from Axil on September 21st, 2012, 01:21 PM

@ Russ Gries

Some feedback from your appreciative audience follows:

Great demo…

I offer some ideas to make the science and the show better.

Details, details, details… the details of how your spark works is important.

The time it takes the spark to rise is important. The faster the spark rises and subsequently falls, the more powerful and effective the spark will be. The rise time that the electrical energy takes to release is a central factor in the power produced. This is why “pulse power” is stronger than an ordinary spark.

Capacitive spark discharge is what makes pulse power work. The spark should rise in about 50 nano-seconds or less. It would be good if the spark did not last very long to help what John Rohner calls recombination. The voltage of the spark should be about 150,000 volts minimum according to J Rohner.

The circuit you design is important to get the spark (pulse power) signal just right.

I would like to know the rise time of your spark and the fall time, its voltage and amperage.

Also, you need feedback about the power that the popper is making. You should also come up with a way to quantify the power coming out of the popper. A compressed air cylinder with max pressure readout would be ideal. Or a pressure readout profile of the power tester that is reflected on your oscilloscope would be neat.

Since you do all the work and we only see the fun, all these suggestions are humbly offered and I will not be offended if you ignore them. You may know all this already.

I'm here because you're here. Feedback is always more than welcome.

I do plan on connecting this to a pulse signal so that I do not have to fire it manually. This will definitely help keep it a short cycle.

There's still a lot of things that need to be added into the system. This was just the simplest easiest set up to see the results. Definitely more results will come with more details on the construction of the circuit.

We already know that the most important part of this process is the circuit the other the gases.

Thanks for the feedback I plan on adding to the rest of what you described to the system as I get time. ( simple first, the rest was in the plans! ;) )

Pulse fire will be the control for this system... ;)

Thanks Alex!

Also, just a side note. John Rohner is not using a capacitive discharge type of system so it's slightly different and we can use lower voltages because of the capacitive discharge.

The outside coil is definitely going to help in my opinion. I should be able to get those wrapped next week as the Wire will be in then.

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 21st, 2012, 01:29 PM

Quote from Axil on September 21st, 2012, 01:21 PM

@ Russ Gries

Some feedback from your appreciative audience follows:

Great demo…

I offer some ideas to make the science and the show better.

Details, details, details… the details of how your spark works is important.

The time it takes the spark to rise is important. The faster the spark rises and subsequently falls, the more powerful and effective the spark will be. The rise time that the electrical energy takes to release is a central factor in the power produced. This is why “pulse power” is stronger than an ordinary spark.

Capacitive spark discharge is what makes pulse power work. The spark should rise in about 50 nano-seconds or less. It would be good if the spark did not last very long to help what John Rohner calls recombination. The voltage of the spark should be about 150,000 volts minimum according to J Rohner.

The circuit you design is important to get the spark (pulse power) signal just right.

I would like to know the rise time of your spark and the fall time, its voltage and amperage.

Also, you need feedback about the power that the popper is making. You should also come up with a way to quantify the power coming out of the popper. A compressed air cylinder with max pressure readout would be ideal. Or a pressure readout profile of the power tester that is reflected on your oscilloscope would be neat.

Since you do all the work and we only see the fun, all these suggestions are humbly offered and I will not be offended if you ignore them. You may know all this already.

I'm here because you're here. Feedback is always more than welcome.

I do plan on connecting this to a pulse signal so that I do not have to fire it manually. This will definitely help keep it a short cycle.

There's still a lot of things that need to be added into the system. This was just the simplest easiest set up to see the results. Definitely more results will come with more details on the construction of the circuit.

We already know that the most important part of this process is the circuit the other the gases.

Thanks for the feedback I plan on adding to the rest of what you described to the system as I get time. ( simple first, the rest was in the plans! ;) )

Pulse fire will be the control for this system... ;)

Thanks Alex!

Also, just a side note. John Rohner is not using a capacitive discharge type of system so it's slightly different and we can use lower voltages because of the capacitive discharge.

The outside coil is definitely going to help in my opinion. I should be able to get those wrapped next week as the Wire will be in then.

~Russ

Could also be the gas mix is not quite right.:D

Hi Russ, I just came across this site and video today so i have not read all the comments.  I watching the video I admire your abilities and patients for building the test bed.  Here are a few comments about it.

I would like to see the same test using just air in the cylinder.  If the piston doesn't move then it shows the noble gases are really doing something.  This is to prove it is not just gas expansion due to the large energy pulse being dumped into the chamber.

If you are using electrolytic caps in series (as it appears) then you need to place resistors across each cap to bypass the internal leakage current.  I don't know the leakage rating of the caps but try using a 1 meg ohm, 0.5W resistor across each cap that is used in a series connection.  Then when charged, check that the voltage across each is nearly equal.  If this is not done and one cap leaks more then the one with less leakage will have a greater voltage and could exceed its rating.  This only applies to caps in series.

If it is desired to get a faster rise time on either the HV or LV pulse, you need to twist the + and - wires together, not let them hang openly as you have them.  This will reduce inductance and provide a faster rise time on the discharge.

If it is desired to get a faster rise time on either the HV or LV pulse, you need to twist the + and - wires together,not let them hang openly as you have them.  This will reduce inductance and provide a faster rise time on the discharge.[/quote]So just to clarify, all of the + wires twist together and all the - wires twist together, not + and - wires together.:D

Quote from Babble on September 21st, 2012, 03:08 PM

Hi Russ, I just came across this site and video today so i have not read all the comments.  I watching the video I admire your abilities and patients for building the test bed.  Here are a few comments about it.

I would like to see the same test using just air in the cylinder.  If the piston doesn't move then it shows the noble gases are really doing something.  This is to prove it is not just gas expansion due to the large energy pulse being dumped into the chamber.

If you are using electrolytic caps in series (as it appears) then you need to place resistors across each cap to bypass the internal leakage current.  I don't know the leakage rating of the caps but try using a 1 meg ohm, 0.5W resistor across each cap that is used in a series connection.  Then when charged, check that the voltage across each is nearly equal.  If this is not done and one cap leaks more then the one with less leakage will have a greater voltage and could exceed its rating.  This only applies to caps in series.

If it is desired to get a faster rise time on either the HV or LV pulse, you need to twist the + and - wires together, not let them hang openly as you have them.  This will reduce inductance and provide a faster rise time on the discharge.

Hi @babble it's seems like Russ says

Quote from Russ'

Conclusion. When even the smallest amount of plasma is formed, there is a pressure release. It's actually more violent in "air" than in the enert gasses. BUT! Releases some nasty stuff... Some chemical changes happen in just "air" the inert gases have their special purposes...

so the pressure change is due to the formation of the plasma you can see the same think in MHD propulsion . i think that the inert gases should be ionized first by (RF ,thorium ,or even Microwave ionization) before the production of the plasma. then the measurements can begin power in and out.

i think in my opinion that the importance of some of the gases is that they require less energy to be ionized then air .  
the coil will according to what i have read so far create a virtual cylinder reducing the expansion of the plasma in the wall of the  aluminium cylinder while allowing it to push more violently the piston .  
 
Generation of plasma

Various forms of excitation are distinguished:
• AC (alternating current) excitation
• DC (direct current) and low-frequency excitation
• Excitation by means of radio waves
• Microwave excitation

I started this adventure to test... so test i will do... with the help of others of corse.. cant to it alone!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kugCCqo5FBE

Quote from kovu on September 21st, 2012, 03:54 PM

Quote from Babble on September 21st, 2012, 03:08 PM

Hi Russ, I just came across this site and video today so i have not read all the comments.  I watching the video I admire your abilities and patients for building the test bed.  Here are a few comments about it.

I would like to see the same test using just air in the cylinder.  If the piston doesn't move then it shows the noble gases are really doing something.  This is to prove it is not just gas expansion due to the large energy pulse being dumped into the chamber.

If you are using electrolytic caps in series (as it appears) then you need to place resistors across each cap to bypass the internal leakage current.  I don't know the leakage rating of the caps but try using a 1 meg ohm, 0.5W resistor across each cap that is used in a series connection.  Then when charged, check that the voltage across each is nearly equal.  If this is not done and one cap leaks more then the one with less leakage will have a greater voltage and could exceed its rating.  This only applies to caps in series.

If it is desired to get a faster rise time on either the HV or LV pulse, you need to twist the + and - wires together, not let them hang openly as you have them.  This will reduce inductance and provide a faster rise time on the discharge.

Hi @babble it's seems like Russ says

Quote from Russ'

Conclusion. When even the smallest amount of plasma is formed, there is a pressure release. It's actually more violent in "air" than in the enert gasses. BUT! Releases some nasty stuff... Some chemical changes happen in just "air" the inert gases have their special purposes...

so the pressure change is due to the formation of the plasma you can see the same think in MHD propulsion . i think that the inert gases should be ionized first by (RF ,thorium ,or even Microwave ionization) before the production of the plasma. then the measurements can begin power in and out.

i think in my opinion that the importance of some of the gases is that they require less energy to be ionized then air .  
the coil will according to what i have read so far create a virtual cylinder reducing the expansion of the plasma in the wall of the  aluminium cylinder while allowing it to push more violently the piston .  
 
Generation of plasma

Various forms of excitation are distinguished:
• AC (alternating current) excitation
• DC (direct current) and low-frequency excitation
• Excitation by means of radio waves
• Microwave excitation

Thanks for the reply.  Lightning strikes through air all the time and I don't know of any nasty stuff created except ozone.  My point was that even though the piston moved in your video, there was no weight on it so no idea what force was created.  Use nitrogen if you don't want to use air.  It is a demonstration that the noble gas mixture is doing something which is not proven in the video.  I realize this was just a first test.

I do think Inteligentry is on to something and I guess we will know soon enough.  My concern was about your test experiment and the primary point of my post were the electrical comments.  

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 21st, 2012, 04:33 PM

I started this adventure to test... so test i will do... with the help of others of corse.. cant to it alone!!!

Hi Russ,

Good shows, and we will get to the right pop, but lets call these pips, or little pips?

If you watch this video..after a long while of running the arc they get some seemingly random real pop's. It's a bare setup without much stimulation i guess and without much explanation.
http://www.plasmerg.com/shared/history/Popper1990.mp4

But it shows that it is possible..but not reliant, to get the pop this way.

On juicing up.. i don't know why you use the coils and the magnets to drive the currents through. If you think that it will help to set the circuit free of any feedbackcurrent..then that's not helping. That transformer works 2 ways, its not a diode. So i would get rid of it?

It's as you say..all a question about scintillating the gas

The coil around the chamber is not much use to "put another wall en direct the punch" i think, but can be used to excite the mix.
Put an AC current with the right frequency or pulsed stepup DC on that is my guess.

But its a nice setup you made and real possible to overcome the hurtles.

Where can i collect my reputation points?

grmmbll.. not even one?..

A small pop is better then no pop. :P

Congrats on successful first pop. :D

PS. On the vacuum if you have a household thermometer/barometer then if the barometric pressure is say 29 then you will only get a vacuum of 29 inches of mercury, it all depends of the weather. Or if you can on the net the local weather report with the barometric pressure reading will tell you (about) what vacuum you can expect.

element 119

Congrats Russ. As usual I am very impressed.

One thing you should be doing even possibly before the tests is the math.

But first lets recap on what we know.

Bobs Popper operates with 'explosive power'
Bobs popper DOES NOT need the 'excitation coil' to operate with explosive power
All that is required is voltage, current and timing plus of course the contraption

You have done a stunning job on reproducing the contraption. so whats missing?

Ionisation does not appear to be the problem. the gas is ionising and the current is flowing.

I believe you got it right in the video. Whats missing is current, masses of it and to get current you need the capacitors.

Using the ideal gas law you can get an approximation of the energy required to simulate Bobs popper. I haven't done the math yet but have been intending to. it needs some serious brushing up on my behalf to do so, its been a long time between drinks on my chemistry class.

The ideal gas law is only an approximation. plasma is not an ideal gas. but in your device you are actually only creating a small amount of it. The design does not allow for all the gas to be converted to plasma. As your device is a very good replication of Bobs device. It is my opinion that you are getting that part right so it should not be the limiting factor.

Because you are only getting a small amount of plasma developed the rest of the gas can be treated as an ideal gas therefore I believe the approximation will be close enough.

I am going to have to continue this later, my wife has just called to ask me in to watch her favourite show. As you know we must keep our wives happy.

To be continued...

Russ,

Having experience with X Ray tubes, Thyratron and explosive trigering
devices, the following reference may assist you in understanding and
working with noble gas ionization:
 http://205.243.100.155/frames/pasley.html  
Congratulations on your superb efforts. Wear a film badge.

God Bless,

Chan

Well Russ, glad you finally received the popper kit from Inteligentry. Don't see it being worth $350.00 though. I wonder if it will produce the needed current flow to pop the popper at a greater degree, I think Chris could be right about more current flow being needed. A member we have "Terry Dixon" is an expert on gas manipulation, and I know would be able to help on this project, here:
 http://open-source-energy.org/?action=profile;u=9359
He should be able to explain what is needed in detail. Look up his earlier posts and you will see what I mean, thanks.:cool::D:P

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 22nd, 2012, 05:43 AM

Well Russ, glad you finally received the popper kit from Inteligentry. Don't see it being worth $350.00 though. I wonder if it will produce the needed current flow to pop the popper at a greater degree, I think Chris could be right about more current flow being needed. A member we have "Terry Dixon" is an expert on gas manipulation, and I know would be able to help on this project, here:
 http://open-source-energy.org/?action=profile;u=9359
He should be able to explain what is needed in detail. Look up his earlier posts and you will see what I mean, thanks.:cool::D:P

Hmm, i myself mistrust the way of only increasing power as the answer. That's the way of old science and medicine...just increase the doses...
More power, more force..to force the way into success?
Why not ask Bob Rohner how much capacitens he uses?

Like the science of Kesh.. he has discovered marvelous things that flow out of a little understanding and following the way nature made it you don't go on with forcing.. the system provides..you make room for it to function
Its about surrounding conditions and understanding.
The more power on a one way street will even come to the point that the pop costs more then the powerstroke ever will return?

All particles heave their own frequencies, a microwaveoven uses the frequency of water to excite the molecules and thus heat the food.
So that's the corner i would explore

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 22nd, 2012, 07:36 AM

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 22nd, 2012, 05:43 AM

Well Russ, glad you finally received the popper kit from Inteligentry. Don't see it being worth $350.00 though. I wonder if it will produce the needed current flow to pop the popper at a greater degree, I think Chris could be right about more current flow being needed. A member we have "Terry Dixon" is an expert on gas manipulation, and I know would be able to help on this project, here:
 http://open-source-energy.org/?action=profile;u=9359
He should be able to explain what is needed in detail. Look up his earlier posts and you will see what I mean, thanks.:cool::D:P

Hmm, i myself mistrust the way of only increasing power as the answer. That's the way of old science and medicine...just increase the doses...
More power, more force..to force the way into success?
Why not ask Bob Rohner how much capacitens he uses?

Like the science of Kesh.. he has discovered marvelous things that flow out of a little understanding and following the way nature made it you don't go on with forcing.. the system provides..you make room for it to function
Its about surrounding conditions and understanding.
The more power on a one way street will even come to the point that the pop costs more then the powerstroke ever will return?

All particles heave their own frequencies, a microwaveoven uses the frequency of water to excite the molecules and thus heat the food.
So that's the corner i would explore

A lot of this info including the capacitance I all ready coverd in my videos...

Including some of Chris's qustions...

You guys not paying attention? Lol
~Russ

Ps, more power is not the answer to the solution. If it gives us good results just a test a theory than that's okay. ( thays what i was trying) But overall it's going to be the magnetic coil the radioactive materials or the RF or a combination of all of them to make this system work efficiently that's the whole point of testing..

30,000uf 72v 77J

He stated this in the tesla tech demo video...98% of the info is out there. You just got to sorce it... ;)

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 22nd, 2012, 09:01 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 22nd, 2012, 07:36 AM

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 22nd, 2012, 05:43 AM

Well Russ, glad you finally received the popper kit from Inteligentry. Don't see it being worth $350.00 though. I wonder if it will produce the needed current flow to pop the popper at a greater degree, I think Chris could be right about more current flow being needed. A member we have "Terry Dixon" is an expert on gas manipulation, and I know would be able to help on this project, here:
 http://open-source-energy.org/?action=profile;u=9359
He should be able to explain what is needed in detail. Look up his earlier posts and you will see what I mean, thanks.:cool::D:P

Hmm, i myself mistrust the way of only increasing power as the answer. That's the way of old science and medicine...just increase the doses...
More power, more force..to force the way into success?
Why not ask Bob Rohner how much capacitens he uses?

Like the science of Kesh.. he has discovered marvelous things that flow out of a little understanding and following the way nature made it you don't go on with forcing.. the system provides..you make room for it to function
Its about surrounding conditions and understanding.
The more power on a one way street will even come to the point that the pop costs more then the powerstroke ever will return?

All particles heave their own frequencies, a microwaveoven uses the frequency of water to excite the molecules and thus heat the food.
So that's the corner i would explore

A lot of this info including the capacitance I all ready coverd in my videos...

Including some of Chris's qustions...

You guys not paying attention? Lol
~Russ

Ps, more power is not the answer to the solution. If it gives us good results just a test a theory than that's okay. ( thays what i was trying) But overall it's going to be the magnetic coil the radioactive materials or the RF or a combination of all of them to make this system work efficiently that's the whole point of testing..

30,000uf 72v 77J

He stated this in the tesla tech demo video...98% of the info is out there. You just got to sorce it... ;)

I'm (hold my cane please, i'm typing..) already 47 you young man, so please have a little sympathy if we forget small facts and such. I do however remember to win some rep points somewhere along this thread... can't seem to find them yet on my profile..hmm?

So next week next trial with some coils? or RF first?

And did you look at the long and boring video...where they just used a continuous spark? http://www.plasmerg.com/shared/history/Popper1990.mp4

And do you agree that the transformer is not a diode?

Great job Russ!!  One the last test with every cap in the house used, you started to get your wires to jump from the current.  Go back and look at Bob's wires jump.  Not much to go on, just an observation.

More photos of my BS.  Oh, wait, that's B&S.:D

And also a preliminary timing chart...  Any comments on timing??

kcd

Quote from k c dias on September 22nd, 2012, 11:58 AM

Great job Russ!!  One the last test with every cap in the house used, you started to get your wires to jump from the current.  Go back and look at Bob's wires jump.  Not much to go on, just an observation.

More photos of my BS.  Oh, wait, that's B&S.:D

And also a preliminary timing chart...  Any comments on timing??

kcd

Timing: like say test this week? And don't u make video's?

We're a spoiled audience...

Lol, nice work!