Quote from zerwell on September 26th, 2012, 10:28 AM

Popper kit update:

I heard through the grapevine that Dan, at inteligentry, was unable to get his popper to "POP".  Supposedly, when he exclaimed this fact to John Rohner, John stated that possibly another spark plug or two might be needed to make it work?
I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this whole situation.  It appears there has been a lot of BS flying around.  I'm still working on trying to build my popper, per the manual.  But possibly I am wasting my time and money on a totally flawed design?
The manual instructions are ambiguous at best.  The RF instructions are very very vague.  My first impression that the kit was worth $350 was premature. Thinking about throwing in the towel.  I'm starting to smell a class action lawsuit coming on? It seems Sterling Allan may have been right after all?  Can you spell scam? Chuck

Chuck,

Yeah, we will find out soon enough, (dec11)

But one things for sure, we can say bob's system works?? So we Persue to understand it. Instead of johns system...

Any how, they will be givin the last chance on (Dec11) the last few hopefuls will turn away then ( or I would hope) if they no not deliver...

Time will tell.

~Russ

Quote from Babble on September 26th, 2012, 08:49 AM

Mike, perhaps you can answer this.  what prevents the HV from jumping to the antenna and traveling down to the RF amp?  This would destroy the amp.  I would suggest that the antenna be insulated with Teflon or some HV insulator.  What do you think?  
---------------------------------------
Supposedly the Popper kit contains instructions on how to use the RF since that is what was shown in the inteligentry video where they said they use a short burst of RF from a CB radio.  They never said they used a booster amp or needed more than a few watts so why is that being done here?  

I suspect the wire gauges that Russ was sent for the coil are really too big (16 and 18 AWG, if I remember correctly).  The coil seems to have a lot of turns which are hopefully specified in the popper kit.  I would think that 22 or 24 gauge would be more appropriate to get the maximum turns and field.

Hmmm....well, that's interesting. You're talking about the HV arc right? (I'm sorry I'm just getting up to speed on what this thing is doing, or supposed to be doing).

Well, I guess the antenna is relatively high impedance compared to  probably some of the surrounding material, so I would expect that some of the energy from the arc would be induced into the antenna, but I would not expect it to be damaging to the transmitter, particularly that you've got effectively a band pass filter with the combined effective C of the antenna and the effective L of the loading coil. However, I don't know what the effects of the plasma are going to be on the conductivity, etc...could potentially be more variables involved.

Just going by what I understand about the problem so far, I would tend to be of the mind to not worry about it unless it is demonstrated to be a problem.

We may be mixing apples and oranges here. The RF idea is a component of the J Rohner system. Bob Rohner does not and never has used RF in his design.
 
What Russ is doing is pursuing a hybrid popper design that has parts of John’s system and parts of Bob’s system and in so doing is going into unknown territory.

Having said that, I have some questions in mind about RF as follows: is RF applied in a constant and uninterrupted way?

If not, when should the RF be applied and how long should it last?

By the way, the high voltage in John’s system will produce its own RF.

In explanation, you can light an unconnected florescent tube bulb just by holding it close to a high voltage spark in your hands (via a spark produced by a Tesla Coil).

The amount of RF coming off of the high voltage spark of John’s popper would be a good thing to know.

Why is another RF source needed in the John's system over and above what a high voltage spark would provide?

John said the RF was used to precondition the gas to near pre-plasma conditions before the spark is applied.

A low voltage high current spark as used in the Bob system may not be compatible with RF pre-ionization of the gas; this could be a possible problem in mixing the techniques of these two different popper systems.

Radioactive material is another issue. This is a Bob/Papp idea. John does not use this idea. It might not be wise to mix radioactive material  with any idea coming out of John’s system like RF.

When you try to do two things at the same time, there is a possibility or at least a temptation to mix these two things together especially if the two systems are entirely different from each other and work in different ways. The results of this mixing are unprdictable.

Don't give up on the John popper just yet.  Today, I tested a 3 gas mix at 1/2 atmosphere, with the coils energized to 12V, one spark plug, and keying the cb manually.  While spinning the engine with an external drive at 5 rps, I could see a small flash in the chamber, and the SWR went down to 4 on channel #1 (still not a great SWR, but the best I have seen with air or argon and no coils)

I have work to do on sorting out my power supplies.  The controller board has a single 12V input, which feeds the 3 ignition coils and a 5V regulator for the MCU's.  I thought that large enough electrolytic caps on the 12V would keep the MCU's from freaking out, but with the one ign. coil, I am getting some misfires.  This means I am getting a miscount on the timing for the rotation.

The flywheel sensor wire is shielded twisted pair.  The controller is open, ie. not shielded.

I need to split the supply input to the board; one for the controller, and one for the ign. coils.  I also need to get the cb radio off of the supply I am using for the cylinder coils, so I can jack up the voltage on the cyl coils.  I am currently not gating the cb pulse nor the cylinder voltage, just running them both constant to look for any signs of life.  I saw a faint twinkle.

So, back to work for me.

kcd

Quote from k c dias on September 26th, 2012, 01:24 PM

Don't give up on the John popper just yet.  Today, I tested a 3 gas mix at 1/2 atmosphere, with the coils energized to 12V, one spark plug, and keying the cb manually.  While spinning the engine with an external drive at 5 rps, I could see a small flash in the chamber, and the SWR went down to 4 on channel #1 (still not a great SWR, but the best I have seen with air or argon and no coils)

I have work to do on sorting out my power supplies.  The controller board has a single 12V input, which feeds the 3 ignition coils and a 5V regulator for the MCU's.  I thought that large enough electrolytic caps on the 12V would keep the MCU's from freaking out, but with the one ign. coil, I am getting some misfires.  This means I am getting a miscount on the timing for the rotation.

The flywheel sensor wire is shielded twisted pair.  The controller is open, ie. not shielded.

I need to split the supply input to the board; one for the controller, and one for the ign. coils.  I also need to get the cb radio off of the supply I am using for the cylinder coils, so I can jack up the voltage on the cyl coils.  I am currently not gating the cb pulse nor the cylinder voltage, just running them both constant to look for any signs of life.  I saw a faint twinkle.

So, back to work for me.

kcd

A very common device used by amateur radio community is the antenna coupler. I used one for years because I had a small antenna in my apartment and I did not have space to deploy a good antenna. If I did not use this device, I could not be able to talk with so many guys as I did.
In this case, when you have a small antenna and want to deploy the max RF possible, I suggest the use of an antenna coupler. John is an amateur radio operator ( I think ) and this basic concept he will be using.
In this case where you are using a small antenna, please do not forget the use of a small coil inside as antenna, because the antenna used by Russ is very short ( few centimeters ) for the frequency used ( 10 meters ).
Russ is building a bad design because he doesn't know about antennas.

An antenna coupler is necessary, but doesn't do miracles, you will need a balanced antenna inside to get the energy deployed with efficiency.

To resume, if you want to use RF, you need to know about antennas.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 26th, 2012, 10:46 AM

Quote from element 119 on September 24th, 2012, 08:28 PM

Russ

Here is why I think you have a smaller pop then Bob’s.

Bob’s popper has a spring on it pushing down on the piston so when he pumps gas up to 1 psi then he is pushing against that spring. A gas can be compressed but liquids can not..

You have no spring so your fill is less pressure then Bob’s.

Junkyard you may find an old spring loaded shock from a motorcycle or a car rear shock or you could just add a weight to the piston shaft.

Or maybe just strap a bungy cord across the shaft end. :D

element 119

Hmmmm...but the pressure at Bob's is 1 atmosphere, maybe a little more. If it was what you thought, then he would have to put in much more gas. And his POP has to work against the spring..and still gets more distance.. would be interesting how high his piston would go without spring or weight.. it won't shoot out because the collapsing plasma sucks the piston back in.

/quote]



I can’t see Bob’s pressure gauge reading can you?

If I understand this correctly then 1 atmosphere is equal to 14.7 pound per square inch. So the question I have is Bob filling his popper to 14.7 psi or 1 psi.

Without the spring on then 14.7 psi would push the piston up with no trouble.

With a gasoline engine the fuel and air is compressed before firing to increase the power.

So my point to Russ was to put a spring on it and then start making tests increasing the gas fill pressure to see if more power takes place.

Here are some antenna designs used in plasma formation in noble gases.
 


Here are some technical descriptions if you are real smart and can get something from them.

http://plasma.kulgun.net/Thesis/chap4.pdf

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdrum.lib.umd.edu%2Fbitstream%2F1903%2F10368%2F1%2FDeMaio_umd_0117N_11210.pdf&ei=099jUNvcJKqMyAHQrIHgCA&usg=AFQjCNEOUBUaAiPl3oJlxuNvjofMMyM2_A&sig2=lp2ISvo9h8RDcsy9aVb1fw


Ion thrusters using helium, argon, and xenon operate at 13.56 MHz.

I checked and most hot fusion plasmas are formed using CB range RF between 2 and 50 MHz.

Here are some words comparing the antenna types shown above.

Quote

Antenna Coupling

This leads into a discussion of antenna coupling effects and how they play a role in transition modes of helicon sources. A variety of antennas have been used in helicon sources. Boswell among others, have used double saddle antennas, while others have used helical and Nagoya Type II and III antennas. Other antennas have been designed to induce higher nodal modes and have been tested by Kim et al. Furthermore, Blackwell and Chen have conducted experiments regarding pure helical and Nagoya Type III antennas to infer their behaviors in a medium. They concluded that the main difference between these two specific antennas (mentioned above) is the orientation of the magnetic field. It was shown by Blackwell and Chen that a helical m = +1 mode antenna produces a higher density of plasma than the Nagoya Type III antenna. The plasma generated is also more concentrated at the center than for the Nagoya Type III antenna. As discussed later, the eigenmodes of the helicon wave match that of the helical antenna geometry. Therefore, the helical antenna is more efficient at coupling to these modes than other geometries. Due to conclusive evidence that helical antennas are more efficient, the antenna that was used in this research resembles that of a helix.

Some info from a YouTube member:

Quote

Gatetkeeper2013
Hi Russ,
 
You need an Antenna Matcher (tuner), for the CB 27MHz, In connection with the reduction factor.
 
Look like this,
See this websites:
 
http://www.qsl.net/pa3fxo/hfantenna.html
 
http://www.qsl.net/dc2wk/long.html
 
Greetings and lots of love,
 
Frans Raza

Quote

Frans,
 
Thanks!
 
I built something similar to what is in your second link. I did not know how to properly tuned it to make sure I had it built correctly. I guess I'll just have to order the exact parts and make one.
 
You wouldn't happen have any idea how to check the one I've already wrapped?
 
I can get some specifications on it if you'd like I wrapped a three winding three wire on a core similar to what shown on that page
 
Anyway my main problem is I do not know how to accurately calculate those things out...
 
Blessings

Thanks,
 
~Russ

Quote

Hi, Russ,
 
You can calculate with this small program. Here is the link -> http://www.ve3sqb.com/balun.zip
It comes from this website -> http://www.radioqso.net/antennadesign.htm
There are still more wonderful programs on this site.
 
And also, use a field strength meter, in the case of the small antenna in the device that you have built, to test the maximum measuring power.
And use a standing wave/watt meter. To set the small antenna 1:1.
 
I hope that you can do something with this.
 
Greetings,
 
Frans Raza.
 

Good info, thought I would
Post it.

Also, thanks for all the fantastic responses! As allwsys, this is a joint effort! All for one and one for all!

~Russ

Quote from element 119 on September 26th, 2012, 09:46 PM

I can’t see Bob’s pressure gauge reading can you?

If I understand this correctly then 1 atmosphere is equal to 14.7 pound per square inch. So the question I have is Bob filling his popper to 14.7 psi or 1 psi.

Without the spring on then 14.7 psi would push the piston up with no trouble.

With a gasoline engine the fuel and air is compressed before firing to increase the power.

So my point to Russ was to put a spring on it and then start making tests increasing the gas fill pressure to see if more power takes place.

yes i will be building the spring or air return... we will get there.. i have some other ideas to try as well... when i get there i will post a video... :)

Quote from element 119 on September 26th, 2012, 09:46 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 26th, 2012, 10:46 AM

Quote from element 119 on September 24th, 2012, 08:28 PM

Russ

Here is why I think you have a smaller pop then Bob’s.

Bob’s popper has a spring on it pushing down on the piston so when he pumps gas up to 1 psi then he is pushing against that spring. A gas can be compressed but liquids can not..

You have no spring so your fill is less pressure then Bob’s.

Junkyard you may find an old spring loaded shock from a motorcycle or a car rear shock or you could just add a weight to the piston shaft.

Or maybe just strap a bungy cord across the shaft end. :D

element 119

Hmmmm...but the pressure at Bob's is 1 atmosphere, maybe a little more. If it was what you thought, then he would have to put in much more gas. And his POP has to work against the spring..and still gets more distance.. would be interesting how high his piston would go without spring or weight.. it won't shoot out because the collapsing plasma sucks the piston back in.

/quote]



I can’t see Bob’s pressure gauge reading can you?
but the gas from the needles gets sucked in...and only 4 needles with 60cc can't give much psi.. and i take Bob's word if he reads the gauge

If I understand this correctly then 1 atmosphere is equal to 14.7 pound per square inch. So the question I have is Bob filling his popper to 14.7 psi or 1 psi.
with 1 atmosphere i meant the normal outside pressure of the surrounding air

Without the spring on then 14.7 psi would push the piston up with no trouble.

With a gasoline engine the fuel and air is compressed before firing to increase the power.
I'd say check more video's on the papp engine to see that it does not use compression

So my point to Russ was to put a spring on it and then start making tests increasing the gas fill pressure to see if more power takes place.
That can still be a good suggestion if the "normal papp way" isn't working

FYI to all:

thanks for the feed back! i have not had the time to respond to each post/person but i'm here reading and researching. keep it coming! :)

~Russ

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 26th, 2012, 10:47 PM

Quote from element 119 on September 26th, 2012, 09:46 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 26th, 2012, 10:46 AM

Quote from element 119 on September 24th, 2012, 08:28 PM

Russ

Here is why I think you have a smaller pop then Bob’s.

Bob’s popper has a spring on it pushing down on the piston so when he pumps gas up to 1 psi then he is pushing against that spring. A gas can be compressed but liquids can not..

You have no spring so your fill is less pressure then Bob’s.

Junkyard you may find an old spring loaded shock from a motorcycle or a car rear shock or you could just add a weight to the piston shaft.

Or maybe just strap a bungy cord across the shaft end. :D

element 119

Hmmmm...but the pressure at Bob's is 1 atmosphere, maybe a little more. If it was what you thought, then he would have to put in much more gas. And his POP has to work against the spring..and still gets more distance.. would be interesting how high his piston would go without spring or weight.. it won't shoot out because the collapsing plasma sucks the piston back in.

/quote]



I can’t see Bob’s pressure gauge reading can you?
but the gas from the needles gets sucked in...and only 4 needles with 60cc can't give much psi.. and i take Bob's word if he reads the gauge

If I understand this correctly then 1 atmosphere is equal to 14.7 pound per square inch. So the question I have is Bob filling his popper to 14.7 psi or 1 psi.
with 1 atmosphere i meant the normal outside pressure of the surrounding air

Without the spring on then 14.7 psi would push the piston up with no trouble.

With a gasoline engine the fuel and air is compressed before firing to increase the power.
I'd say check more video's on the papp engine to see that it does not use compression

So my point to Russ was to put a spring on it and then start making tests increasing the gas fill pressure to see if more power takes place.
That can still be a good suggestion if the "normal papp way" isn't working

> I can’t see Bob’s pressure gauge reading can you?
but the gas from the needles gets sucked in...and only 4 needles with 60cc can't give much psi.. and i take Bob's word if he reads the gauge


You need to go back and re-watch Bob’s videos. One poster here even made the point his needles were not being pulled in. And how do you know his chamber holds 240 cc? Maybe it holds 180 cc and the extra 60 cc is to push the pressure up to 14.7 psi.  
--------------------------------------


> If I understand this correctly then 1 atmosphere is equal to 14.7 pound per square inch.
> So the question I have is Bob filling his popper to 14.7 psi or 1 psi.
with 1 atmosphere i meant the normal outside pressure of the surrounding air


Yes and Bob also said 1 atmosphere but how do you know if he meant 0 psi or 14.7 psi?
------------------------------------  

> Without the spring on then 14.7 psi would push the piston up with no trouble.
> With a gasoline engine the fuel and air is compressed before firing to increase the power.
I'd say check more video's on the papp engine to see that it does not use compression


Maybe you should watch the one where Papp is filling the engine and using a big bar to turn the engine over… It sure looks like there is some compression going on… to me.
Among other things I was an auto mechanic for over 40 years so I have a very good understanding of how engines work. There is nothing wrong with compression it is how engines work to get more power.
The danger is too much compression and power could cause that aluminum cylinder to burst.

------------------------------------

> So my point to Russ was to put a spring on it and
> then start making tests increasing the gas fill pressure to see if more power takes place.
That can still be a good suggestion if the "normal papp way" isn't working


Does anyone really know exactly what the Papp way was?
-----------------------------------------------

I’m not going to keep arguing about this so you make your suggestion and I will make mine, and Russ can try or not if he chooses. End of story.

Peace and Love but don’t make me wear gloves. :P  :D

element 119

Quote

I’m not going to keep arguing about this so you make your suggestion and I will make mine, and Russ can try or not if he chooses. End of story.

Peace and Love but don’t make me wear gloves. Tongue Big Grin

element 119

lol its always good to brain storm! :)

all: ignore this post unless you want to continue the "CuriousChris" path,  for those who care to continue on discussing with him, please do so here:

 http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=730

all else: lets move on!!! keep up the good work all!

~Russ

Quote from element 119 on September 27th, 2012, 12:29 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 26th, 2012, 10:47 PM

Quote from element 119 on September 26th, 2012, 09:46 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 26th, 2012, 10:46 AM

Quote from element 119 on September 24th, 2012, 08:28 PM

Russ

Here is why I think you have a smaller pop then Bob’s.

Bob’s popper has a spring on it pushing down on the piston so when he pumps gas up to 1 psi then he is pushing against that spring. A gas can be compressed but liquids can not..

You have no spring so your fill is less pressure then Bob’s.

Junkyard you may find an old spring loaded shock from a motorcycle or a car rear shock or you could just add a weight to the piston shaft.

Or maybe just strap a bungy cord across the shaft end. :D

element 119

Hmmmm...but the pressure at Bob's is 1 atmosphere, maybe a little more. If it was what you thought, then he would have to put in much more gas. And his POP has to work against the spring..and still gets more distance.. would be interesting how high his piston would go without spring or weight.. it won't shoot out because the collapsing plasma sucks the piston back in.

/quote]



I can’t see Bob’s pressure gauge reading can you?
but the gas from the needles gets sucked in...and only 4 needles with 60cc can't give much psi.. and i take Bob's word if he reads the gauge

If I understand this correctly then 1 atmosphere is equal to 14.7 pound per square inch. So the question I have is Bob filling his popper to 14.7 psi or 1 psi.
with 1 atmosphere i meant the normal outside pressure of the surrounding air

Without the spring on then 14.7 psi would push the piston up with no trouble.

With a gasoline engine the fuel and air is compressed before firing to increase the power.
I'd say check more video's on the papp engine to see that it does not use compression

So my point to Russ was to put a spring on it and then start making tests increasing the gas fill pressure to see if more power takes place.
That can still be a good suggestion if the "normal papp way" isn't working

> I can’t see Bob’s pressure gauge reading can you?
but the gas from the needles gets sucked in...and only 4 needles with 60cc can't give much psi.. and i take Bob's word if he reads the gauge


You need to go back and re-watch Bob’s videos. One poster here even made the point his needles were not being pulled in. And how do you know his chamber holds 240 cc? Maybe it holds 180 cc and the extra 60 cc is to push the pressure up to 14.7 psi.  
--------------------------------------


> If I understand this correctly then 1 atmosphere is equal to 14.7 pound per square inch.
> So the question I have is Bob filling his popper to 14.7 psi or 1 psi.
with 1 atmosphere i meant the normal outside pressure of the surrounding air


Yes and Bob also said 1 atmosphere but how do you know if he meant 0 psi or 14.7 psi?
------------------------------------  

> Without the spring on then 14.7 psi would push the piston up with no trouble.
> With a gasoline engine the fuel and air is compressed before firing to increase the power.
I'd say check more video's on the papp engine to see that it does not use compression


Maybe you should watch the one where Papp is filling the engine and using a big bar to turn the engine over… It sure looks like there is some compression going on… to me.
Among other things I was an auto mechanic for over 40 years so I have a very good understanding of how engines work. There is nothing wrong with compression it is how engines work to get more power.
The danger is too much compression and power could cause that aluminum cylinder to burst.

------------------------------------

> So my point to Russ was to put a spring on it and
> then start making tests increasing the gas fill pressure to see if more power takes place.
That can still be a good suggestion if the "normal papp way" isn't working


Does anyone really know exactly what the Papp way was?
-----------------------------------------------

I’m not going to keep arguing about this so you make your suggestion and I will make mine, and Russ can try or not if he chooses. End of story.

Peace and Love but don’t make me wear gloves. :P  :D

element 119

SIGH.....

All this guessing about the pressure, but the info is out there!  Just read the patents, and watch the videos!!  They are starting with a vacuum and filling the cylinder up to 1 atm.  The spring isn't compressing the gas, it's just holding the piston to it's lowest point, and returning it to that point after it fires.  Bob says in the video, if the spring wasn't there, after it fires, the piston would not return all the way.  He also says that leaving a slight vacuum when putting in the gas results in very little power, but I wouldn't recommend, as others suggest, adding pressure to the cylinder.  

Quote from Badger on September 27th, 2012, 05:54 AM

All this guessing about the pressure, but the info is out there!  Just read the patents, and watch the videos!!  They are starting with a vacuum and filling the cylinder up to 1 atm.  The spring isn't compressing the gas, it's just holding the piston to it's lowest point, and returning it to that point after it fires.  Bob says in the video, if the spring wasn't there, after it fires, the piston would not return all the way.  He also says that leaving a slight vacuum when putting in the gas results in very little power, but I wouldn't recommend, as others suggest, adding pressure to the cylinder.

FYI.

I hade the same results. I put about 5-8 PSI to get the cylinder to go up the same distance as bobs. (he also shows this with out the spring.)

I plan on doing some tests under vacuum to show best ionizing results... Then work with a 1 atm. Badger is correct,  There is a lot of info out there, videos and patents... Just got to look! ;)

I have already been paying attention to these details... ;)

Thanks guys! ~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 27th, 2012, 06:17 AM

Quote from Badger on September 27th, 2012, 05:54 AM

All this guessing about the pressure, but the info is out there!  Just read the patents, and watch the videos!!  They are starting with a vacuum and filling the cylinder up to 1 atm.  The spring isn't compressing the gas, it's just holding the piston to it's lowest point, and returning it to that point after it fires.  Bob says in the video, if the spring wasn't there, after it fires, the piston would not return all the way.  He also says that leaving a slight vacuum when putting in the gas results in very little power, but I wouldn't recommend, as others suggest, adding pressure to the cylinder.

FYI.

I hade the same results. I put about 5-8 PSI to get the cylinder to go up the same distance as bobs. (he also shows this with out the spring.)

I plan on doing some tests under vacuum to show best ionizing results... Then work with a 1 atm. Badger is correct,  There is a lot of info out there, videos and patents... Just got to look! ;)

I have already been paying attention to these details... ;)

Thanks guys! ~Russ

Hmm i'm getting withdrawl symptoms from not getting my doses of update video's on the papp engine... every week at least one trial no?


element119 :

Maybe you should watch the one where Papp is filling the engine and using a big bar to turn the engine over… It sure looks like there is some compression going on… to me. Among other things I was an auto mechanic for over 40 years so I have a very good understanding of how engines work. There is nothing wrong with compression it is how engines work to get more power. The danger is too much compression and power could cause that aluminum cylinder to burst.

~~~~~~ last try to explain~~~~

At TDC the piston does not compress the gasmixture. It starts at 1 atmosphere and turns back to 1 atmosphere.

In the ignited phase it has compression and a lot of it! It pushes a (not to be moved by man) piston with great ease and horsepower readings are high.

In the collapse phase it sucks the piston back to TDC

So its a transition plasma process; ignite, collapse, ignite, collapse etc.

And both side's of the stroke give of power, expansion power and sucking power

That's also why this engine can easily run with very low reps, even 12 rpm!! (if my memory serves me)

(p.s. in Rob's latest video he also addressed the needle suck issue)

Great work Russ, I also agree with Badger's evaluation.:D

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 26th, 2012, 10:34 PM

Quote

Gatetkeeper2013

http://www.qsl.net/pa3fxo/hfantenna.html
 
http://www.qsl.net/dc2wk/long.html

~Russ

Russ, I think you are less in need of a balun, and more in need of a loading coil such as in the second link.

The balun coil is used to provide a match between an un-balanced and balanced load and/or transmission line such as when transitioning from coax cable to a balanced yagi antenna or so. You have no such balanced load from what I see.

Balance is not your problem.  You are un-balanced all the way through.

Your main trouble is the length of your antenna.

The kind of arrangement that he is pointing you to in this link http://www.qsl.net/pa3fxo/hfantenna.html will go a long way toward getting a usable match.

It will be a bit hit and miss as far as the number of turns, diameter and so on since it's a very non-traditional setup. An SWR (and/or field strength) meter will go a long way toward steering you in the right direction.

Perhaps try taking some copper wire like 8/10 guage or so (what's your antenna wire? Maybe just make your loading coil a continuation of your antenna - in other words, form your antenna and loading coil from the same piece of wire) in any case the coil should be very close to the antenna.

I'd probably start with something similar to what the fellow is showing in that picture, 20 turns about 50mm diameter with 2-3mm gap. You may not need that many turns since you're operating at a higher frequency, however your antenna is much shorter as well, you can always trim it down once you get the tap point nailed down.

It'll be a bit hit and miss, but with an SWR/field strength meter you'll be able to tell when you're going in the right direction.

My $0.02 for what it's worth.

--Mike

  kcd  ,
         not too sure what you mean by isolator . On plasma system I worked on the RF was fed to two parallel  plates   (one connected to RF ground One to RF ) inside a vacuum chamber . The reason for vacuum chamber was to allow introduction of gases between plates in a controlled manner . The vacuum system
also allows the chamber to be pumped out to eliminate contamination like water vapor etc .Judging from PAPP videos he was concerned with contamination inside his cylinders .  Thats why I mentioned about not putting epoxy inside chamber same goes for oils and grease  . There are special purpose low out gassing oils etc for vacuum systems but they are very exspensive.

                                                                                             Joe.

Quote from k c dias on September 25th, 2012, 11:44 AM

Quote from meccanojoe on September 25th, 2012, 10:51 AM

Hello Russ ,
                   thanks for posting here are a few of my thoughts on RF.

 You will need both RF signal and ground in chamber for it to have an effect on plasma
Your plasma popper will need to be impedance matched to RF source (CB radio)
The impedance of popper will vary with vacuum and gases in chamber .
Some form of matching network will need to be installed in between RF source and popper set at vaccum level + gas .
industrial marching networks have RF variable caps or inductors to allow them to tune system for no reflected power .

  "http://www.casetechnology.com/implanter/rf.html"

"http://electronicstechnician.tpub.com/14092/css/14092_45.htm"

                                                                                         Joe.

Joe,

Great information!  Would an isolator help in this application?  Or are isolators only a luxury for microwave freqs?

Thanks,

kcd

PS.  Just ran some tests on air and (separately) argon at various pressures from approx 1 Torr to 760 Torr, observing SWR on chan 1 and 40.  I was hoping that something at some pressure at some freq would look like a 50 ohm load.  No joy.:(

Quote from 8bitgeek on September 27th, 2012, 12:35 PM

Perhaps try taking some copper wire like 8/10 guage or so (what's your antenna wire? Maybe just make your loading coil a continuation of your antenna - in other words, form your antenna and loading coil from the same piece of wire) in any case the coil should be very close to the antenna.

In fact, thinking about this a little more from a practical point of view, you know what I would do. I would start with something more sane like a 1 meter long length of your antenna wire, with 10-20 turns of loading coil at one end, and just work on getting that dialed in with the SWR/signal strength meter, so you're starting from a more or less "sane" reference point. Then start trimming it down to size while dialing in your coil tap point until you've got it pretty close to the target size.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 27th, 2012, 07:08 AM

~~~~~~ last try to explain~~~~

At TDC the piston does not compress the gasmixture. It starts at 1 atmosphere and turns back to 1 atmosphere.

In the ignited phase it has compression and a lot of it! It pushes a (not to be moved by man) piston with great ease and horsepower readings are high.

In the collapse phase it sucks the piston back to TDC

So its a transition plasma process; ignite, collapse, ignite, collapse etc.

And both side's of the stroke give of power, expansion power and sucking power

That's also why this engine can easily run with very low reps, even 12 rpm!! (if my memory serves me)

(p.s. in Rob's latest video he also addressed the needle suck issue)

Here is a classic line that gets tossed around a lot ~ I recommend you read the patent, yes read Bob and Russ’s patents on popper building. That should answer every question about everything you ever wanted to know about popper building.

In the mean time I will sit back and listen to this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2hKzZss5Y

Follow by this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAaT3KVDhdQ


Peace and love, but don’t make me wear gloves.  

Quote from element 119 on September 27th, 2012, 06:06 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 27th, 2012, 07:08 AM

~~~~~~ last try to explain~~~~

At TDC the piston does not compress the gasmixture. It starts at 1 atmosphere and turns back to 1 atmosphere.

In the ignited phase it has compression and a lot of it! It pushes a (not to be moved by man) piston with great ease and horsepower readings are high.

In the collapse phase it sucks the piston back to TDC

So its a transition plasma process; ignite, collapse, ignite, collapse etc.

And both side's of the stroke give of power, expansion power and sucking power

That's also why this engine can easily run with very low reps, even 12 rpm!! (if my memory serves me)

(p.s. in Rob's latest video he also addressed the needle suck issue)

Here is a classic line that gets tossed around a lot ~ I recommend you read the patent, yes read Bob and Russ’s patents on popper building. That should answer every question about everything you ever wanted to know about popper building.

In the mean time I will sit back and listen to this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2hKzZss5Y

Follow by this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAaT3KVDhdQ


Peace and love, but don’t make me wear gloves.

That's nice of ye, i'll tell ye when i'm done reading ok?

Shall i read your patent too?  :P

at least now Russ you can test it with the coil. from what i saw on the subject the coil acts as a containment field. keeping the gasses  away from the walls of cylinder. Hmm what effect could that have . Greater expantion rates? just a thought...

if that was the case i could see in my mind a increasing flame front under more pressure. keep the blast off the walls then u may have added velocity of expansion there. but at least u can end up testing that.

i also seen a production type pap engine on the market. they use the coil as well. :dodgy:

cheers.