The cheapest way to test for neutrons is to use the plastic CR39.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CR39

This plastic is the stuff that plastic eyeglass lenses are made from.

I believe that a cheap source of CR39 is had in welder lenses covers.

Cold fusion researchers use CR39 to test for neutrons.

You need to develop CR39 like photographic film to expose the pits in the plastic that the neutrons have made.

This detection of neutrons is best done after gamma radiation is found. This gamma radiation tells us that the nuclei of atoms are being split and/or fused and the CR39 tells what is happening in detail by the energy of the neutrons that are being produced.

Here is an example of a cold fusion experiment that uses CR39.

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html

I will use this info to come up with a “how to use CR39” if Gamma rays are found in the popper and there is interest in pinning down what is going on inside the nucleus.

 

Quote from Axil on October 6th, 2012, 01:32 PM

Quote

I believe when plasma forms, it changes the distance or binding energy of Hydrogen (H2, 2 hydrogen atoms bound close together) or Helium for that matter.
I think its all in the bindings.

IMHO, as also expressed by Russ in video 12, this is the leading causation theory regarding the movement of the piston.

And up till now a reasonable one, i think.
If the bindings differ then that's an ok explaination for the very rappid seen increase in volume. Normally gas volume is made bigger by heat, a quiet bit slower process.

If this above is the case then sure there is compression and in the second stage of the reaction (the collapse) a vacuum force working on the piston. (And plastic pistons are already (by dr. J) proposed to work ok in next models)

But this all is very easily to see, Russ has a vacuum/compression meter attached!!
Just let us look at it when he pops the reaction.......

But there seems to be a subconscious predisposition in our collective thinking caused by our lifelong exposure to the technologies of the internal combustion engine that vacuum/compression generation is also involved; but this may not be true.

If the cause of piston movement is electrostatic and/or magnetic repulsion associated with the  growth of atoms that causes the piston to move, then vacuum/compression production may not be involved at all.

The piston might move using a coilgun or railrun type of reaction. A coil gun is a type of projectile accelerator that consists of one or more coils used as electromagnets in the configuration of a synchronous linear motor which accelerate a magnetic projectile to high velocity.

 



One why to test the ultimate cause of the piston’s movement is to remove compression as a factor in the movement of the piston by allowing gas to flow through and/or around the metal piston.

Another test is to make the piston out of some non-magnetic material.

There are a number of experimental permutations and combination that we can use to nail down what forces are causing the piston to move.

Finding out what really causes the piston to move is important in designing the best Papp engine possible.

For example, the rings on the piston may be adding a source of fiction that reduces piston movement and causes undo cylinder ware that is not really needed.  

Also, the vibration and performance of the engine may depend on the type of material that the piston is made out of: steel, stainless steel, nickel, plastic, aluminum, and iron magnet.

Quote from Axil on October 6th, 2012, 02:35 PM

The cheapest way to test for neutrons is to use the plastic CR39.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CR39

This plastic is the stuff that plastic eyeglass lenses are made from.

I believe that a cheap source of CR39 is had in welder lenses covers.

Cold fusion researchers use CR39 to test for neutrons.

You need to develop CR39 like photographic film to expose the pits in the plastic that the neutrons have made.

This detection of neutrons is best done after gamma radiation is found. This gamma radiation tells us that the nuclei of atoms are being split and/or fused and the CR39 tells what is happening in detail by the energy of the neutrons that are being produced.

Here is an example of a cold fusion experiment that uses CR39.

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html

I will use this info to come up with a “how to use CR39” if Gamma rays are found in the popper and there is interest in pinning down what is going on inside the nucleus.

Sounds like a good idea, maybe those badges that Bob talks about are made of something like that.

On the case of the back current: (a neglected subject)

We have a not precisely known reaction in a setup.
We put some volts and some amps into it.
It gives a volume reaction
And in its collapse it gives of a current back..or a EMP.. something..

I would say that's much more interesting then the ingoing stuff

Why? Can't we disregard it as uptill now?

Well i think it must be the fingermark of the process that we see coming out....!!

Here you have a reaction that from its makings back towards us, gives a message in the form of electricity and or magnetisme.

Its is like a big clue that we disregard.... a clue not by a bystander..but a big message from the reaction itself.

What if this message has something to say about its own frequency?

What if we measure it and find some Herz number to return differently per used gas?

Wouldn't that guide us towards understanding how to minimize the input energy?

etc. etc.

Quote

But this all is very easily to see, Russ has a vacuum/compression meter attached!!
Just let us look at it when he pops the reaction

FaradayEZ: Thanks for your response, it get us to think.


This pressure test that you suggest is not a good test as explained as follows:

The pressure on the far side of the piston opposite of the spark will always increase no matter what force is exerted on the other side of the piston where the spark fires. That gas is not connected to the gas on the other side of the piston so there is no pressure connection.

If the force of piston movement is electrostatic, the number of atoms will remain the same in that isolated volume in which the spark fires. There also is no temperature increase either.

There is a chance that the pressure in that volume will be reduced to a vacuum.

Consider how a speaker works.

A very thin and flexible diaphragm is affixed to a coil of wire. The coil is fed a  voltage impulse which creates an electromagnetic field proportional to an audio signal  fed across the diaphragm which sets up the electrostatic force between the diaphragm and the wires - this force is in direct relation to the audio signal and the diaphragm is pushed and pulled by the electrostatic forces developed between the coil (which cannot move) and the flexible diaphragm (which moves in direct relation to the audio signal).


These speakers are incredibly accurate at converting an electrical signal into sound waves(pressure variation in air).

If we consider the piston as if it were a speaker diaphragm, the piston will produce a pressure increase on the outside of it and a vacuum on the inside of it.

Also see this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImVIPI4ls0I&feature=player_embedded

The atoms of the gas may all be acting like the ring in this video.

In the gases that do not work in the popper, their atoms act as the ring with the cut in it.

Quote from Axil on October 6th, 2012, 05:20 PM

Quote

But this all is very easily to see, Russ has a vacuum/compression meter attached!!
Just let us look at it when he pops the reaction

FaradayEZ: Thanks for your response, it get us to think.


This pressure test that you suggest is not a good test as explained as follows:

The pressure on the far side of the piston opposite of the spark will always increase no matter what force is exerted on the other side of the piston where the spark fires. That gas is not connected to the gas on the other side of the piston so there is no pressure connection.

Are you forgetting his pressuregauge at the bottom..that was there already from the start? That's the one i meant...


If the force of piston movement is electrostatic, the number of atoms will remain the same in that isolated volume in which the spark fires. There also is no temperature increase either.

There is a chance that the pressure in that volume will be reduced to a vacuum.

Consider how a speaker works.

A very thin and flexible diaphragm is affixed to a coil of wire. The coil is fed a  voltage impulse which creates an electromagnetic field proportional to an audio signal  fed across the diaphragm which sets up the electrostatic force between the diaphragm and the wires - this force is in direct relation to the audio signal and the diaphragm is pushed and pulled by the electrostatic forces developed between the coil (which cannot move) and the flexible diaphragm (which moves in direct relation to the audio signal).


These speakers are incredibly accurate at converting an electrical signal into sound waves(pressure variation in air).

If we consider the piston as if it were a speaker diaphragm, the piston will produce a pressure increase on the outside of it and a vacuum on the inside of it.

If the piston was the thing the force would only work on... but here i think its the gas that does the work.

Quote

Are you forgetting his pressure gauge at the bottom..that was there already from the start? That's the one i meant...

Thanks, Yes, I forgot about that one.

Quote from Axil on October 6th, 2012, 01:32 PM

Quote

I believe when plasma forms, it changes the distance or binding energy of Hydrogen (H2, 2 hydrogen atoms bound close together) or Helium for that matter.
I think its all in the bindings.

IMHO, as also expressed by Russ in video 12, this is the leading causation theory regarding the movement of the piston.

But there seems to be a subconscious predisposition in our collective thinking caused by our lifelong exposure to the technologies of the internal combustion engine that vacuum/compression generation is also involved; but this may not be true.

If the cause of piston movement is electrostatic and/or magnetic repulsion associated with the  growth of atoms that causes the piston to move, then vacuum/compression production may not be involved at all.

The piston might move using a coilgun or railrun type of reaction. A coil gun is a type of projectile accelerator that consists of one or more coils used as electromagnets in the configuration of a synchronous linear motor which accelerate a magnetic projectile to high velocity.

 



One why to test the ultimate cause of the piston’s movement is to remove compression as a factor in the movement of the piston by allowing gas to flow through and/or around the metal piston.

Another test is to make the piston out of some non-magnetic material.

There are a number of experimental permutations and combination that we can use to nail down what forces are causing the piston to move.

Finding out what really causes the piston to move is important in designing the best Papp engine possible.

For example, the rings on the piston may be adding a source of fiction that reduces piston movement and causes undo cylinder ware that is not really needed.  

Also, the vibration and performance of the engine may depend on the type of material that the piston is made out of: steel, stainless steel, nickel, plastic, aluminum, and iron magnet.

check my idea out..
 use a central 2 way electro magnet between the piston, one on top, one on bottom.

A (standing wave) we need. and a much longer piston with much more travel in both directions.

the electro magnets will allow for  adjustment of  oscillation in the re verb of the soft spring pressure on either side. and the induction coils on either side.

this will allow for full travel of the ionization. you will perhaps  see exactly how far the expansion really is.. by measuring the travel of the piston.
 adjusting the coils, and use the back or renaming energy in the caps. By funneling it back through the oscillator?  and recharging the Caps..  :):D:):D

what do you guys think?

You see the picture of the bullet going through one of the induction coils. And suddenly stopping in the middle, and then going back. the opposite direction with full travel. on a second discharge perhaps. and again a timed magnetic pulse:shy:



so you can control the piston travel.
cheers.

the first very first:D crude drawing.

Quote from Axil on October 6th, 2012, 05:20 PM

Quote

But this all is very easily to see, Russ has a vacuum/compression meter attached!!
Just let us look at it when he pops the reaction

FaradayEZ: Thanks for your response, it get us to think.


This pressure test that you suggest is not a good test as explained as follows:

The pressure on the far side of the piston opposite of the spark will always increase no matter what force is exerted on the other side of the piston where the spark fires. That gas is not connected to the gas on the other side of the piston so there is no pressure connection.

If the force of piston movement is electrostatic, the number of atoms will remain the same in that isolated volume in which the spark fires. There also is no temperature increase either.

There is a chance that the pressure in that volume will be reduced to a vacuum.

Consider how a speaker works.

A very thin and flexible diaphragm is affixed to a coil of wire. The coil is fed a  voltage impulse which creates an electromagnetic field proportional to an audio signal  fed across the diaphragm which sets up the electrostatic force between the diaphragm and the wires - this force is in direct relation to the audio signal and the diaphragm is pushed and pulled by the electrostatic forces developed between the coil (which cannot move) and the flexible diaphragm (which moves in direct relation to the audio signal).


These speakers are incredibly accurate at converting an electrical signal into sound waves(pressure variation in air).

If we consider the piston as if it were a speaker diaphragm, the piston will produce a pressure increase on the outside of it and a vacuum on the inside of it.

Axil, you mean electromagnetic, not electrostatic force.  Also, there is a difference in the action of a speaker and the ring in the video.  In a speak, a permanent magnet is used with the coil repelling or attracting against it.   In the video the coil induces a current in the Al ring which is a pretty good conductor.  That current then produces a magnetic field which opposes the one in the coil and repels. this is acting like a transformer with a shorted secondary.  Both are electromagnetic however.

I don't think this is the action in Russ's Popper system.  A metal piston shouldn't produce a current in the outer surface only but across the whole diameter.  I think the field would go in all directions.  Has anyone seen the ring experiment using a solid disk sitting on top?  Note that steel would not work as well as AL.  

Quote from Babble on October 6th, 2012, 08:30 PM

Quote from Axil on October 6th, 2012, 05:20 PM

Quote

But this all is very easily to see, Russ has a vacuum/compression meter attached!!
Just let us look at it when he pops the reaction

FaradayEZ: Thanks for your response, it get us to think.


This pressure test that you suggest is not a good test as explained as follows:

The pressure on the far side of the piston opposite of the spark will always increase no matter what force is exerted on the other side of the piston where the spark fires. That gas is not connected to the gas on the other side of the piston so there is no pressure connection.

If the force of piston movement is electrostatic, the number of atoms will remain the same in that isolated volume in which the spark fires. There also is no temperature increase either.

There is a chance that the pressure in that volume will be reduced to a vacuum.

Consider how a speaker works.

A very thin and flexible diaphragm is affixed to a coil of wire. The coil is fed a  voltage impulse which creates an electromagnetic field proportional to an audio signal  fed across the diaphragm which sets up the electrostatic force between the diaphragm and the wires - this force is in direct relation to the audio signal and the diaphragm is pushed and pulled by the electrostatic forces developed between the coil (which cannot move) and the flexible diaphragm (which moves in direct relation to the audio signal).


These speakers are incredibly accurate at converting an electrical signal into sound waves(pressure variation in air).

If we consider the piston as if it were a speaker diaphragm, the piston will produce a pressure increase on the outside of it and a vacuum on the inside of it.

Axil, you mean electromagnetic, not electrostatic force.  Also, there is a difference in the action of a speaker and the ring in the video.  In a speak, a permanent magnet is used with the coil repelling or attracting against it.   In the video the coil induces a current in the Al ring which is a pretty good conductor.  That current then produces a magnetic field which opposes the one in the coil and repels. this is acting like a transformer with a shorted secondary.  Both are electromagnetic however.

I don't think this is the action in Russ's Popper system.  A metal piston shouldn't produce a current in the outer surface only but across the whole diameter.  I think the field would go in all directions.  Has anyone seen the ring experiment using a solid disk sitting on top?  Note that steel would not work as well as AL.

Russ was talking about atoms getting bigger due to increased excitation of the electrons into higher atomic orbitals.

When this happens, these atoms develop a dipole moment.

An electric dipole is a separation of positive and negative charges. The bigger that this charge separation gets, the stronger the dipole force gets. The simplest example of this is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign, separated by some (usually small) distance. In the hydrogen atom(H1), the charges of the electron and the proton are equal. The separation of the electron and a proton in hydrogen causes a charge separation which results in a dipole.



On the other hand, a magnetic dipole is a closed circulation of electric current. A simple example of this is a single loop of wire with some constant current flowing through it.



The examples I gave where of a magnetic force, not an electric one, since the force is generated by an electric current. Forgive me, I could not find a YouTube video that shows electrostatic separation of an electric dipole in action.

But what Russ is talking about is clearly an electrostatic force since no electric currents or associated magnetic field lines are involved.


I finally found a YouTube video deminstating electostatic repultion that might explain what is going on in the popper. You can do this demo at home.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ucJJyItUA

A request to perform a simple experiment follows:
One way to distinguish if the force that moves the piston after the spark has fired is due to increasing gas pressure or is under the influence of some sort of varying electromagnetic force is as follows:

Connect a temporary pressure equalization pipe between the upper and lower gas inlet/outlet ports. During the air removal process when air is vacuumed from the cylinder, the vacuum pumping should be done from the pressure equalization pipe so that air is removed from both the top and bottom cylinder volumes simultaneously.

The gas to be tested should then the introduced into this same gas port that was used to the vacuum out the air. The gas will then fill both the bottom and top volumes of the cylinder to a equalize pressure.

After installing the pressure equalization pipe, if the piston moves after the spark is fired then the piston must be reacting to a varying electromagnetic force and not to an increase in the gas pressure in the bottom cylinder volume since the pressure in the top and bottom volumes are both the same at all times.

If you want to increase the discharge speed of the large caps you can get low ESR caps.  Chemicon and Nichicon both make these but ESR increases with voltage so the higher the voltage the higher the ESR.  Here is one rated 350VDC, 680uF with a ripple current rating of 1.7A at 105 deg. C.
http://www.chemi-con.com/index.php?option=com_lcatalog&controller=search&task=details&product=5202  You might need less capacitance using these.  Chemicon cap catalog: http://www.chemi-con.co.jp/e/catalog/aluminum.html#d

If your still interested in the EMP, you can make a sniffer probe by winding 100 turns of small gauge wire (28 to 30) on a ferrite core and solder the ends to the leads of a 1K ohm resistor (use non inductive 1/4 or 1/2 watt).  You had scope pictures so I assume you have a digital scope of some type.  Connect the scope probe to the resistor leads. and place it close to the popper.  The core should be open not a closed core used in transformers.  You could just use an air core coil but it will be less sensitive.  A bobbin with one half of a core set should work too.  

Remove top half of popper.
Seal a zip lock bag to bottom chamber with tape.
Evacuate chamber with bag attached.
Fill just enough helium to inflate bag.
Then fire away to see if expansion takes place.

No magnetism will be involved with this experiment just gas expansion.

Quote from element 119 on October 7th, 2012, 09:35 PM

Remove top half of popper.
Seal a zip lock bag to bottom chamber with tape.
Evacuate chamber with bag attached.
Fill just enough helium to inflate bag.
Then fire away to see if expansion takes place.

No magnetism will be involved with this experiment just gas expansion.

We all want a popper to play with...when is xmas again???

Mahammmm..???

Quote from element 119 on October 7th, 2012, 09:35 PM

Remove top half of popper.
Seal a zip lock bag to bottom chamber with tape.
Evacuate chamber with bag attached.
Fill just enough helium to inflate bag.
Then fire away to see if expansion takes place.

No magnetism will be involved with this experiment just gas expansion.

This is a very interesting idea for a test, assuming not much heat is generated.  I would use a balloon instead of a plastic bag.  It will seal better and expands instead of bursting.   If it expands and contracts too rapidly you might set a small coin on top as an indicator.

Plasma pressure is different from gas pressure in that it involves magnetic pressure.  This magnetic pressure presents as a plasma pressure which also presents as surrounding gas pressure (shockwave if the increase is rapid).

Therefore the proposed tests involving a non-metallic containment _might_ (if we are lucky and the non-metallic containment doesn't experience force) tell us only if there is direct electromagnetic coupling (lenz's law or some such) to the metallic piston.  It won't distinguish between carnot gas expansion and EHD plasma expansion.  The problem is that if the non-metallic containment shows mechanical force, this does not qualitatively eliminate the presence of direct coupling to the metallic piston.  There may be some portion of the effect that is due to direct magnetic coupling.  

Even so, let's assume that there _is_ something like an image current being induced in the metallic piston:

This does not tell us that the Papp engine is merely an electric motor with a different mechanism of action.  It merely says that there is an aspect to the Papp engine that involves a different mechanism of action from the carnot cycle.

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 09:44 AM

Quote from element 119 on October 7th, 2012, 09:35 PM

Remove top half of popper.
Seal a zip lock bag to bottom chamber with tape.
Evacuate chamber with bag attached.
Fill just enough helium to inflate bag.
Then fire away to see if expansion takes place.

No magnetism will be involved with this experiment just gas expansion.

This is a very interesting idea for a test, assuming not much heat is generated.  I would use a balloon instead of a plastic bag.  It will seal better and expands instead of bursting.   If it expands and contracts too rapidly you might set a small coin on top as an indicator.

Maybe even a latex glove, it would fit a little better.

Ya, then if you modified the glove just right, it might give you the "thumbs up" when it works!

i do like the idea of this test.
Robert

Ya, then if you modified the glove just right, it might give you the "thumbs up" when it works!

i do like the idea of this test.
Robert

Quote from askmehhow on October 8th, 2012, 02:43 PM

Ya, then if you modified the glove just right, it might give you the "thumbs up" when it works!

i do like the idea of this test.
Robert

Thanks for making me laugh! funny

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 03:00 PM

Quote from askmehhow on October 8th, 2012, 02:43 PM

Ya, then if you modified the glove just right, it might give you the "thumbs up" when it works!

i do like the idea of this test.
Robert

Thanks for making me laugh! funny

Hmmmm.. what should be the next things that Russ can do with the popper?
What should be investigated and why?
Is there a list of things we can make up, like a checklist we all agree on?

Let me put up a couple of examples i'd like to see done..

-*-input output calculations
-*-collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

hmm that's enough for me for now

Quote from firepinto on October 8th, 2012, 02:32 PM

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 09:44 AM

Quote from element 119 on October 7th, 2012, 09:35 PM

Remove top half of popper.
Seal a zip lock bag to bottom chamber with tape.
Evacuate chamber with bag attached.
Fill just enough helium to inflate bag.
Then fire away to see if expansion takes place.

No magnetism will be involved with this experiment just gas expansion.

This is a very interesting idea for a test, assuming not much heat is generated.  I would use a balloon instead of a plastic bag.  It will seal better and expands instead of bursting.   If it expands and contracts too rapidly you might set a small coin on top as an indicator.

Maybe even a latex glove, it would fit a little better.

I couldn’t think of a readily available balloon big enough to fit over that 4-inch base.

But the idea of a latex glove would be an excellent choice.

The idea a giant hand waving and giving us a big thumbs up would be very funny. :D

I will get with you all on your comments here soon... For now, here is the newest!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfIylxgiY5U&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thanks! ~Russ

It actually looks as though the arc gets smaller the more He you add there.........?
Try wrapping a big opaque plastic bag or something like that around the whole shebang just to (hopefully) prevent the glas from scattering all over your........office :P

Quote from Lynx on October 8th, 2012, 10:53 PM

It actually looks as though the arc gets smaller the more He you add there.........?
Try wrapping a big opaque plastic bag or something like that around the whole shebang just to (hopefully) prevent the glas from scattering all over your........office :P

Most of the way the spark reacts has to do with the fact that I am losing vacuum. If I were to fill the chamber up with helium and then vacuum it out the glow would look similar to the way it did in the very beginning.

Na! I like my....... Office covered in experiments... Hhaha

I'll probably grab a 5 gallon bucket and cover most of the area to try and contain some of the glass. Otherwise I want to see how far stuff flys!!! Lol

~Russ  

Simple question from a newbie here to this forum. When is John's popper expected to be done roughly?

Thanks.