Russ said:

Quote

what i was saying here is that if the energy level is high enough already then we may be good to use less energy?

so if we use RF or radiation to preeionize the gasses then its a good thing and makes scene?

i think i missed something? lol

also, i can only get this to work on 2 "pops" ... never 3 times... so i can not fire it with less energy more than once after the first full pop... not sure why. may just be the caps discharging one last time?

Resent experimental finding have shown that ionization of the gas from a source external to the pulsed high current spark may still be needed.

To avoid the use of RF from a CB radio and especially radioactive isotopes, the object of this post is to suggest a possible alternative means to pre-ionize the gas in the popper cylinder. This can be done using a high voltage plasma globe power supply (solid state Transistorized Tesla Coil).


http://users.silenceisdefeat.net/~lgtngstk/Sites/transist/transist.htm

This site above shows a circuit of a 50 to 100KeV solid state tesla coil.

The plasma produced by this coil could be located in the hole in the donut magnet or directly in front of it that Russ will eventually install in his popper.

The plasma produced by this tesla coil will pre-ionize the gas in the primary spark gap and be directed in a forward direction toward the top of the cylinder by the donut magnet.

This project can be built with old parts from a Cathode ray tube, TV, or the like.

Use the base of the popper as the plasma globe. If this mode of construction is used, the plasma globe mentioned in the article above need not be built.

We now know that the plasma will persist for some time after it is produced.

The pre-ionization high voltage output from the tesla coil can produce plasma using a secondary spark gap just behind the primary spark gap but in front of the donut magnet or as an alternative, the high voltage from the tesla coil power supply can be carried by the primary spark gap.

Russ has shown us many times in his videos how a high voltage spark can use the high voltage gap without effect (no piston movement).

This spark however, can keep the gas ionized to make the pulsed high current spark easier to produce. Also by using a pre-ionization secondary spark, less enery may be required to produce the pulse high current spark.

One issue that might need to be addressed in this design is to eliminate any feedback pulse that the pulsed high current spark might produce in the tesla coil circuitry.

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 13th, 2012, 07:14 PM

Quote from Jeff Nading on October 13th, 2012, 05:23 PM

I tend to agree about the air lingering in the cylinder Axil, to pull a good vacuum, you must leave the pump on for at least one hour. If it's a high humidity day, you would also need to raise the temperature of  the vessel you are pulling a vacuum on, this helps tremendously in removing any moisture. You would need a true vacuum pump as well.:D Jeff



It is easier to vacuum, put helium in..vacuum again, put helium in, vacuum again.. and put helium in for the last time. EZ

This would be a real waste of very expensive helium gas.Jeff

Changes of any left air become fastly smaller, especially when you put the exhaust at the lowest point. EZ


"Any moisture" would vastly effect the results of testing, so it's better to pull a good vacuum the correct way, as I suggest. Water will boil or turn to steam at lower pressures and heating the vessel only helps in the process. Years of experience on my part would agree.:D Jeff

EZ:

i'm happy... putting some heating light bulbs at the thing is no problemo :P
 Even doing it twice and the glass setup doesn't use much helium. But remember that helium floats to the top and so putting in 10cc after vacuum will not be taken out by the next vacuum run. That run will take out 10cc resident air. etc.

Quote from Axil on October 13th, 2012, 04:52 PM

Quote

So at that wavelength we should ionize helium... if its not No2 doing it

The high energy spark discharge between the electrode gap will provide electrons with just about every energy level.

This energy burst will include energetic electrons that will exactly match those necessary to excite helium or any gas or any combinations of gases.

To me it's all academic, Russ is going to do what he feels he should do to get the job done. All I can to do is make suggestions of what 40 years of experience has taught me. He does not have to take my advise, which will not hurt my feelings at all.:D:P
PS. Vacuum pumps are not that expensive either, although I really wasn't suggesting he get one, the popper kit cost more, here is a link giving an idea of cost.:D
http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=15707041

I think FaradayEZ has a good point.  Just a second, partial vacuum should get out the residual air and replace with Helium.  It only takes one test to see if there is still a green light.  Very little gas is wasted and one test should give results, then go from there.

From here.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_globe

Quote

“Of the noble gasses, radon is radioactive, helium escapes through the glass relatively quickly, and krypton is quite expensive. Other gasses can be used. The heated plasma will dissociate any molecular gas into its constituent atoms. “


So helium escapes through the glass relatively quickly!!!

Learn something every day, I didn’t know that, I thought glass would be good for storing helium.

Also from here. http://www.amazing1.com/plasma-devices.htm

Quote

“Plasma Power
The field of plasma, often referred to as "natures fourth state of matter" can range from the simple plasma display globe to the to the complex and high power study of thermo nuclear fusion. A plasma is a gas where the individual atoms have been charged by stripping them of electrons. This charging action can be by using electric, magnetic or thermal means. The otherwise neutral atoms now lose electrons allowing an electrical current to flow. The charged atoms now take on properties that they normally do not have. They are easily influenced by electric and magnetic fields where beams can be shaped and directed to impact atomic nuclei transmuting into other elements. A discharge through a gas is a form of plasma, example being a simple house hold fluorescent lamp or neon tube. An electric arc such as that from a welder is a form of plasma. A beam of helium nuclei electrically accelerated and then stripped of their positive charges can become a powerful and destructive beam of neutrons. Tritium gas compressed by a high energy pulse and simultaneously illuminated by a megamp electric current may be the candidate for a fusion fire. A nuclear detonation is a form of plasma.”


This is a new field for me so may I ask some stupid questions, if someone can help me understand better. :blush:

The glass did not break but the piston does move and according to this “. A plasma is a gas where the individual atoms have been charged by stripping them of electrons”

So if the electrons are stripped from the atoms then the protons all being positive in charge should repel each other. Is this correct?

Then when the high current is introduced it causes the protons to move even further apart and there by moving the piston.

Help! Does this sound like what is going on with the popper? :blush:

Quote from element 119 on October 14th, 2012, 05:21 AM

From here.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_globe

Quote

“Of the noble gasses, radon is radioactive, helium escapes through the glass relatively quickly, and krypton is quite expensive. Other gasses can be used. The heated plasma will dissociate any molecular gas into its constituent atoms. “


So helium escapes through the glass relatively quickly!!!

Learn something every day, I didn’t know that, I thought glass would be good for storing helium.

Also from here. http://www.amazing1.com/plasma-devices.htm

Quote

“Plasma Power
The field of plasma, often referred to as "natures fourth state of matter" can range from the simple plasma display globe to the to the complex and high power study of thermo nuclear fusion. A plasma is a gas where the individual atoms have been charged by stripping them of electrons. This charging action can be by using electric, magnetic or thermal means. The otherwise neutral atoms now lose electrons allowing an electrical current to flow. The charged atoms now take on properties that they normally do not have. They are easily influenced by electric and magnetic fields where beams can be shaped and directed to impact atomic nuclei transmuting into other elements. A discharge through a gas is a form of plasma, example being a simple house hold fluorescent lamp or neon tube. An electric arc such as that from a welder is a form of plasma. A beam of helium nuclei electrically accelerated and then stripped of their positive charges can become a powerful and destructive beam of neutrons. Tritium gas compressed by a high energy pulse and simultaneously illuminated by a megamp electric current may be the candidate for a fusion fire. A nuclear detonation is a form of plasma.”


This is a new field for me so may I ask some stupid questions, if someone can help me understand better. :blush:

The glass did not break but the piston does move and according to this “. A plasma is a gas where the individual atoms have been charged by stripping them of electrons”

So if the electrons are stripped from the atoms then the protons all being positive in charge should repel each other. Is this correct?

Then when the high current is introduced it causes the protons to move even further apart and there by moving the piston.

Help! Does this sound like what is going on with the popper? :blush:

Yes, it does. And also points towards what Rob Rohner said that Russ needs a neutron checking device...

It is important to know another few things about radiation that can come from the popper; X-rays go through glass and not through metal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube



Notice how all the x-ray sources in the Wikipedia article are made of glass.

Russ has a radiation detector but is he using it?

About neutrons

It is doubtful that neutrons are coming from the popper without gamma rays being produced. Gamma rays are produced when something changes the nucleus of the atom. That type of nuclear activity is very hard to do in plasma.

If gamma rays are coming from the popper, then a neutron detector is needed.


Neutrons are very bad politically and commercially. The nuclear regulatory agency (NRC) will want to regulate the popper if the Papp engine can produce neutrons. Neutrons are also very hard on the equipment.


The NRC will kill the Papp engine. Anything that the NRC regulates becomes very expensive to manufacture. Neutrons are destructive and are hard to shield, they must be moderated. This is why all the fusion people want to do Aneutronic (no neutrons produced) fusion that come from the fusion of boron and protons.

Unlike when the Papp engine was first invented in 1966, the NRC regulates anything that can produce radiation. This includes thorium. You now need a license from the NRC to use thorium over 4% in concentration.

If Russ detects neutrons coming from the Popper, kiss the Papp engine goodbye.

Check out hot cells



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



Practically speaking, Aneutronic fusion is almost impossible to do.

For a neutron detector, it looks like http://www.bubbletech.ca/radiation_detectors_files/bubble_detectors.html could be the thing to get. If you start seeing neutrons, then you'll need the reset device (and lead underpants), but if it's clean then you won't.

Quote from Axil on October 14th, 2012, 07:03 AM

It is important to know another few things about radiation that can come from the popper; X-rays go through glass and not through metal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube


Notice how all the x-ray sources in the Wikipedia article are made of glass.

Russ has a radiation detector but is he using it?

About neutrons

It is doubtful that neutrons are coming from the popper without gamma rays being produced. Gamma rays are produced when something changes the nucleus of the atom. That type of nuclear activity is very hard to do in plasma.

If gamma rays are coming from the popper, then a neutron detector is needed.


Neutrons are very bad politically and commercially. The nuclear regulatory agency (NRC) will want to regulate the popper if the Papp engine can produce neutrons. Neutrons are also very hard on the equipment.


The NRC will kill the Papp engine. Anything that the NRC regulates becomes very expensive to manufacture. Neutrons are destructive and are hard to shield, they must be moderated. This is why all the fusion people want to do Aneutronic (no neutrons produced) fusion that come from the fusion of boron and protons.

Unlike when the Papp engine was first invented in 1966, the NRC regulates anything that can produce radiation. This includes thorium. You now need a license from the NRC to use thorium over 4% in concentration.

If Russ detects neutrons coming from the Popper, kiss the Papp engine goodbye.


Practically speaking, A neutronic fusion is almost impossible to do.

Well i hope that when its present, its like something like with coldfusion. Stuff happens there also sometimes but without the 'normal' hotway side effects.

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=659&pid=8439#pid8439

Is the post where BOB points towards neutrons.. i think in 30 years playing with the popper he found some and knows his business... although plasma stays illusive.
And nature seems to make a difference between when it is approached by high energy stuff or low energy approach? (like Keshe has found)

But it would be terrible if the powers that be could use a little neutron detection as a way to ban this technology. So should we act like them and brush stuff under the carpet? Hmm

Neutrons, anybody:
http://www.lbl.gov/tt/techs/lbnl1764.html
Also produced by cracking a rock with a hammer.
Chan
PS: Rossi replication Ni/Cu nano added to catalyze Propane
ionization via old CRT TV high voltage supply spark went boom.
No casualties but 1/4 " glass reaction tube shattered.

Quote from Chan on October 14th, 2012, 01:44 PM

Neutrons, anybody:
http://www.lbl.gov/tt/techs/lbnl1764.html
Also produced by cracking a rock with a hammer.
Chan
PS: Rossi replication Ni/Cu nano added to catalyze Propane
ionization via old CRT TV high voltage supply spark went boom.
No casualties but 1/4 " glass reaction tube shattered.

Chan’s recent experience with propane teaches a lesson.

It may be unsafe to use glass as a reaction tube when a combustible gas can combine with an imperfect air vacuum. The spark can ignite the air/fuel mixture (hydrogen, propane) and shatter the glass.  

When using a combustible gas like hydrogen or propane, a metal envelope containment should be used. In this case, a high pressure sight glass can show what goes on inside the metal containment vessel.

Glass may be used as a containment vessel when a noble gas is used since an explosion from air/noble gas combustion is not possible.

Axil - Considering this thread is all about something like explosions in noble gas mixtures, any easily-shatterable material such as glass is a bit dangerous. I'm glad Russ has the polycarbonate explosion shield and the remote fire button to make life a bit safer.

For Chan, though, it may not have been an air leak that caused the explosion, since it may actually have been a successful (though somewhat too quick) experiment that produced more heat than previously, or he may have inadvertently got the plasma expansion. I would expect him to have been pretty careful about air leaks.

Quote from simonderricutt on October 15th, 2012, 12:40 AM

Axil - Considering this thread is all about something like explosions in noble gas mixtures, any easily-shatterable material such as glass is a bit dangerous. I'm glad Russ has the polycarbonate explosion shield and the remote fire button to make life a bit safer.

For Chan, though, it may not have been an air leak that caused the explosion, since it may actually have been a successful (though somewhat too quick) experiment that produced more heat than previously, or he may have inadvertently got the plasma expansion. I would expect him to have been pretty careful about air leaks.

The reason for my assumption for a  air/gas reaction is that Russ is using helium, and his glass is not exploding.

I just thought of a way to get rid of the oxygen in the cylinder after you pull a vacuum, before you inject the gas, just fire the cylinder with the HV spark a couple of times, this should burn the oxygen, then pull a vacuum one more time.:D

Quote from Axil on October 12th, 2012, 12:33 PM

"The popper will become contaminated with tungsten powder after a relatively small number of arc discharges are done by Thoriated Tungsten Electrodes at high pulsed voltage.
One theory about the cause of this tungsten erosion is that very high temperatures produced on the surface of the tungsten electrode vaporize the metal."

"But Russ’s experiments speak against this theory because no erosion of the tungsten electrodes occurs when the arc happens in a helium envelope.

There must be some other mechanism going on where hydrogen blows off or chemically alters the tungsten during electrode arcing."

Snips from Axil's note.

We know Tungsten as an LENR material - it can absorb Hydrogen and is likely embrittled by it, though I can't find any data on this at the moment. We then hit it with a lot of electrical power - it seems likely that this would cause an LENR reaction and lose some Tungsten from the reaction pits. That would also warm the electrodes more than you might expect from the power passing through them, but this would be very difficult to measure. We might be able to see the micron-dimensioned pits under a microscope, but that's just a little difficult for Russ.

Aluminium does not absorb Hydrogen much and is known to be difficult to sputter, so it is a good electrode material to try. Somewhat cheaper than the Thoriated Tungsten too, and easy to get. If Russ wants to try Hydrogen as the gas in the popper, without the risk of that Tungsten dust produced, it may be worth trying different electrodes. Copper should be reasonable, but does sputter easily so will coat the inside with Copper instead - still safer than Thoriated Tungsten dust.

With noble gases, as you go up the mass number they get better at sputtering - Argon is mostly used since it's cheapest, but Xenon would be better (if you wanted to sputter). Helium is not good for sputtering so pure Helium should be reasonably OK with Copper electrodes.

Both Aluminium and Copper would be pretty lousy in an air pop, and would burn away pretty quickly. Carbon would have the same problem in air, but be good in Helium - might also be good in Hydrogen but I haven't checked that enough yet. The Carbon rods from a D-cell should be around 8mm diameter, but not long enough so will need mounting - wedge inside a Copper tube.

Quote from simonderricutt on October 15th, 2012, 08:48 AM

Quote from Axil on October 12th, 2012, 12:33 PM

"The popper will become contaminated with tungsten powder after a relatively small number of arc discharges are done by Thoriated Tungsten Electrodes at high pulsed voltage.
One theory about the cause of this tungsten erosion is that very high temperatures produced on the surface of the tungsten electrode vaporize the metal."

"But Russ’s experiments speak against this theory because no erosion of the tungsten electrodes occurs when the arc happens in a helium envelope.

There must be some other mechanism going on where hydrogen blows off or chemically alters the tungsten during electrode arcing."

Snips from Axil's note.

We know Tungsten as an LENR material - it can absorb Hydrogen and is likely embrittled by it, though I can't find any data on this at the moment. We then hit it with a lot of electrical power - it seems likely that this would cause an LENR reaction and lose some Tungsten from the reaction pits. That would also warm the electrodes more than you might expect from the power passing through them, but this would be very difficult to measure. We might be able to see the micron-dimensioned pits under a microscope, but that's just a little difficult for Russ.

Aluminium does not absorb Hydrogen much and is known to be difficult to sputter, so it is a good electrode material to try. Somewhat cheaper than the Thoriated Tungsten too, and easy to get. If Russ wants to try Hydrogen as the gas in the popper, without the risk of that Tungsten dust produced, it may be worth trying different electrodes. Copper should be reasonable, but does sputter easily so will coat the inside with Copper instead - still safer than Thoriated Tungsten dust.

With noble gases, as you go up the mass number they get better at sputtering - Argon is mostly used since it's cheapest, but Xenon would be better (if you wanted to sputter). Helium is not good for sputtering so pure Helium should be reasonably OK with Copper electrodes.

Both Aluminium and Copper would be pretty lousy in an air pop, and would burn away pretty quickly. Carbon would have the same problem in air, but be good in Helium - might also be good in Hydrogen but I haven't checked that enough yet. The Carbon rods from a D-cell should be around 8mm diameter, but not long enough so will need mounting - wedge inside a Copper tube.

Just a note about carbon rods: they are used in the melting of iron. The carbon arc enriched with oxygen is very hot. Iron will melt at around 2300 degrees F. Carbon rods are used because of there ware resistance, but they do deteriorate. With the lack of oxygen, carbon rods would be interesting to try in the popper. Would they generate unwanted heat, or would they work better than tungsten?:D

Quote from Jeff Nading on October 15th, 2012, 09:34 AM

Just a note about carbon rods: they are used in the melting of iron. The carbon arc enriched with oxygen is very hot. Iron will melt at around 2300 degrees F. Carbon rods are used because of there ware resistance, but they do deteriorate. With the lack of oxygen, carbon rods would be interesting to try in the popper. Would they generate unwanted heat, or would they work better than tungsten?:D

Jeff - I used to have an attachment for the arc-welder that used Copper-sheathed Carbon rods for brazing. Strike the arc between them at around 60° and you get an air-carbon arc that is very bright and pretty hot. In air, the rods gradually burn. Instead of dismantling D-cells, you could maybe get these at a welding shop, but I haven't tried buying them for 25 years or so. They may still be made and sold. Judging by their burn rate in air with a couple of kilowatts arc between them, I'd expect them to last well in the popper. They may produce a little carbon dust, but as I told Russ a while back (private email) this may well be useful in getting a stronger reaction if there's a bit of water in there too. They would likely be a bit porous, so sealing the end that's in air could be a good idea.

Lack of radioactivity (no Thorium) is both a good point (safety) and bad point (no pre-ionisation). Probably worth trying to compare.

cheap spark detector for alpha particles

http://hackaday.com/2012/10/15/cheap-spark-detector-for-alpha-particles/

http://wiki.lvl1.org/Alpha_Spark_Detector

https://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-simple-spark-detector-for-alpha-particles/

Quote from simonderricutt on October 15th, 2012, 10:13 AM

Quote from Jeff Nading on October 15th, 2012, 09:34 AM

Just a note about carbon rods: they are used in the melting of iron. The carbon arc enriched with oxygen is very hot. Iron will melt at around 2300 degrees F. Carbon rods are used because of there ware resistance, but they do deteriorate. With the lack of oxygen, carbon rods would be interesting to try in the popper. Would they generate unwanted heat, or would they work better than tungsten?:D

Jeff - I used to have an attachment for the arc-welder that used Copper-sheathed Carbon rods for brazing. Strike the arc between them at around 60° and you get an air-carbon arc that is very bright and pretty hot. In air, the rods gradually burn. Instead of dismantling D-cells, you could maybe get these at a welding shop, but I haven't tried buying them for 25 years or so. They may still be made and sold. Judging by their burn rate in air with a couple of kilowatts arc between them, I'd expect them to last well in the popper. They may produce a little carbon dust, but as I told Russ a while back (private email) this may well be useful in getting a stronger reaction if there's a bit of water in there too. They would likely be a bit porous, so sealing the end that's in air could be a good idea.

Lack of radioactivity (no Thorium) is both a good point (safety) and bad point (no pre-ionisation). Probably worth trying to compare.

Should be worth a try, nothing to loose :cool::D:P.

One interesting observation that has come out of Russ’s experimentation is that a large high energy electron charge persists for a long time after an initiating high powered instantaneous spark discharge occurs.

Russ has seen ionization last for a long time.

The signs that this large high energy charge accumulation is occurring is threefold as follows:

First, the green afterglow of a very low level of air contamination persists for a number of frames as seen in Russ’s camera. This green oxygen based aurora discharge is caused by ionization of very low pressure air that Russ’s vacuum pump cannot completely remove.

Second, there exists a strong feedback current that is produced after the piston jumps. This current flows back through Russ’s spark electrodes and can jump an air gap to blow out his high current diodes.

Third, Russ says that he is able to fire a spark twice in a row due to the residual ionization that remains in the cylinder, but he cannot fire the spark continually since the ionization in the spark gap fades with time.

Russ said, “I just like how it lasts for a while.. That's the interesting part. The reason I say that is If the gasses stay ionized for a period of time. This means in an Engine application the high voltage may be able to keep it going and I won't need a strong discharge to "kick start it"
 The reason I say this is I hit the button twice and it had a nice discharge with less cap discharge power...”

In addition for those interested in LENR, since accumulation of high energy long duration electric charge is an important causative theory in LENR, this research into the mechanisms of the Papp engine may be applicable in explaining LENR causation especially with regards to the workings of the DGT spark initiation mechanism and the plasmatron..

A theory that might explain how this excess high energy electron charge forms is as follows:

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

Plasma oscillations, also known as "Langmuir waves" (after Irving Langmuir), are rapid oscillations of the electron density in conducting media such as plasmas or metals.


The oscillations can be described as instability in the dielectric function of a free electron gas. The frequency that the electron cloud osculates at only depends weakly on the wavelength. The quasiparticle resulting from the quantization of these oscillations is the plasmon.

Consider neutral plasma, consisting of a collection of an equal number of positively charged ions and paired negatively charged electrons. If one displaces by a tiny amount all of the electrons with respect to the ions, the Coulomb force pulls back, acting as a restoring force.

Therefore, the Coulomb force sets up oscillating electron waves.

These electron waves will have a “plasma frequency” proportional to the density of electrons per unit volume.

A dense cloud of electrons will oscillate strongly at a high plasma frequency.

If the gas is dense and heavy, the free electrons will be some low fraction of the neutral atoms present.

The intact electron shells of the neutral atoms will shield the electrons from their associated ions, and the electrons will continue to be shielded from their ions and be continually repelled off the neutral atoms.

The electron cloud oscillations will also repel the free atoms on the surface of the piston head and cause it to move under electrostatic pressure.

High gas pressure and/or the presence of heavy gas molecules (xenon, neon, etc) will increase the force of the plasma oscillations which will produce an increased electrostatic repulsive force.

In more detail, an atom with a large number of electrons in orbit around its nucleus like xenon will strongly shield and repel a high energy free electron increasing the plasma oscillation. Also, such heavy neutral atoms/molecules/clusters will have a far longer repulsive Coulomb force range than will lighter atoms.

Because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle as well as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle , the individual electrons in the oscillating cloud will become degenerate (high energy) becoming more and more energetic as the cloud grows bigger. This will tend to keep the electrons from getting back together with their associated ions because of a quantum orbital energy mismatch. This keeps the cloud ionized indefinitely until the stranded electron charge cloud can find a path to ground as a high energy feedback current.

Getting this charge cloud out of the cylinder is important in setting up the next spark discharge cycle by getting the gas back to a neutral charge state.



 

Normally Quartz tubes would be used instead of glass.  Quartz is very transparent to UV (wear UV eye protection) but much more resistant to pressure.

Where does the increase in over-unity power displayed in the Plasmatron and the Papp engine come from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mT-94c1Q6Ms

http://www.rexresearch.com/chernetskii/chernetskii.htm

Because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle as well as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle , the individual electrons in the oscillating electron cloud vibrating in the plasma will become degenerate (increase high energy) becoming more and more energetic as the cloud grows bigger.

Electron degeneracy pressure is a particular manifestation of the more general phenomenon of quantum degeneracy pressure.

Degenerate matter in physics is a collection of free, non-interacting particles with a pressure and other physical characteristics determined by quantum mechanical effects.
 
It is the counterpart of an ideal gas in classical mechanics. The degenerate state of matter (in the sense of deviant from an ideal gas) arises at extraordinarily high density

The Pauli Exclusion Principle disallows two half integer spin particles (fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state.

Two electrons cannot obit an atomic nucleus in the same orbital track.

The resulting emergent repulsive force is manifested as a pressure against compression of matter into smaller volumes of space. Likewise, electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter.

This is similar to the game of musical chairs. In the game of musical chairs, if there are more people marching around the line of chairs while the music is playing, when the music stops, there will be people left standing.

The energy levels of these homeless electrons go up as they seek higher electron obits to fill.

This will tend to keep the electrons from getting back together with their associated ions because of a quantum orbital energy mismatch. This keeps the cloud ionized indefinitely until the stranded electron charge cloud can find a path to ground as a high energy feedback current.

Drilling down on this in a quantum mechanical description, free particles limited to a finite volume may only take a discrete set of energies, called discrete quantum states. The Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents identical fermions from occupying the same quantum state. At lowest total energy (when the thermal energy of the particles is negligible), all the lowest energy quantum states are filled. This state is referred to as full degeneracy.

Adding more electrons and/or reducing the number of orbital slots that electrons can fill will force the particles into higher-energy quantum states as they seek obits to fill. This requires a compression force, and is made manifest as a resisting pressure. The energy gain that this compressive force requires comes from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as the momentum of the increasingly restrained electrons intensify.

The key feature is that this degenerate pressure does not depend on the temperature of the system and only on the density of the fermions.

Therefore, because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle as well as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle , the individual electrons in the oscillating cloud of excess displaced electrons in a plasma will become degenerate (high energy) becoming more and more energetic as the cloud grows bigger. This will tend to keep the electrons from getting back together with their associated ions because of a quantum orbital energy mismatch. This keeps the cloud of excess electrons ionized indefinitely until the stranded electron charge cloud can find a path to ground as a high energy feedback current.


It is this large increase in electron voltage that increases the power inherent in the system. This additional excess energy comes from the vacuum uncertainty inherent in quantum physics (aka vacuum energy).

Quote from Axil on October 15th, 2012, 03:43 PM

Where does the increase in over-unity power displayed in the Plasmatron and the Papp engine come from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mT-94c1Q6Ms

http://www.rexresearch.com/chernetskii/chernetskii.htm

Because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle as well as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle , the individual electrons in the oscillating electron cloud vibrating in the plasma will become degenerate (increase high energy) becoming more and more energetic as the cloud grows bigger.

Electron degeneracy pressure is a particular manifestation of the more general phenomenon of quantum degeneracy pressure.

Degenerate matter in physics is a collection of free, non-interacting particles with a pressure and other physical characteristics determined by quantum mechanical effects.
 
It is the counterpart of an ideal gas in classical mechanics. The degenerate state of matter (in the sense of deviant from an ideal gas) arises at extraordinarily high density

The Pauli Exclusion Principle disallows two half integer spin particles (fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state.

Two electrons cannot obit an atomic nucleus in the same orbital track.

The resulting emergent repulsive force is manifested as a pressure against compression of matter into smaller volumes of space. Likewise, electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter.

This is similar to the game of musical chairs. In the game of musical chairs, if there are more people marching around the line of chairs while the music is playing, when the music stops, there will be people left standing.

The energy levels of these homeless electrons go up as they seek higher electron obits to fill.

This will tend to keep the electrons from getting back together with their associated ions because of a quantum orbital energy mismatch. This keeps the cloud ionized indefinitely until the stranded electron charge cloud can find a path to ground as a high energy feedback current.

Drilling down on this in a quantum mechanical description, free particles limited to a finite volume may only take a discrete set of energies, called discrete quantum states. The Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents identical fermions from occupying the same quantum state. At lowest total energy (when the thermal energy of the particles is negligible), all the lowest energy quantum states are filled. This state is referred to as full degeneracy.

Adding more electrons and/or reducing the number of orbital slots that electrons can fill will force the particles into higher-energy quantum states as they seek obits to fill. This requires a compression force, and is made manifest as a resisting pressure. The energy gain that this compressive force requires comes from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as the momentum of the increasingly restrained electrons intensify.

The key feature is that this degenerate pressure does not depend on the temperature of the system and only on the density of the fermions.

Therefore, because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle as well as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle , the individual electrons in the oscillating cloud of excess displaced electrons in a plasma will become degenerate (high energy) becoming more and more energetic as the cloud grows bigger. This will tend to keep the electrons from getting back together with their associated ions because of a quantum orbital energy mismatch. This keeps the cloud of excess electrons ionized indefinitely until the stranded electron charge cloud can find a path to ground as a high energy feedback current.


It is this large increase in electron voltage that increases the power inherent in the system. This additional excess energy comes from the vacuum uncertainty inherent in quantum physics (aka vacuum energy).

Some very good information. The link to Chernetski I found very informative.
You explanation of the ionization and repulsion to get expansion makes a lot of sense. By supplying a ground path you remove the electron cloud and the gas stops its electronic pressure and essentially collapses. What I don't understand is how the ions get replenished with electrons to be ready for the next cycle. Without the replenish it seems like it would quit with a very positive charged ionic state.

I don't think Russ supplies a ground discharge for his ionized gas, yet it collapses.

It all made sense up to the collapse, what replenishes the electrons, what am I missing?

Quote

By supplying a ground path you remove the electron cloud and the gas stops its electronic pressure and essentially collapses. What I don't understand is how the ions get replenished with electrons to be ready for the next cycle. Without the replenish it seems like it would quit with a very positive charged ionic state.

I don't think Russ supplies a ground discharge for his ionized gas, yet it collapses.

It all made sense up to the collapse, what replenishes the electrons, what am I missing?

The positive charge will persist for a time after the first pop.

Russ says that he sees ionization (aka positive charge) persist through two pops. Russ can trigger the second pop by using a low current spark.

The Green aurora glow can be generated by positive ions and is known as diffuse Aurora.

As the positive ions hit the grounded walls of the cylinder, they will be gradually neutralized by the free electrons in the metal.

By using glass, Russ may be retaining positive charge longer than if the cylinder walls were metal.

The presence of the feedback current tells us that the popper is not grounded.

To test this theory, Russ could run a simple experiment as follows: Set up circuit logic to ground the cylinder after the feedback current is received and observe if the intensity of the green glow changes.

Also, if the ionization inside the cylinder is better grounded, Russ might see ionization enabling the second low powder pop disappear.

Also, when Russ goes back to metal cylinder walls again, the positive residual charge may also disappear.

Quote from Axil on October 16th, 2012, 12:30 AM

Quote

By supplying a ground path you remove the electron cloud and the gas stops its electronic pressure and essentially collapses. What I don't understand is how the ions get replenished with electrons to be ready for the next cycle. Without the replenish it seems like it would quit with a very positive charged ionic state.

I don't think Russ supplies a ground discharge for his ionized gas, yet it collapses.

It all made sense up to the collapse, what replenishes the electrons, what am I missing?

The positive charge will persist for a time after the first pop.

Russ says that he sees ionization (aka positive charge) persist through two pops. Russ can trigger the second pop by using a low current spark.

The Green aurora glow can be generated by positive ions and is known as diffuse Aurora.

As the positive ions hit the grounded walls of the cylinder, they will be gradually neutralized by the free electrons in the metal.

By using glass, Russ may be retaining positive charge longer than if the cylinder walls were metal.

The presence of the feedback current tells us that the popper is not grounded.

To test this theory, Russ could run a simple experiment as follows: Set up circuit logic to ground the cylinder after the feedback current is received and observe if the intensity of the green glow changes.

Also, if the ionization inside the cylinder is better grounded, Russ might see ionization enabling the second low powder pop disappear.

Also, when Russ goes back to metal cylinder walls again, the positive residual charge may also disappear.

the last page of posts are outstanding. I do like the crystal picture of kryptonite under glass.

what if a force field could exist in space?  a sea of electrons.  only at 90 degree angles can we extract energy form changing magnetic, or electric fields.

it should be easy to make a motionless generator if we arrange the coils, and magnets properly.

back to the spark gap, flat on each side, and inside a high refractory shell.
 It is time  to cause  a strong wind to pass through the spark gap. not when you dump, but as the pre ionization, and continued process. like in the movie posted a couple of pages back. magnets work well also. time to experiment Russ with the frequency generator.

cheers. the force field in space confirms the information of comet heartley 2 as being in a plasma state. Because of its coma we can incorporate these principles mentioned,.  A observable force field.  cheers.:P

thanks Alex, and all good work.:cool:

Quote

what if a force field could exist in space? a sea of electrons. only at 90 degree angles can we extract energy form changing magnetic, or electric fields.
 
it should be easy to make a motionless generator if we arrange the coils, and magnets properly.

See

http://news.discovery.com/space/tether-spacecraft-magnetic-field.html