Russ - I expect that the agreement (closed source) with Plasmerg would also prevent you from selling the kit on. Since you haven't signed the agreement, though, it probably is not legally binding (best check with the lawyers among us). The likelihood of getting your money back from them, however, seems slight. Personally I think it can't work in its current form and would thus be a bad investment, but the people who might bid for it will of course know that so you would not be selling it under false pretence.

On Axil's problem of mixing of the gases, look at the way dust is suspended in air. A dust speck is a lot heavier than a molecule of Oxygen or Nitrogen, yet still floats. Layering should not be a major problem if the gas mix bottle is shaken before use, and once in the popper the gases will be mixed by the first pop and should remain well-mixed for at least a minute or two before the heaviest starts to noticeably settle out.

Quote from simonderricutt on November 7th, 2012, 01:34 AM

On Axil's problem of mixing of the gases, look at the way dust is suspended in air. A dust speck is a lot heavier than a molecule of Oxygen or Nitrogen, yet still floats. Layering should not be a major problem if the gas mix bottle is shaken before use, and once in the popper the gases will be mixed by the first pop and should remain well-mixed for at least a minute or two before the heaviest starts to noticeably settle out.

The thing is we can imagine how the gas in the bottle twirls, but we don't know if it is like gold dust in water or as dust in air or as peanuts in butter... we don't know how fast the heavier gas sinks. If you look at the balloon video here above you'll see the big difference between helium and xenon.

I believe that Jo Papp could adjust the power output of his reaction by adjusting the relative proportions of the five gases that comprise his noble gas mix.

I say this because the demonstration of his cannon that Papp carried out for the Navy in the California desert had tremendous explosive power comparable to that of TNT.

This demo has good credibility since it was both controlled and witnessed by the Navy.

This demo has shown that the Papp process was able to rip a heavy gage steel pipe to pieces and yet the gas mix in his engine was well behaved and did not damage the cylinders.

I now consider it very possible that the Popper that we build will function at some level no matter what the proportions of the gas mix we supply may happen to be.

But the expansion power which moves the cylinder will vary in some unknown relation to the detailed composition of the gas mix and its pressure.

Clearly a pure helium only gas load works based on Russ’s proof of concept.

But I believe that the heavier noble gases specifically Xenon is the source of the explosive power that the Papp reaction is capable of.

Electrons and light ions are not sufficiently massive enough to rip a heavy pipe apart.

It takes the large mass of large numbers of heavy ions impacting onto the pipe walls at high speed to fracture the steel.

I doubt that Papp would have recorded the proportions of the gas mix needed to blow apart heavy pipe in any of his patents.

I also hope that none of our intrepid experimenters accidently stubble upon the proportions of the explosive gas mix by accident because such a chance occurrence would be exceedingly dangerous.

Mixing the gases in a premix tank could lead to a random gas mixture due to a number of uncontrolled variables.

Such a situation is similar to Russian roulette that is played with a six shooter.

Putting this opinion forward as only tentative, I would like to raise a caution here to suggest that the Popper could be a dangerous explosion hazard if strict scientific discipline in controlling the makeup of the five gas mix is not adhered to in experimentation.

There is no strict layers like in fluids inside cylinder.
It's looks more like on pictures attached.
Helium, neon, argon filling whole volume of cylinder.
Xenon and Krypton could concentrate on bottom.
You should store cylinder in horizontal position. Then mix on device, turning  velve up and down (on movie you have it always up).

We have many technical gas mixtures. Like shielding gases for welding or trimix for diving. There is no problem with separation of gases inside cylinder.
But Xenon and Krypton are rly heavy.

Quote from Axil on November 7th, 2012, 11:05 PM

I believe that Jo Papp could adjust the power output of his reaction by adjusting the relative proportions of the five gases that comprise his noble gas mix.

I say this because the demonstration of his cannon that Papp carried out for the Navy in the California desert had tremendous explosive power comparable to that of TNT.

This demo has good credibility since it was both controlled and witnessed by the Navy.

This demo has shown that the Papp process was able to rip a heavy gage steel pipe to pieces and yet the gas mix in his engine was well behaved and did not damage the cylinders.

I now consider it very possible that the Popper that we build will function at some level no matter what the proportions of the gas mix we supply may happen to be.

Then how do you explain that so little happened when Russ used the mix for the first time? Especially as with helium it does work so much better, and changes are that Russ used a high percentage of Helium the first time..due to not mixing it enough as we likely find out now?

Quote from Axil on November 7th, 2012, 11:05 PM

But the expansion power which moves the cylinder will vary in some unknown relation to the detailed composition of the gas mix and its pressure.

Clearly a pure helium only gas load works based on Russ’s proof of concept.

But I believe that the heavier noble gases specifically Xenon is the source of the explosive power that the Papp reaction is capable of.

Electrons and light ions are not sufficiently massive enough to rip a heavy pipe apart.

It takes the large mass of large numbers of heavy ions impacting onto the pipe walls at high speed to fracture the steel.

Like force is mass times velocity, both energy amount and mass play in this equation. But how heavy is TNT?

Quote from Axil on November 7th, 2012, 11:05 PM

I doubt that Papp would have recorded the proportions of the gas mix needed to blow apart heavy pipe in any of his patents.

I also hope that none of our intrepid experimenters accidently stubble upon the proportions of the explosive gas mix by accident because such a chance occurrence would be exceedingly dangerous.

Mixing the gases in a premix tank could lead to a random gas mixture due to a number of uncontrolled variables.

Such a situation is similar to Russian roulette that is played with a six shooter.

Putting this opinion forward as only tentative, I would like to raise a caution here to suggest that the Popper could be a dangerous explosion hazard if strict scientific discipline in controlling the makeup of the five gas mix is not adhered to in experimentation.

In the blast test Joseph Papp did, it was not his intention to destruct the canon, he later said that some of the navy guys may have forced the projectile skewed or at least did something so as to sabotage or make success more difficult. So he blamed them for the blowup, the projectile got stuck and that's why the canon blew up.
So in line with this it is still safe to say that any experiment with a good enough pressure release system can still be performed. And on the road towards this more potent mixture it is advisable to measure the forces on every mix and thus see at a made grafic how the optimum can be achieved and maybe even use more caution reaching that point.

But agreeing that for testing purposes the premix is quit useless.
Even wondering now why they ever made such a mix. As the random flow outs of the cylinder must also be obvious to the makers.

Hear hear and stuff ;)

Quote from RSM on November 7th, 2012, 11:35 PM

There is no strict layers like in fluids inside cylinder.
It's looks more like on pictures attached.
Helium, neon, argon filling whole volume of cylinder.
Xenon and Krypton could concentrate on bottom.
You should store cylinder in horizontal position. Then mix on device, turning  velve up and down (on movie you have it always up).

We have many technical gas mixtures. Like shielding gases for welding or trimix for diving. There is no problem with separation of gases inside cylinder.
But Xenon and Krypton are rly heavy.

Ok, i see 4 colors in the picture, does the fifth also lay on the bottom? And is there a program where you can input the atom numbers/ weight ratio's to then let it run amok on the screen?

Like in the next program/game?

http://www.notdoppler.com/frame/639.html

http://panoramix.ift.uni.wroc.pl/~wgan/stary/gas.htm

It's not professional program. Just a tool for quick showing some ideas.
Only 4 gases you can add there. But you can set up particles mass.

Latest Update:

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

Good stuff! ;) ~Russ

Russ - to get a spark of the same length as before you need to have the same peak current going through the coil. Your circuit for keeping a constant duty-cycle is brilliant, but it's not what you need. If you keep the duty-cycle constant as you raise the frequency, you'll have a shorter charge-time for the coils and thus the output energy will be lower and the available spark will be shorter. What you thus need is an astable 555 circuit to give you the frequency (as you have) followed by a one-shot that gives you a set (and adjustable) length of charge-time for the coil - this will keep your spark energy constant as you raise the frequency of sparking, and will avoid the spark failing as you go to higher frequency of sparking.

I think it's likely that you won't need to go much above 1KHz in the spark frequency. You will probably also find that you'll only need to put sparks in while there's still enough energy left in your main capacitors to give a pop, so maybe 10 sparks or so will be useful and the rest will do nothing effective.

Use the 'scope to measure the current through the coils and see what on-time is needed to keep the coil just short of saturation - the current/time graph should be almost linear, and if it starts to level off then you've reached saturation point and leaving it switched on longer will not get you a bigger spark. The ballast resistor is only needed for cars since the duty-cycle is constant as the frequency changes, so at low RPM the coil could well be spending a lot of time in saturation. At high RPM the dwell-time is short enough that the resistor is not needed (and in cars is switched out) and just wastes energy.

Your highest available frequency of sparking will be set by the off-time being about equal to the on-time you set, since the coil needs a bit of time to discharge.

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on November 8th, 2012, 03:56 AM

Latest Update:

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

Good stuff! ;) ~Russ

Wow, cool Russ, this looks like what I did a year and 5 months ago, using an ignition coil.:cool::D:P   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgZK1Ydm_I&feature=plcp

Quote from simonderricutt on November 8th, 2012, 05:16 AM

Russ - to get a spark of the same length as before you need to have the same peak current going through the coil. Your circuit for keeping a constant duty-cycle is brilliant, but it's not what you need. If you keep the duty-cycle constant as you raise the frequency, you'll have a shorter charge-time for the coils and thus the output energy will be lower and the available spark will be shorter. What you thus need is an astable 555 circuit to give you the frequency (as you have) followed by a one-shot that gives you a set (and adjustable) length of charge-time for the coil - this will keep your spark energy constant as you raise the frequency of sparking, and will avoid the spark failing as you go to higher frequency of sparking.

I think it's likely that you won't need to go much above 1KHz in the spark frequency. You will probably also find that you'll only need to put sparks in while there's still enough energy left in your main capacitors to give a pop, so maybe 10 sparks or so will be useful and the rest will do nothing effective.

Use the 'scope to measure the current through the coils and see what on-time is needed to keep the coil just short of saturation - the current/time graph should be almost linear, and if it starts to level off then you've reached saturation point and leaving it switched on longer will not get you a bigger spark. The ballast resistor is only needed for cars since the duty-cycle is constant as the frequency changes, so at low RPM the coil could well be spending a lot of time in saturation. At high RPM the dwell-time is short enough that the resistor is not needed (and in cars is switched out) and just wastes energy.

Your highest available frequency of sparking will be set by the off-time being about equal to the on-time you set, since the coil needs a bit of time to discharge.

Is it also possible to fill a couple of capacitors that have enough energy each for a spark and fire them in a sequence. So nr 1 can have time to fill up again whilst nr2 is firing?

Quote

Then how do you explain that so little happened when Russ used the mix for the first time? Especially as with helium it does work so much better, and changes are that Russ used a high percentage of Helium the first time..due to not mixing it enough as we likely find out now?

I suspect that the gas mix Russ used in his first attempt at using the gas extracted from the gas mix tank was some unknown mixture of helium, neon, and a little argon.
 
It is possible that some gas mixes perform worse than pure helium and some mixes will perform better than pure helium.

An experimental procedure that tests every possible permutation of each and every five gas combination would run into millions of individual tests.


Such testing would best be done using automation and automatic performance data acquisition and storage.

The amount of capital that is required to justify this type of automated testing might be warranted when Papp engines are commonly installed under the hoods of motorized vehicles worldwide.

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 8th, 2012, 10:56 AM

Is it also possible to fill a couple of capacitors that have enough energy each for a spark and fire them in a sequence. So nr 1 can have time to fill up again whilst nr2 is firing?

Charging a capacitor is good and will give sharper rise-times on the sparks and a shorter dead-time between them, but is maybe more complex than is needed here. Worth bearing in mind if the simpler method doesn't deliver enough spark, or a higher spark frequency ends up looking like it would be useful. It's also a way of pushing the coil a bit higher than the design voltage if needed, but they might get toasted by insulation breakdown if it's taken too far.

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 8th, 2012, 05:56 AM

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on November 8th, 2012, 03:56 AM

Latest Update:

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

Good stuff! ;) ~Russ

Wow, cool Russ, this looks like what I did a year and 5 months ago, using an ignition coil.:cool::D:P   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgZK1Ydm_I&feature=plcp

I love that Jeff. i cant stop thinking about how to incorporate this gap,  and controller in a glass tube to ionize argon, or something similar.

the interferences of the radio wave may be a solution to what is white noise, or background energy..

Perhaps a wireless source to power a tiny motor.  still thinking.

keep up the good work guys...:cool:

Quote from freethisone on November 8th, 2012, 06:18 PM

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 8th, 2012, 05:56 AM

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on November 8th, 2012, 03:56 AM

Latest Update:

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

Good stuff! ;) ~Russ

Wow, cool Russ, this looks like what I did a year and 5 months ago, using an ignition coil.:cool::D:P   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgZK1Ydm_I&feature=plcp

I love that Jeff. i cant stop thinking about how to incorporate this gap,  and controller in a glass tube to ionize argon, or something similar.

the interferences of the radio wave may be a solution to what is white noise, or background energy..

Perhaps a wireless source to power a tiny motor.  still thinking.

keep up the good work guys...:cool:

You know, I have been looking into building a plasma ball with argon gas.:cool::D:P

Quote

Like force is mass times velocity, both energy amount and mass play in this equation. But how heavy is TNT?

When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low.

On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the plasma expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion.

Even with these large differences in the parameters in the equation of force, the forces produced in these two dissimilar reactions; that is, between chemical explosion and electromagnetic shockwave generation as a product of the mass and velocity might be similar in magnitude.

The ionized superatom clusters of Xenon and Krypton can reach into the thousands of atoms in atomic weight. The chemistry of Xenon is just a few decades old, and there has been little research done in heavy noble gas clustering.

For me, Russ’s experiment is interesting in that it will involve some little know noble gas chemical processes. It will also explore my intuition that the Papp engine is a gas based cavatation system.

When Russ gets these heavy noble gases into his cylinder in the right proportions and expanding at their greatest vigor, during a rapid repetition long duration cycling test that Russ has on his experimental agenda, I would expect to see erosion of the piston head to occur.

Heavy Xenon/Krypton ionic clusters will have been repeatedly hitting the face of the piston at great speed and surface damage of the piston head might be expected.  

This erosion process will have been similar to what happens during long duration cavatation.

If this connection between the Papp reaction and cavitation holds up, many insights from cavatation system dynamics might be applied to improving the Papp reaction.

Quote from Axil on November 8th, 2012, 10:28 PM

Quote

Like force is mass times velocity, both energy amount and mass play in this equation. But how heavy is TNT?

When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low.

On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the plasma expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion.

One could also think that there is a balance. More weight less speed. Less weight more speed. When excepting that the amount of force is constant as the input current is constant. Some practical measuring is needed to measure force difference if there is any.

Also one could argue.. as plasma events border on the edge of strange phenomina, that more resistance will bring more power (as contradictionary it may sound) There are more new inventors that say that often one has to take the opposite of what is the norm when dealing with overunity and these kind of new technologies.
And thinking back off how much the Papp piston had on resitance..no man could get movement on the piston...there seems some validity in this off-thinking.
Anyhow does it point towards the way Papp setup his engine..not much rpm's but a lot of torque. Why? To maximise the force from the mixture, why else?

Also the canon had this resistance problem. Plus that the engine that blew up when Fleishmann disconnected power to the control unit....had the normal gasmixture...and still that mixture had the potention to blow up and fracture the whole engine into pieces!! So one may argue that there has to be no difference between the gasmixture in the canon and the mixture in the 'normal' engine.
And so the difference in resistance becomes related to the difference in force...

Quote from Axil on November 8th, 2012, 10:28 PM

For me, Russ’s experiment is interesting in that it will involve some little know noble gas chemical processes. It will also explore my intuition that the Papp engine is a gas based cavatation system.

If this connection between the Papp reaction and cavitation holds up, many insights from cavatation system dynamics might be applied to improving the Papp reaction.

Cavitation as in liquid making bubbles that implode? Isn't this a more edge-flow occuring issue? Where with the cylinder and piston setup, due to its not having such edge-flow, shouldn't have much sitings of?

 

Quote from Axil on November 8th, 2012, 10:28 PM

Quote

Like force is mass times velocity, both energy amount and mass play in this equation. But how heavy is TNT?

When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low.

On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the plasma expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion.

Even with these large differences in the parameters in the equation of force, the forces produced in these two dissimilar reactions; that is, between chemical explosion and electromagnetic shockwave generation as a product of the mass and velocity might be similar in magnitude.

The ionized superatom clusters of Xenon and Krypton can reach into the thousands of atoms in atomic weight. The chemistry of Xenon is just a few decades old, and there has been little research done in heavy noble gas clustering.

For me, Russ’s experiment is interesting in that it will involve some little know noble gas chemical processes. It will also explore my intuition that the Papp engine is a gas based cavatation system.

When Russ gets these heavy noble gases into his cylinder in the right proportions and expanding at their greatest vigor, during a rapid repetition long duration cycling test that Russ has on his experimental agenda, I would expect to see erosion of the piston head to occur.

Heavy Xenon/Krypton ionic clusters will have been repeatedly hitting the face of the piston at great speed and surface damage of the piston head might be expected.  

This erosion process will have been similar to what happens during long duration cavatation.

If this connection between the Papp reaction and cavitation holds up, many insights from cavatation system dynamics might be applied to improving the Papp reaction.

Axil - It being cavitation is most interesting. LeClair talks about particles being formed from the bubble collapse. Doesn't seem that this would be the same mechanism, but that's not to say they can't form in another way.
There was talk on Vortex about Rydberg matter as being a possibility in the LENR process, that could be another possibility.
I'm skeptical of either of these as I see no indication of pitting on Bob Rohners or Russ's piston at this point. In all the videos they look like new.
If it was cavitation per LeClair's experiments, it may be a fission occurrence with radiation being put out, but I'm not aware of that being an issue.

It is a very interesting thought and bears watching as Russ goes to the heavier mixtures.

Quote from Axil on November 8th, 2012, 10:28 PM

This erosion process will have been similar to what happens during long duration cavatation.

If this connection between the Papp reaction and cavitation holds up, many insights from cavatation system dynamics might be applied to improving the Papp reaction.

Quote from BobN on November 8th, 2012, 11:45 PM

Axil - It being cavitation is most interesting.

Cavitational heating ?

could be a good steammaker for the Ermakov HHO maker.

for that see: http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=784&pid=9028#pid9028

I know this sounds paranoid, but can I download all of the plans just in case the NWO shuts this site down so I can still build this in that event? Im sure others will want to as well.

Quote from johnydraftsman on November 9th, 2012, 05:53 PM

I know this sounds paranoid, but can I download all of the plans just in case the NWO shuts this site down so I can still build this in that event? Im sure others will want to as well.

It's all free for everyone, so knock yourself out and have fun, Jeff.:D

OK, very nice 555 circuit Russ.  I'm a bit confused on a point.  Why are you making a HV circuit that can fire at high frequency?  The LV caps can't keep up with it so is it just thinking it may ionize the gases better?

Quote from Axil on November 8th, 2012, 11:57 AM

I suspect that the gas mix Russ used in his first attempt at using the gas extracted from the gas mix tank was some unknown mixture of helium, neon, and a little argon.

it was laying on its side... so i prob did not get much HE???

Quote

If this connection between the Papp reaction and cavitation holds up, many insights from cavatation system dynamics might be applied to improving the Papp reaction.

this would be interesting...

Quote

babble:
OK, very nice 555 circuit Russ. I'm a bit confused on a point. Why are you making a HV circuit that can fire at high frequency? The LV caps can't keep up with it so is it just thinking it may ionize the gases better?

This is just a triggering circuit for firing the caps. so i can get rid of the other triggering set up i have. I think its a waist of power in the " transformer" that i created.

~Russ

Quote from Babble on November 9th, 2012, 09:07 PM

OK, very nice 555 circuit Russ.  I'm a bit confused on a point.  Why are you making a HV circuit that can fire at high frequency?  The LV caps can't keep up with it so is it just thinking it may ionize the gases better?

The LV could keep up of Russ makes them sequential releasable...

Quote from jamdix on November 1st, 2012, 10:19 AM

Hello Russ,

I just joined the forum.

welcome

Quote

I have some comments:

1. Spark flying out of the XMAS glass could even be produced on the outside or passed through the glass but not from the leak, IMO. This possibility is very interesting.

yeah i have know idea but it is interesting.

Quote

2.Using  a specific gas or air more than %90 of humidity may lead more interesting results.

yes. there will be a day (i hope) where i will try what is stated in the first papp patent...

Quote

3. How is the ozone smell overall during the experiments, specially when with open chamber? Against common opinions, O3 may also producing in air not only by breaking O2 but also H2O. So ambient humidity may change O3 production.
Hydrogen already proved to be very good popper gas. So humid air may do something noticeable.

compared to all my other ionization projects this is hardly noticeable as its so short on on time.

Quote

4. Very cheap and very sensitive (down to 10 parts per billion) devices (<$50) using metal oxide/semiconductor sensors can be obtained from China sources.

?? for neutrons?

Quote

5. It would be more fun if a Geiger sensor show some figure  at discharge time.

yes, the ginger counter i have will be good when used on testes which are repeated close together.

any how. sorry for the delayed responce. thanks for posting.

~Russ

Quote from BobN on November 1st, 2012, 12:00 PM

Russ

I don't think the magnets will show anything on the gas until it becomes ionized. If you take high speed video with and without the magnets I bet you see a difference, my guess here.
I agree, the coils are the way to go as they can better be changed as to when and how much force is applied. Also, very much looking forward to knowing how much current is induced in a coil per Pop.
Thanks for your work, the data will gradually uncover what we need to know for making a practical application!

yes on the magnets., even when it was ionized it did not do anything... not that i could see on the replays... i'm sure it had some kind of change. but not noticeable with the naked eye.

yes time will tell, if this all leads no where... we sure did learn a lot! and i'm glad i can be apart if it... :)

~Russ