Quote from Lynx on November 13th, 2012, 12:06 AM

Quote from Axil on November 12th, 2012, 11:32 PM

www.theblackvault.com/documents/weapons/Plasmoid.pdf

Investigations of Pulsed-Train Plasmoid Weapons

In the mid-60s, the DOE contracted R&D research into a space based antisatellite plasmoid gun. This technology is close to what we are doing in this thread.

It is a user’s guide for making and shooting high powered plasmoids. The recently declassified top-secret document describes theory, equipment, and plasmoid projector designs. For all those interested in plasmoid production, direction and impact on surfaces, it is a must read.

Of interest regarding the double pulse discussion we are having in this thread as follows:

On page 12, the advantages of a double pulse spark production process is described. A weak first pulse followed by a strong high power second pulse will produce a plasmoid ring that conserves electron energy but keeps high energy electrons away from the projector walls.

So the concept is then to "initiate" the plasma, as per what Russ is doing in the
Popper, then accelerate this "burning/exploding/reacting" plasma core by means
of applying an electromagnetic field around the core which in effect propels this
plasma "bullit" forward, much like the rail gun, and voila = the plasma rifle is born.

Would this be a somewhat correct assumption to what this is all about?

That is the way I read it. The current flow of the plasmoid projector is a bit over my head. They do plasma production and projection with the same pulse....I think.

The Papp cannon was a long range plasmoid gun. He must have taken the technology with him from the soviet bloc when he came to the US from Hungry.

He then decided to convert the plasmoid technology to peaceful purposes in the Papp engine.  

He may have not been smart enough to come up with all these plasmoid ideas on his own as witnessed by all the hand waving junk he put in his patents.

Just speculation…

Quote from element 119 on November 12th, 2012, 05:55 PM

Here is what I’m thinking!

Now send the high frequency HV from the car coils to the same two popper electrodes. This should provide a path and then the high current from the car battery can cross the gap.

Now I realize this may not be a good idea because the HV could go into the battery or the high current from the battery could go into the coils.

A problem that Russ solved by using the transformer, the ring with the 2 isolated wires wound around it. And where he now is busy to find another way.

It makes me think why not have 2 circuits and 2 more electrodes beside the one's present? Maybe even in a X configuration, then the path from the one still crosses 80% of the distance the other pair has to concur. (l_x at say 5 degrees?)

This way the 2 circuits don't bother each other and the placement directs the current limits and effectiveness.

Quote from element 119 on November 12th, 2012, 05:55 PM

Would it be possible to put diodes on the high current car cables to keep any HV from going into the car battery?

For a high current relay a normal car starter solenoid could be used.

Not sure if the high current would travel back into the coils because the path of least resistance may limit it to just crossing the electrode gap?

Are capacitors really needed to supply the current or could just the current from a battery do the trick?

No charge up time when just using batteries.

Up to a certain point this must work i think, and when splitting the cap bank 1 side has time to charge. I don't know if the 'x' proposal can have more current then the diodes and relaisway but... its testable outside the popper first so no holes have to be drilled in that to test.

Axil - thanks for the plasmoid gun file. Interesting reading. It predates Papp by quite a few years, too (1961).

The reason for the capacitor bank rather than a battery-fed spark inflation is that it's somewhat hard to switch these very high currents, and any switch is also going to reduce the current available. Using a capacitor means that once the energy is gone, the arc switches off. It also gives you a set amount of energy into the pop, and can reach higher instantaneous currents than any reasonable battery could provide. Using the capacitors is thus easier and safer than batteries. The last thing I'd want is Russ to be hurt by exploding batteries.

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 04:45 AM

Axil - thanks for the plasmoid gun file. Interesting reading. It predates Papp by quite a few years, too (1961).

The reason for the capacitor bank rather than a battery-fed spark inflation is that it's somewhat hard to switch these very high currents, and any switch is also going to reduce the current available. Using a capacitor means that once the energy is gone, the arc switches off. It also gives you a set amount of energy into the pop, and can reach higher instantaneous currents than any reasonable battery could provide. Using the capacitors is thus easier and safer than batteries. The last thing I'd want is Russ to be hurt by exploding batteries.

I couldn't agree more, it's easy for us who don't perform any experiments to come
up with "brilliant" ideas when in fact the one putting himself in harms way is Russ
and no one else.

In fact, I'm even a bit uneasy with the thought of using the 10 kJ cap bank in the
popper, the first pop should be performed using a remote, with the popper being
outside, prefeably in no man's land, and Russ enjoying the safety of being inside
somewhere, observing the popper through an inexpensive webcam :D

Btw, I kinda fail to see the meaning of having batteries, coupled in series in order
to get like 300-400V, feeding the plasma once it's ignited by the HV.
First, if it at all works that way that is, that it somehow keeps the plasma "fire"
alive until the batteries basically are drained, what would be the practical use of
that other than getting an awesome (?) plasma fire up and running?
Feel free to correct me here, I'm all ears.

Quote from Axil on November 13th, 2012, 12:20 AM

The Papp cannon was a long range plasmoid gun. He must have taken the technology with him from the soviet bloc when he came to the US from Hungry.

Then why didn't the noble gas technology appear in Soviet technology over the subsequent decades.

And could you please respond to my query for a cite on the separation of noble gasses in a gas tank?

Quote from Lynx on November 13th, 2012, 05:55 AM

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 04:45 AM

Axil - thanks for the plasmoid gun file. Interesting reading. It predates Papp by quite a few years, too (1961).

The reason for the capacitor bank rather than a battery-fed spark inflation is that it's somewhat hard to switch these very high currents, and any switch is also going to reduce the current available. Using a capacitor means that once the energy is gone, the arc switches off. It also gives you a set amount of energy into the pop, and can reach higher instantaneous currents than any reasonable battery could provide. Using the capacitors is thus easier and safer than batteries. The last thing I'd want is Russ to be hurt by exploding batteries.

I couldn't agree more, it's easy for us who don't perform any experiments to come
up with "brilliant" ideas when in fact the one putting himself in harms way is Russ
and no one else.

In fact, I'm even a bit uneasy with the thought of using the 10 kJ cap bank in the
popper, the first pop should be performed using a remote, with the popper being
outside, prefeably in no man's land, and Russ enjoying the safety of being inside
somewhere, observing the popper through an inexpensive webcam :D

Btw, I kinda fail to see the meaning of having batteries, coupled in series in order
to get like 300-400V, feeding the plasma once it's ignited by the HV.
First, if it at all works that way that is, that it somehow keeps the plasma "fire"
alive until the batteries basically are drained, what would be the practical use of
that other than getting an awesome (?) plasma fire up and running?
Feel free to correct me here, I'm all ears.

I absolutely agree with simonderricutt and Lynx.  Using a battery for the high current would not work.  Any arc would continue until the batteries are drained and it might be dangerous.  Batteries are nearly constant voltage until they are discharged.  Caps are the way to go for now but I think the approach should be to find a mixture that works with a minimal capacitance rating.  

I would reduce it to just two caps and find the best gas mixture or other design that works.  Going larger only masks the problem.  Any working machine needs to be able to provide the high current discharge on a rapid basis and at high efficiency which large cap values won't do.

Quote

Then why didn't the noble gas technology appear in Soviet technology over the subsequent decades.

The US always liked standoff anti-satellite and anti-missile weapons. These weapons were known as “star wars”. The soviets never deployed such weapons systems.

For the soviets who did not have much money for R&D defense spending, these directed beam weapons were too expensive and complex to use on the ground when a bullet would do nicely.

On the other hand during the cold war, the US had many defense contractors to keep fed and unlimited R&D money. They had to keep the soviets guessing to keep them off balance.

The soviets would spend on R&D to explore defensive counter measures by looking into the physical principles behind the US weapons; but never intended to deploy such weapons systems as integrated strategic assets.

At the end of the day, the US did not deploy “star wars” either. Its ultimate purpose was to drain the USSR of defense R&D into a dead end space weapons technology.

I absolutely agree with simonderricutt and Lynx. Using a battery for the high current would not work. Any arc would continue until the batteries are drained and it might be dangerous. Batteries are nearly constant voltage until they are discharged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Everyone must have missed the part where I said use a car starter solenoid to start and stop the high current flow. ;)

A car starter does not keep running once the car is started as the starter is disconnected from the battery.

element 119

Quote

And could you please respond to my query for a cite on the separation of noble gasses in a gas tank?

I doubt that this type of document exists. A Noble gas mix will form all kinds of complex compounds as your reference showed.

That reference states that little R&D has been done to quantify noble gas mixing through complex multi-gas compound formation.

There is another way to verify gas mix parameters when using a mix tank as a source of the noble gas mix.

Use spectroscopic analysis of the light coming from the discharge spark.  Russ plans to have the capability to do this shortly.

A full-proof way to control the composition of the gas mix that goes into the cylinder is to load the gases in separately.



   

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 12:24 PM

I absolutely agree with simonderricutt and Lynx. Using a battery for the high current would not work. Any arc would continue until the batteries are drained and it might be dangerous. Batteries are nearly constant voltage until they are discharged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Everyone must have missed the part where I said use a car starter solenoid to start and stop the high current flow. ;)

A car starter does not keep running once the car is started as the starter is disconnected from the battery.

element 119

I didn't miss it - I said that any method of switching will be difficult. With the currents possible at even 12V (let alone 60V) a starter solenoid may well weld together. If that happens, you have a solid dead short on a lead-acid battery.

It's good to chuck ideas up since even a bad one may trigger a good one from someone else thinking of the ramifications. Please keep thinking, but don't be upset if someone else sees a problem with it. That's the strength of getting a lot of different experiences in the forum.

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 02:25 PM

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 12:24 PM

I absolutely agree with simonderricutt and Lynx. Using a battery for the high current would not work. Any arc would continue until the batteries are drained and it might be dangerous. Batteries are nearly constant voltage until they are discharged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Everyone must have missed the part where I said use a car starter solenoid to start and stop the high current flow. ;)

A car starter does not keep running once the car is started as the starter is disconnected from the battery.

element 119

I didn't miss it - I said that any method of switching will be difficult. With the currents possible at even 12V (let alone 60V) a starter solenoid may well weld together. If that happens, you have a solid dead short on a lead-acid battery.

It's good to chuck ideas up since even a bad one may trigger a good one from someone else thinking of the ramifications. Please keep thinking, but don't be upset if someone else sees a problem with it. That's the strength of getting a lot of different experiences in the forum.

I don’t let disagreement bother me; it’s what makes for finding a good solution to problems.

What you say is true about the possibility of the contacts sticking, but the current should not be able to jump the electrode gap unless the HV is there to make a path. So turning off the HV should stop the process.

Just brainstorming.

The idea should be tested in a safe place to avoid danger and maybe start with low amp batteries also fuses or circuit breakers in the system.

element 119

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 03:20 PM

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 02:25 PM

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 12:24 PM

I absolutely agree with simonderricutt and Lynx. Using a battery for the high current would not work. Any arc would continue until the batteries are drained and it might be dangerous. Batteries are nearly constant voltage until they are discharged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Everyone must have missed the part where I said use a car starter solenoid to start and stop the high current flow. ;)

A car starter does not keep running once the car is started as the starter is disconnected from the battery.

element 119

I didn't miss it - I said that any method of switching will be difficult. With the currents possible at even 12V (let alone 60V) a starter solenoid may well weld together. If that happens, you have a solid dead short on a lead-acid battery.

It's good to chuck ideas up since even a bad one may trigger a good one from someone else thinking of the ramifications. Please keep thinking, but don't be upset if someone else sees a problem with it. That's the strength of getting a lot of different experiences in the forum.

I don’t let disagreement bother me; it’s what makes for finding a good solution to problems.

What you say is true about the possibility of the contacts sticking, but the current should not be able to jump the electrode gap unless the HV is there to make a path. So turning off the HV should stop the process.

Just brainstorming.

The idea should be tested in a safe place to avoid danger and maybe start with low amp batteries also fuses or circuit breakers in the system.

element 119

Another way would be to use a mercury type contactor, no sticking of contacts there. Just a thought.:D

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 03:20 PM

I don’t let disagreement bother me; it’s what makes for finding a good solution to problems.

What you say is true about the possibility of the contacts sticking, but the current should not be able to jump the electrode gap unless the HV is there to make a path. So turning off the HV should stop the process.

Just brainstorming.

The idea should be tested in a safe place to avoid danger and maybe start with low amp batteries also fuses or circuit breakers in the system.

element 119

It takes one HV spark (probably only really the leader) to get the low-impedance path that the capacitor current (or battery current) will then follow to get the pop. Although Russ has the HV sparks running quite hard, this is not actually necessary. With a battery of sufficient voltage, therefore, once the arc starts it will continue until the current is cut. Using a cap cuts it automatically. The arc will have almost zero resistance but will show a voltage drop, so will extinguish also if the voltage drops below that value - probably around 50V for Russ's gap size. He'd need 5 12V batteries in series to get a pop, but the current could be in excess of 500A. That's ballpark around 25kW in the popper, and if it's too long then the battery plates distort and kill the batteries, maybe explosively. It's just too risky.

The nice thing about the capacitor system is that it is limited in the amount of energy it can give. It can also be relatively small, so there are short wires (and fat ones) to reduce the losses.

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 03:50 PM

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 03:20 PM

I don’t let disagreement bother me; it’s what makes for finding a good solution to problems.

What you say is true about the possibility of the contacts sticking, but the current should not be able to jump the electrode gap unless the HV is there to make a path. So turning off the HV should stop the process.

Just brainstorming.

The idea should be tested in a safe place to avoid danger and maybe start with low amp batteries also fuses or circuit breakers in the system.

element 119

It takes one HV spark (probably only really the leader) to get the low-impedance path that the capacitor current (or battery current) will then follow to get the pop. Although Russ has the HV sparks running quite hard, this is not actually necessary. With a battery of sufficient voltage, therefore, once the arc starts it will continue until the current is cut. Using a cap cuts it automatically. The arc will have almost zero resistance but will show a voltage drop, so will extinguish also if the voltage drops below that value - probably around 50V for Russ's gap size. He'd need 5 12V batteries in series to get a pop, but the current could be in excess of 500A. That's ballpark around 25kW in the popper, and if it's too long then the battery plates distort and kill the batteries, maybe explosively. It's just too risky.

The nice thing about the capacitor system is that it is limited in the amount of energy it can give. It can also be relatively small, so there are short wires (and fat ones) to reduce the losses.

Yes that is very true, very fast discharges of a battery could in fact cause an explosion,:angel: hydrogen gas is produced. I have had the caps pop off a auto battery before, it built up much pressure from a fast discharge, :huh: wouldn't want that happening to Russ.

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 03:20 PM

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 02:25 PM

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 12:24 PM

I absolutely agree with simonderricutt and Lynx. Using a battery for the high current would not work. Any arc would continue until the batteries are drained and it might be dangerous. Batteries are nearly constant voltage until they are discharged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Everyone must have missed the part where I said use a car starter solenoid to start and stop the high current flow. ;)

A car starter does not keep running once the car is started as the starter is disconnected from the battery.

element 119

I didn't miss it - I said that any method of switching will be difficult. With the currents possible at even 12V (let alone 60V) a starter solenoid may well weld together. If that happens, you have a solid dead short on a lead-acid battery.

It's good to chuck ideas up since even a bad one may trigger a good one from someone else thinking of the ramifications. Please keep thinking, but don't be upset if someone else sees a problem with it. That's the strength of getting a lot of different experiences in the forum.

I don’t let disagreement bother me; it’s what makes for finding a good solution to problems.

What you say is true about the possibility of the contacts sticking, but the current should not be able to jump the electrode gap unless the HV is there to make a path. So turning off the HV should stop the process.

Just brainstorming.

The idea should be tested in a safe place to avoid danger and maybe start with low amp batteries also fuses or circuit breakers in the system.

element 119

Using a relay contact is not controllable in the low millisecond or uS range.  Even if you could use this, you can't turn it off fast enough.  Again, caps limit total power.  

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 03:50 PM

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 03:20 PM

I don’t let disagreement bother me; it’s what makes for finding a good solution to problems.

What you say is true about the possibility of the contacts sticking, but the current should not be able to jump the electrode gap unless the HV is there to make a path. So turning off the HV should stop the process.

Just brainstorming.

The idea should be tested in a safe place to avoid danger and maybe start with low amp batteries also fuses or circuit breakers in the system.

element 119

It takes one HV spark (probably only really the leader) to get the low-impedance path that the capacitor current (or battery current) will then follow to get the pop. Although Russ has the HV sparks running quite hard, this is not actually necessary. With a battery of sufficient voltage, therefore, once the arc starts it will continue until the current is cut.

That is interesting!!!

Is it considered a fact that the d/c current will continue to flow across the gap, or is that just a possibility?

Is it possible the instant pop would break the current flow?

If the current does stop flowing when the HV is gone then there would be no need for a starter type relay. Just put a circuit breaker in line to stop excess current flow.

It just appears to me that there is an inherent flaw with using caps because of the charge up time. Even if one bank is charging while the other bank is firing wouldn’t there be a delay time with using a relay to switch them?

There must be some way to use direct battery current that is safe and would provide an instant supply of current.

How about limiting the current with resistors?

element 119

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 13th, 2012, 04:10 PM

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 03:50 PM

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 03:20 PM

I don’t let disagreement bother me; it’s what makes for finding a good solution to problems.

What you say is true about the possibility of the contacts sticking, but the current should not be able to jump the electrode gap unless the HV is there to make a path. So turning off the HV should stop the process.

Just brainstorming.

The idea should be tested in a safe place to avoid danger and maybe start with low amp batteries also fuses or circuit breakers in the system.

element 119

It takes one HV spark (probably only really the leader) to get the low-impedance path that the capacitor current (or battery current) will then follow to get the pop. Although Russ has the HV sparks running quite hard, this is not actually necessary. With a battery of sufficient voltage, therefore, once the arc starts it will continue until the current is cut. Using a cap cuts it automatically. The arc will have almost zero resistance but will show a voltage drop, so will extinguish also if the voltage drops below that value - probably around 50V for Russ's gap size. He'd need 5 12V batteries in series to get a pop, but the current could be in excess of 500A. That's ballpark around 25kW in the popper, and if it's too long then the battery plates distort and kill the batteries, maybe explosively. It's just too risky.

The nice thing about the capacitor system is that it is limited in the amount of energy it can give. It can also be relatively small, so there are short wires (and fat ones) to reduce the losses.

Yes that is very true, very fast discharges of a battery could in fact cause an explosion,:angel: hydrogen gas is produced. I have had the caps pop off a auto battery before, it built up much pressure from a fast discharge, :huh: wouldn't want that happening to Russ.

Are you sure about that Jeff?

I’ve never heard a battery exploding from discharging to fast. Now if you drop a wrench across the terminals that could cause an explosion, but that is only because the spark is right there at the battery.

I know hydrogen is created when charging but I’m not sure it is created when discharging.

Also the amount of current should be limited to wire size or resistance in the circuit when shorted, so I don’t think there is any danger of the battery exploding. Unless!!! Current level is exceeded.

But I agree with keeping Russ safe. :D

element 119

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 06:16 PM

Quote from simonderricutt on November 13th, 2012, 03:50 PM

Quote from element 119 on November 13th, 2012, 03:20 PM

I don’t let disagreement bother me; it’s what makes for finding a good solution to problems.

What you say is true about the possibility of the contacts sticking, but the current should not be able to jump the electrode gap unless the HV is there to make a path. So turning off the HV should stop the process.

Just brainstorming.

The idea should be tested in a safe place to avoid danger and maybe start with low amp batteries also fuses or circuit breakers in the system.

element 119

It takes one HV spark (probably only really the leader) to get the low-impedance path that the capacitor current (or battery current) will then follow to get the pop. Although Russ has the HV sparks running quite hard, this is not actually necessary. With a battery of sufficient voltage, therefore, once the arc starts it will continue until the current is cut.

That is interesting!!!

Is it considered a fact that the d/c current will continue to flow across the gap, or is that just a possibility?

Is it possible the instant pop would break the current flow?

If the current does stop flowing when the HV is gone then there would be no need for a starter type relay. Just put a circuit breaker in line to stop excess current flow.

It just appears to me that there is an inherent flaw with using caps because of the charge up time. Even if one bank is charging while the other bank is firing wouldn’t there be a delay time with using a relay to switch them?

There must be some way to use direct battery current that is safe and would provide an instant supply of current.

How about limiting the current with resistors?

element 119

Possibly use a different kind of battery, not lead acid. Or if the popper would ultimately be a 6 or 8 cylinder engine for a vehicle, why not set up an alternator for this purpose. :D

Quote from Axil on November 13th, 2012, 12:25 PM

Quote

And could you please respond to my query for a cite on the separation of noble gasses in a gas tank?

I doubt that this type of document exists. A Noble gas mix will form all kinds of complex compounds as your reference showed.

That reference states that little R&D has been done to quantify noble gas mixing through complex multi-gas compound formation.

There is another way to verify gas mix parameters when using a mix tank as a source of the noble gas mix.

Use spectroscopic analysis of the light coming from the discharge spark.  Russ plans to have the capability to do this shortly.

A full-proof way to control the composition of the gas mix that goes into the cylinder is to load the gases in separately.

As we saw Jo Papp loading the canon, he had flasks with fluid... so that makes me wander if there are ways to get minimum amounts of the different gases (to keep the finance ok) and presumably they stay fluid in not to much pressure?

Rather have Russ go that way then having to order 5 cylinders

The battery in my car is rated at 400A crank-current - normally such ratings are for 10 seconds. That is driving a low-resistance starter-motor. The arc will be lower resistance than this, so the current will be higher, and most of the heat produced will be in the internal resistance of the battery. Quite a few kW in the cells, and the plates can heat-buckle and possibly short. In these high-discharge situations, too, the battery will outgas, so there's an explosive mixture that can be ignited by the internal sparks/hot metal inside the battery, so yes, the battery can explode if shorted with no external sparking.

I haven't tested as to whether the pop would also stop the current flow, but I would expect it not to - DC arcs are harder to extinguish than AC ones. Unless the current is otherwise turned off, therefore, I would expect it to continue until the battery was either exhausted or exploded. Turning off 500 or so amps of current is not easy, and switchgear to handle that is expensive.

To get the pop running well, we really want that extremely high current, but only for a very short time (the odd microsecond or ten). Capacitors will give us the high voltage and current with the nice side-effect of just delivering the energy we want them to. Jeff (I think - may be EZ) suggested multiple caps and switchgear to raise the rate if it's needed, but at the moment it's a popper not an engine, so the rate is OK.

When the rate goes up, we'll also have to check the ripple-rating of the caps - exceed this and the caps can explode too. We can't eliminate the danger totally, but we can reduce it to acceptable levels.

Quote from simonderricutt on November 14th, 2012, 05:12 AM

The battery in my car is rated at 400A crank-current - normally such ratings are for 10 seconds. That is driving a low-resistance starter-motor. The arc will be lower resistance than this, so the current will be higher, and most of the heat produced will be in the internal resistance of the battery. Quite a few kW in the cells, and the plates can heat-buckle and possibly short. In these high-discharge situations, too, the battery will outgas, so there's an explosive mixture that can be ignited by the internal sparks/hot metal inside the battery, so yes, the battery can explode if shorted with no external sparking.

I haven't tested as to whether the pop would also stop the current flow, but I would expect it not to - DC arcs are harder to extinguish than AC ones. Unless the current is otherwise turned off, therefore, I would expect it to continue until the battery was either exhausted or exploded. Turning off 500 or so amps of current is not easy, and switchgear to handle that is expensive.

To get the pop running well, we really want that extremely high current, but only for a very short time (the odd microsecond or ten). Capacitors will give us the high voltage and current with the nice side-effect of just delivering the energy we want them to. Jeff (I think - may be EZ) suggested multiple caps and switchgear to raise the rate if it's needed, but at the moment it's a popper not an engine, so the rate is OK.

When the rate goes up, we'll also have to check the ripple-rating of the caps - exceed this and the caps can explode too. We can't eliminate the danger totally, but we can reduce it to acceptable levels.

Yes, I think the use of a battery, lead acid type especially, would be disastrous. Think that EZ might have a point with the use of multiple caps and switch gear. On the alternator idea just thinking ahead. It will be interesting to see what Russ comes up with.:D

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 14th, 2012, 07:49 AM

Quote from simonderricutt on November 14th, 2012, 05:12 AM

The battery in my car is rated at 400A crank-current - normally such ratings are for 10 seconds. That is driving a low-resistance starter-motor. The arc will be lower resistance than this, so the current will be higher, and most of the heat produced will be in the internal resistance of the battery. Quite a few kW in the cells, and the plates can heat-buckle and possibly short. In these high-discharge situations, too, the battery will outgas, so there's an explosive mixture that can be ignited by the internal sparks/hot metal inside the battery, so yes, the battery can explode if shorted with no external sparking.

I haven't tested as to whether the pop would also stop the current flow, but I would expect it not to - DC arcs are harder to extinguish than AC ones. Unless the current is otherwise turned off, therefore, I would expect it to continue until the battery was either exhausted or exploded. Turning off 500 or so amps of current is not easy, and switchgear to handle that is expensive.

To get the pop running well, we really want that extremely high current, but only for a very short time (the odd microsecond or ten). Capacitors will give us the high voltage and current with the nice side-effect of just delivering the energy we want them to. Jeff (I think - may be EZ) suggested multiple caps and switchgear to raise the rate if it's needed, but at the moment it's a popper not an engine, so the rate is OK.

When the rate goes up, we'll also have to check the ripple-rating of the caps - exceed this and the caps can explode too. We can't eliminate the danger totally, but we can reduce it to acceptable levels.

Yes, I think the use of a battery, lead acid type especially, would be disastrous. Think that EZ might have a point with the use of multiple caps and switch gear. On the alternator idea just thinking ahead. It will be interesting to see what Russ comes up with.:D

Like it's been said before, the caps are capable of delivering far larger current
bursts compared to car batteries, or any other battery for that matter, and then
there's also the risk of having the battery exploding, scattering acid all over the
place.
Not good.
I'm still a bit interested in seeing what an external coil wrapped around the
popper could do in terms of picking up the EMP and whatever electromagnetic
energy there is coming out from the plasma process, and then having that
energy charging the caps through a rectifier of sort :cool:

Quote from Lynx on November 14th, 2012, 08:19 AM

I'm still a bit interested in seeing what an external coil wrapped around the
popper could do in terms of picking up the EMP and whatever electromagnetic
energy there is coming out from the plasma process, and then having that
energy charging the caps through a rectifier of sort :cool:

Strange thing is that Bob got current back (the motor for capturing was rotating) both with and without the coils on the cylinder.

Also strange that Russ uptill now, as i have seen, has no evidence of the feedbackcurrent. I saw him once (in a liveshow) putting a capacitor on the bucketelectrodes and measure it after a pop and said..nope nothing in it... or something like that.

I think that the x-way of electrodes, with the corner of x not at 90 degrees but much less, has a potential. Maybe one should also put an isolator between the sides that come together when you close the corner to say 5 or 10 degrees. So that the right electrodes fire at the right aim electrode.
(also the plus and minus should be chosen so that the arc will go the right way)

The HV between 2 points of 1 leg of the X cann be as minimal as possible, even put a bit more towards eachother, when using insulator in between.

The LV High Current then has to jump a much less distance because 80% or so is already routed by the HV.

It only has to jump 20% distance, so it can have 20% of the voltage of the HV.

Nice thing about it is that the 2 circuits are seperated. Ok, practis will show if on the backside, backcurrent this also will be the case, i don't know but i think that it will be more random. Although Russ still hasn't found any backcurrent? Strangely enough.

If Russ would experiment to see how much current a good enough size POP needs, then he could divide his superbank into portions that deliver that amount.
If its small enough he would then have enough time for the first bank to charge up while the others are ready or delivering.

And that way have the means to get the popper into an enginetype papper or papengine. With or without ever finding the backcurrent :)

I'm not sure yet what the pro's are for having two seperate circuits, but there should be some i hope.

Hello.
Im wondering if this talk about dumping huge amounts of current across the spark gap is really the way to go!
I mean it would have no practical use to spend all that energy just to move a piston to generate kinetic energy.
I Think it would be much more efficient just to dump that energy, or just a portion of it to an electrical motor.
I Think we need to figure out the most economical way to create a plasma and controll it with RF and DC coils.
Anyway,Thats the path im taking.
Waiting for ordered items and i will use Argon,Helium and Hydrogen to test.
By the way, does anyone know if "balloon Helium" is just Helium?
ive Heard that they add "air" to the Balloon Helium to make it safer if inhaled.
Input appreciated.
Also, does anyone know if Russ will post the schematic for his Three 555 timer Circuit? i was really impressed with that.
/Regards, Janne Ström

Quote

My post before.....

P.S.

Hmm thinking again about it..i think now that the LV will make a u-turn instead of going to the aimed electrode...o well.

Quote from woody0068 on November 14th, 2012, 01:16 PM

Hello.
Im wondering if this talk about dumping huge amounts of current across the spark gap is really the way to go!
I mean it would have no practical use to spend all that energy just to move a piston to generate kinetic energy.
I Think it would be much more efficient just to dump that energy, or just a portion of it to an electrical motor.
I Think we need to figure out the most economical way to create a plasma and controll it with RF and DC coils.
Anyway,Thats the path im taking.
Waiting for ordered items and i will use Argon,Helium and Hydrogen to test.
By the way, does anyone know if "balloon Helium" is just Helium?
ive Heard that they add "air" to the Balloon Helium to make it safer if inhaled.
Input appreciated.
Also, does anyone know if Russ will post the schematic for his Three 555 timer Circuit? i was really impressed with that.
/Regards, Janne Ström

I read its not the same as the industrial or medical stuff. But if its a lot cheaper, i would test it all the same. (maybe get the oxigen out of it with those little bags they use to preserve food?) Russ will post his schematics he said on video, when he thinks its ready to post.
Do you have picture's of what you are doing?
And be asured that we also want to be as economical as we cann with the use of energy. Otherwise it will never become a overunity (or other word) engine.. and thats the aime.

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 14th, 2012, 12:57 PM

Quote from Lynx on November 14th, 2012, 08:19 AM

I'm still a bit interested in seeing what an external coil...............

I saw him once (in a liveshow) putting a capacitor on the bucketelectrodes and measure it after a pop and said..nope nothing in it... or something like that.........

I missed that.
Did you connect the electodes to the capacitor via a diode, Russ?
I think that's more or less needed, I think that the voltage coming from
either the electrodes themselves from inside the popper, or the voltage
from a pickup coil wrapped around the outside of the popper, is AC,
hence it doesn't serve any purpose trying to directly attach a capacitor
to the electrodes or to a pickup coil without first rectifying the current,
either via a diode or a full wave bridge rectifier.