PDA

View Full Version : Inverter: Dangerous



swear000
10-06-2008, 03:49 PM
Look. Don't even read further if you are not going to be smart or safe with your experimenting. I won't be held responsible if you burn or electrocute yourself. With that word of caution, I did find a inverter for a lamp that may be used for higher voltage applications. It looks a fit for saber hilts. Maybe enough for a small plasma arc.

http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G16565

good price too!

Count Malik
10-06-2008, 05:25 PM
neat but strange
:cool:

Novastar
10-06-2008, 11:17 PM
Upon adding a link to something so dangerous... you... might want to add some details about what exactly the point/benefit would be with this over:

* Using a non-high voltage setup (Luxeon LED @ 1A to 1.5A... or even a Seoul P7 @ 2.8A or >)
* What kind of battery cells would be needed
* How it would (or would not) work with current sound setups (MR, Ultrasound, CF, etc.)

I'm really confused as to how this would be beneficial--even in a plasma saber... would the danger be worth the board/setup??

swear000
10-07-2008, 02:43 AM
ok, the board can probably be run from a 9v battery simple enough. It would most likely not be used to drive an LED or sound. Besides, there are already many great options for doing that. I posted it in the new technology discussion since it is not something for typical sabers, rather it would be a platform for experimentation. Careful experimentation. From my understanding so far, it is essentially a driver for a Tesla coil. If I ever manage to get something useful from it, I will post my findings but it may take 5-10 years. I have lots of calculations to do as well as finding proper materials (i.e. ceramic disks).

MoonDragn
10-07-2008, 10:00 AM
I think what he's suggesting is that it can be used for those non LED saber projects like EL or Plasma sabers. You can also use it for Tesla coils and other high voltage effects for other non Lightsaber applications.

Ghostbat
10-07-2008, 10:08 AM
I have a terrifyingly attractive mental image of a saber hilt connected to a non-conductive rod connected to a steel ball with electrical arcs twixt hilt and ball.

MoonDragn
10-07-2008, 10:13 AM
I used to fix TVs for a living back in my younger days. I know the effects of high voltage. I've gotten fried before by the flyback. 1000 volts is nothing to laugh at. Burned a hole in my finger.

swear000
10-07-2008, 11:51 AM
yup. like I said dangerous. This one ain't for the kiddies.

tinfoilhelmet
10-07-2008, 07:40 PM
i see in my head a steampunk jacobs ladder saber....
yep, very dangerous

Darth Trues
10-09-2008, 04:51 PM
i'm thinking of one of those orb things that had no air inside or some sort of gas like neon (i'm not thinking of a neon bulb saber or anything like that) but it the orb that gives off electricty from its center to the out side glass. if you are thinking what i'm thinking of then you get the idea.

Blue Fox
12-07-2008, 04:29 AM
ah, the Plasma ball. Glass enclosed or not, you can still get a shock from those. In fact I'm not even going to mention how you can do it because I value life. But, for those of you with Plasma balls, hold a calculator near it and move it around. you'll see it come up with errors and stuff.
The idea of powering one of these in a metal tube makes me very nervous.

swear000
12-07-2008, 12:41 PM
yeah electricity can be dangerous. I plan on making an insulated holder for it. Any type of plasma reaction would take place in a chamber. I am currently investigating ways of controlling it and generating it since a vacuum chamber would be cumbersome to build. I got a nixie tube coming for my test plasma source (that I already know can be used with the inverter). Basically, I will have to do extensive testing outside the hilt just to ensure that I am generating the desired effect. The inverter may actually not even be powerful enough but I will cross that bridge when I get to it. I have a few tungsten rods that I am going to work with as well. Still a lot of testing to do just to generate baseline data.

swear000
12-08-2008, 10:25 PM
I would say yes because they generate a high voltage. However, what I am really after is current. The amperage is the driving force and I have not seen anything that is tiny and provides high amperage. Your battery powered plasma ball should be fine because it is all enclosed in a protective case.

swear000
12-09-2008, 07:51 AM
Here is an interesting link about those BORG alcoves:

http://toyletbowlbbs.home.att.net/lumin1.htm

Yes, the idea is ignited plasma but can be anything really. It is the closest I could conceive as something being in both a light phase and a solid phase simultaneously. The thread was just to start a basic discussion and stimulate ideas. The key thing is size and I was happy to stumble across the inverter because it is small. Maybe there is something smaller but I just have not found it yet.

swear000
12-09-2008, 01:06 PM
yes a tightly looped plasma arc or something similar. I imagine a magnetic field would have to be used to control the plasma. I still not sure if the tiny inverter will be able to produce any type of "blade" any bigger than the flame from a lighter. Discussions with electrical engineers and physicist also seemed to point to a problem with power (specifically amperage). First, I would attempt something simple like a plasma ring because I can make that small and it wouldn't take much to drive it.


http://www.tuat.ac.jp/~tokilab/HeliconPlasma.jpg

MoonDragn
12-09-2008, 02:36 PM
Well you won't get the thing to arc in normal air and pressure at that voltage (very small arcs). You would probably need a sealed tube at low pressure with a mix of argon and nitrogen to get any special effects.

swear000
12-09-2008, 03:19 PM
I don't want to have it in an external tube. I may build a small chamber to hold pressurized gas (for the reaction to occur). I am also looking into ionization of gasses. Ionized gas across an arc. Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrIpczF9ZMU

Something like this should be easy to construct and be able to run off the inverter. Having the gas flow in a linear direction instead of blossoming into the surrounding atmosphere is also going to be a consideration. I am also trying to avoid this from becoming a plasma jet engine. I may actually have to do some "lab tests" in an actual lab before all is said and done.

Luke-SkyMarcher
12-09-2008, 04:49 PM
Do I get the right idea by thinking you want something similar to a "real" lightsaber, as in a massless blade of an electric arc?

This would be a serious engineering project, and (as far as I know) no one has ever seriously tried it. It's nice to see someone wanting to put some effort here! The standard answer before when someone would mention building a real lightsaber is "it can't be done with current technology, sit down and wait 200 years."

I think people tend to go about it in the wrong way: they want a portable plasma beam immediately. The first goal should be to create a controlled electric arc in a contained area, and worry about power and component size after it works. The most commonly mentioned way to controll plasma is with magnetic feilds. First a magnetically controlled arc, say 1 1/4" by 1 meter, extending into a test chamber would have to be achieved.

Because the magnetic feild would be from an electromagnet, it might be adjustable; sensors could tell when something (a magnet, metal object, etc.) is interfering with the feild and adjust accordingly, to avoid burns or electricution. If interference becomes too severe, it could have an auto shut off function.

Only after this has been achieved would it be time to think about shrinking components to fit into a small metal tube. It would be much easier to figure out how to fit a known mechanism into a smaller space, than to start with a small space as a limit to what can be included in an unknown mechanism.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

-Luke

swear000
12-09-2008, 06:43 PM
all that you said is true and I know that there are actually huge laboratories dedicated to similar projects (generally for industrial applications). The construction could be broken down into several problems. I was mainly focused on size because of the limits of a "power cell". There are actually electron guns with big power supplies that could be purchased for 10,000 dollars or more so I am sure there are similar plasma generators.

If you look at a handheld plasma welding kit, there is usually a big box with it to regulate the power. So, I was kind of looking at the problem in reverse. Each electron is capable of producing a given amount of energy. Atoms that make up the electron store energy as well. What is nuclear energy but basically splitting atoms. Well, I don't want to build anything that powerful but rather understand more on how to utilize the electrons a power cell will provide for a given application.

I could go on and on but in a lot of ways you are right in that there has to be a great deal of testing done outside the hilt before retrofitting for the hilt.

swear000
12-09-2008, 09:03 PM
yeah no focusing crystals. I am staying away from lights and lasers. Both have beams that in theory would travel to infinity. They are also subject to gravitational effect bending (although negligible over short distances). The optics would also be complex and expensive. You generally have to have particulate matter around the laser in order for it be visualized anyway. Plasmas can operate at different temperatures and voltages so I have a feeling they would be more functional.

swear000
12-09-2008, 09:41 PM
I think it depends on the type of plasma. Plasma was originally discovered on the surface of the sun so you could imagine that end of the spectrum. Newer research has brought about the advent of cold plasmas which tend to be on the safer side. There is actually a plasma needle which can target infectious organisms on the skin.

US military has developed plasma "cloaks" which use cold plasma to hide from enemy radar. In case some one is really motivated and feels like building a cloaked millennium falcon

http://www.space.com/images/h_lplas043_000724_03.jpg

I am starting simple so I would not expect much and was originally thinking of a plasma cutter but the voltage requirements are still to high for that. I won't be disappointed if it won't cut anything because my first goal is to control the physical properties of the plasma.

Kal El Rah
12-09-2008, 10:36 PM
Cold Plasma-Hot Plasma, it really doesn't make any difference at this point. It takes a whole building with Computers and Power Supplies to make a Plasma Window, Plasma Tube or even the Cold Plasma Shield/Cloak and they still have to contain it inside a glass vessel.

This issue was presented on the History Channel when they aired the Documentary about Star Wars Tech. The Plasma Window was only 2 inches in diameter, the Plasma Blade/Tube was endless and was being manipulated by Magnetism. Even the Shield/Cloak was inside a Glass Dome. I really would like to see somebody accomplish this, but as you stated earlier we are just not up to the Tech required to accomplish this yet.

bubbalew
12-10-2008, 03:53 AM
All great inventions came from someone doing something that everyone else said could't be done. Good luck and continue to follow through. You never know what you might find out.

Blue Fox
12-10-2008, 08:11 AM
Now imagine a world where these lightsabers can be bought at a gun store..*shivers*
think of how many people would lose limbs or worse because they screwed up a saber spin or "we were just dueling like in the movies..."
Scary thoughts....

swear000
12-10-2008, 09:24 AM
that is really really funny. The "right to bear arms" as laid out in the constitution was for forming a militia in wartime. A lot of crazy Americans have stockpiled guns and ammo and the U.S. government has never changed the policies because guns and ammo generate huge revenue. This huge revenue is used to "influence" politicians. Science and technology are ambiguous and can be made to do harm as well as good. So, if a plasma cutter is used for something other than the purpose intended (i.e. cutting metal) then I won't be held responsible for it's misuse which is why I stated at the beginning and in the topic heading that this is dangerous. I am investigating a science and some of it's hazards so I know how to work with it safely :D

Xwingbanned
12-13-2008, 04:34 AM
A good ol Katana at your side is all you need to kill those stupid jedi nerds that swing useless polycarb tubes around.

swear000
12-13-2008, 07:05 AM
that may be true but harming another individual is a big no no.

Darth_DevilGuy
12-14-2008, 03:46 PM
that is really really funny. The "right to bear arms" as laid out in the constitution was for forming a militia in wartime. A lot of crazy Americans have stockpiled guns and ammo and the U.S. government has never changed the policies because guns and ammo generate huge revenue. This huge revenue is used to "influence" politicians. Science and technology are ambiguous and can be made to do harm as well as good. So, if a plasma cutter is used for something other than the purpose intended (i.e. cutting metal) then I won't be held responsible for it's misuse which is why I stated at the beginning and in the topic heading that this is dangerous. I am investigating a science and some of it's hazards so I know how to work with it safely :D

You can have my "arms" when you pry them from my cold dead hands, and no that's not a joke. The right to bear arms isn't there simply because the founding fathers needed armed infantrymen, they could have gotten that better by confiscating everyone's guns and then recruiting more soldiers they had problems getting enough guns powder and ammo, while most frontiersmen of the time kept ample supplies for their own private use.

The reason Americans have the RIGHT to bear arms is central to the revolutionary philosophy on which our nation was founded, that being, if a government fails to serve the people they have the responsibility to rise up and install a new government which better serves the populace, even if armed revolution is necessary to dislodge those in power. The Right to bear arms exists in order that the American people will always have that final resort, unfortunately many if not most of my countrymen have been seduced by silver tongued politicians who promise them that their blood sweat and tears will never be necessary to water the tree of liberty.

sorry for the derail, but I'm feeling particularly sour today...

swear000
12-14-2008, 04:48 PM
A new government had needed to be installed for years but it was never done and now the American people are suffering. There should be more civilized ways of settling disputes anyway. Most disputes come from lack of communication or need for further clarification more than anything else. Anyway, these types of arguments are circular, endless, and pretty much pointless. I would rather move forward with new and unexplored technology.

Count Malik
12-14-2008, 07:49 PM
Hey try it if it dosn't work the first time try something else. (hey at least someone would be trying.) 100 mistakes is 100 new possibilites.

swear000
12-24-2008, 05:33 PM
I was working with an engineer this past weekend and we got some basic plasma generated. It was a simple apparatus to build with a nixie tube, metal wire, solder, and the high voltage inverter. It was quite safe because the plasma was generated in a container that had low pressure gas. The next trick will be to try something similar within a containment ring.

While it may take many years to actually make something useful, it does look as though the nixie tube will work as a quasi crystal chamber. So it may be useful for that application as well. The nixie tube was cheap and could be found on e-bay. The inverter was also relatively cheap. You would probably need a good 12 volts to drive it though. 9 volts may work but may not generate as intense a glow.

Further information can be found here:
http://www.daqq.eu/index.php?show=prj_plasma_nixie

***Edit****
The next step after forming a ring will be to directionally excite the plasma to move in a given direction. In theory, it would look something like this:

http://www.biology.bnl.gov/structure/images/microtubule_em.jpg

swear000
04-30-2009, 08:14 PM
sorry for the double post but I am looking at many different things right now. I came across this:

http://www.rtftechnologies.org/physics/fusor-mark3-construction.htm

basically, it is for IEC which is a new type of power. I am studying a lot of theory now (including rare gas-solids). I ordered some platinum wire and will experiment with creating some deuterium. I also have a hobby ignition coil
http://www.modelflight.com/larrydavidson.html
and vacuum pump
http://www.micropumps.co.uk/
on the way.

These look small enough to fit in a hilt but I will continue to search for better parts that are more appropriate for desired results. Lots of experimentation at this point to generate some baseline data. Will keep you posted of any significant findings.

Voice
05-06-2009, 04:04 PM
The "right to bear arms" as laid out in the constitution was for forming a militia in wartime.

The right to bear arms was so that the populace *could*, if the need arose again, form militias to fight a tyrannical government. That's exactly what had just happened.

The whole argument that 'it's just for armies' ignores the whole point that a militia was formed of every able bodied and willing individual who could get his hands on a gun. That's 'Joe Average', not the guy who was in his state's organized military.

According to a strict reading of the US Constitution, I (personally) have the right to own a tank, or a bomber, complete with munitions. Heck, even a nuke. (Of course, that doesn't make it particularly practical to own any of them.)

Onli-Won Kanomi
05-07-2009, 02:18 PM
I absolutely agree 100% that RKBA exists "so that the populace *could*, if the need arose again, form militias to fight a tyrannical government. That's exactly what had just happened."

One doesn't even have to be a strict constructionist to see that, rather the COPIOUS amount of commentary by the Founders on their views regarding gun ownership makes it impossible to reasonably argue that they intended any other purpose for it, imo...

...however... [there's always a caveat]

...a strict constructionist could argue that the construction of the second amendment indicates that the Second Amendment was written in a specific way that recognizes a SINGULAR right based structurally on the BEARING of arms.

Note that the Second Amendment does not explicity recognize INDEPENDENT 'rightS [plural] to keep OR bear arms' but rather "the right [singular] to keep AND bear arms".

["keeping" being only the necessary corollary of "bearing" arms since logically one cannot bear what one cannot keep; possess, and therefore "keeping" not an independent right SEPARATE from the bearing of arms].

According to a STRICT reading of the US Constitution that would NOT include a "tank, or a bomber, complete with munitions." since those are not MAN-PORTABLE weapons that one can personally BEAR.

Now "a nuke" is a more interesting question...since while MOST nukes are not man-portable and thus can be rationally excluded from RKBA under a Strict Constructionist reading, there DO exist 'suitcase nukes' [mainly old Soviet manufacture] which under that same reading, bein man-portable and thus able to "bear" WOULD be a Right under RKBA

An interesting question would arise if even more powerful man-portable weapons are constructed in the future.

Would the Second Amendment cover a 'nuclear rifle' as seen at the very end of Starship Troopers [and mentioned in several Heinlein stories as an "isotope charge rifle"] that while man-portable can blow apart a mountain?

Imo it would.

Would the Second Amendment cover rifles firing NUCLEAR BULLETS - very small clean-fusion [laser or cold-fusion initiated] micronukes with low yields but EXTREME armour penetration by their temperature that would be undefendable perfect ASSASSIN weapons?

Imo it would.

And clean fusion presents the nexus for a real problem in public safety because it could allow man-portable weapons with quite HIGH yields as well as nuclear bullets [once you get past the limitations of hot fission triggers nuclear devices can get either very very small or wayyyyy more destructive]...would the Second Amendment cover those?

Imo it would.

Would the Second Amendment cover a man-portable launcher of Star Trek style 'photon torpedos' [antimatter warheads] that could - in principle - be much more powerful than 'puny' conventional 'suitcase' nukes or even higher powered clean fusion nukes?

Imo it would.

Perhaps the ultimate question for RKBA - if a man portable launcher could be made for a hypothetical ZERO POINT BOMB [vacuum energy extraction explosive] would a strict constructionist reading of the Second Amendment recognize a right to keep and bear such a genuinely DOOMSDAY weapon [man-portable planet-cracker]?

Imo it would.

Fortunately we mere humans have no idea how to build a Z-Bomb...yet...AFAIK...all we have is Feynmann's 1969 calculation that the vaccuum energy in a light bulb could vaporize the Earth's oceans [a student later proved that Feynmanns calculations were flawed and it could actually blow apart the center of a galaxy].

Then again in 1909 no one had any idea HOW to build a fission bomb either; only that Einstein showed it to be possible in theory.

Z-Bombs may be the answer to Enrico Fermi's infamous "Where Are They?" - because if intelligent life inevitably evolves to create Civilizations, and Civilizations inevitably evolve military technology for their defence, and military technological R&D inevitably evolves study of Physics to discover A and H bombs, clean nukes, antimatter and ultimately Z-bombs...

...well its not likely any Civilization anywhere could or would survive the latter...the first Z-Bomb used would very likely be the last and the END.

And a strict constructionist reading of the Second Amendment just might recognize you have a Right to keep and bear one - if it can be made man-portable.

If Z-bombs ever come, and you have a Constitutional Right to one, we better Hope and PRAY that every single last one of hundreds of millions of Americans is both absolutely perfectly RATIONAL and 100% LIGHT SIDE their entire life...

...what are the odds of that eh?

swear000
05-07-2009, 04:54 PM
I think I see your point. We can't expect everyone to be rational 100% of their lives. Don't know if you have ever had a chemistry class but even lawn fertilizer can be dangerous. Come to think of it, a lot of things in homes can be dangerous. Carbon monoxide from a car, gas from a stove, etc. I guess it just boils down to usage. I guess I was just kind of interested in seeing what all could be done with 7.4 volts and some science. It seems that as one ventures toward the atomic level, things become more interesting....:D

cardcollector
05-07-2009, 05:42 PM
in my opinion...
I'll Keep my guns!!

swear000
05-09-2009, 05:06 PM
alright...I guess this is being misinterpreted as a weapons debate rather than a scientific endeavor. So, I will just let the discussion go unless someone has any meaningful scientific information to contribute.

swear000
06-20-2013, 05:42 AM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/plasma-ring-experiment-offers-new-path-for-fusion-power