1320 Beal Ave,

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

(734) 764-3310
23 April 2021
Benjamin Jorns, Professor
Plasmadynamics and Electric Propulsion Laboratory
Aerospace Department, University of Michigan
1919 Green Road, Room B107
Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2564

Dear Prof. Jorns,

Enclosed is the final report of our development and testing of a low-cost, simple pulsed plasma
thruster and accompanying probes for plume characterization. This report includes a description
of our thruster design, including our investigation into alternate power sources; the design of the
Langmuir probes used to characterize the exhaust plume; and the theoretical model against
which we compared our experimental results.

Our team tested a flyback transformer, spark plug, capacitor bank, and tesla coil and found the
latter two to be the best option for generating the electrode voltage and initial spark respectively.
Our thruster design was successfully constructed and found to be easily operable and safe,
though its performance is unreliable. Although we were able to conduct test fires and gather data,
variation in the environment prevented the thruster from firing consistently. The project finished
under the $400 materials budget, which demonstrates the affordability of the thruster, as the cost
will be even lower once unnecessary parts are factored out of the budget. From the data collected
during our test fires we built a Paschen curve, determined the thruster’s mass ablation at various
voltages, and characterized the electron density and velocity in the exhaust plume. This data
roughly matches the results from previous experiments and follows the trends of our theoretical
model, which suggests our instrumentation can characterize the thruster accurately.

Based on the thruster’s ease of use, the accuracy of the instrumentation, and the affordability of
the entire system, we believe this thruster design can serve as a baseline for optimization of
future thrusters, though we do not recommend that this design be used to characterize the exhaust
plume due to its unreliability. We recommend a more advanced vacuum chamber to increase the
reliability of the thruster and that future teams develop a more thorough theoretical model.

Thank you again for your support, both the equipment you lent us and the technical advice. We
hope the PPT design described here will serve as a useful starting point for any further efforts to
characterize PPTs at PEPL.

Sincerely,

Jack Hondagneu Elizabeth Baubkus Filip Platek

Trevor Rosario Andrew Stephenson

 FINAL REPORT

A Low-Cost Design of a Pulsed Plasma

Thruster and Instrumentation for Plume
Characterization
A Low-Cost Design of a Pulsed Plasma Thruster
and Instrumentation for Plume
Characterization

Aerospace 405 - Advanced Instrumentation and Measurement

Research Team:

Jack Hondagneu
Elizabeth Baubkus
Filip Platek
Trevor Rosario
Andrew Stephenson

Project Sponsor:

Professor Benjamin Jorns

April 23, 2021

 Table of Contents
List of Tables 1

List of Figures 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

INTRODUCTION 2
Defining the Problem and Benefits 2
Previous and Current Research 4
Task Details 4

CRITERIA 5
Effectiveness 5
Affordability 6
Reliability 6
Accuracy 6

DESIGN AND TESTING OF A PULSED PLASMA THRUSTER 6

Operation and Requirements 7
Theoretical Models 8
Flyback Transformer 8
Capacitor Bank 9
Thrust Generation 9
Triple Langmuir Probe 12
Theory 12
Construction 13
Data Acquisition 14
Materials and Manufacturing 14
High Voltage Device Testing 17
Flyback Transformer 17
Tesla Coil Module 20
Capacitor Bank 22
Pulsed Plasma Thruster Testing 24

SUPPORT 28
Support for Effectiveness 28
Support for Affordability 28
Support for Reliability 29
Support for Accuracy 30

CONCLUSION 30
Results 30
Omissions 31
 Errors 31
Limitations 32
Future Research 32

MANAGEMENT PLAN 33
Budget 33
Scheduling 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY 36

APPENDICES 38
 List of Tables
Table Page
1: Summary of Hardware Materials 15
2: Comparison of ablated mass at different energy levels 26
3: Material Costs 29
4: Full Budget 34

List of Figures
Figure Page
1: High-Level PPT Diagram 7
2: Energy into propellant vs Input (Discharge) Voltage 10
3: Thrust vs Input (Discharge) Voltage 11
4: Electron Density vs Input Voltage 12
5: Triple Langmuir Probe Testing Wiring Diagram 13
6: Triple Langmuir Probe Wiring Diagram 14
7: Developed Triple Langmuir Probes 14
8: PPT assembly 16
9: Voltage divider 17
10: Flyback transformer voltage lines 18
11: Flyback transformer test circuit schematic 18
12: Flyback transformer output vs. frequency 19
13: Flyback transformer voltage output at 38kHz 19
14: Flyback transformer circuit with integrated MOSFET 20
15: Schematic of a tesla coil circuit 21
16: Tesla Coil Voltage Output as a Function of Voltage Input 21
17: Tesla Coil Module 22
18: Mouser Electronics HV Film Capacitor 23
19: Main capacitor discharge circuit schematic 23
20: Paschen Curve of air 24
21: Full experimental setup of PPT test fires 25
22: Full schematic of test fire circuitry 25
23: Electron Number Density Vs Distance From Electrodes 27
24: Mean Thermal Electron Speed vs. Distance From Electrodes 27
25: Experimental values and theoretical model of the Flyback Transformer 31
26: Project Timeline 35

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In recent decades, the space community has pushed for more low-cost, low-mass satellite
development. As a result, there is an increasing demand for cheap and highly efficient propulsion
systems for satellites, and pulsed plasma thrusters (PPTs) have the potential to meet that demand.
However, the inconsistencies in their exhaust plume leads to a loss in performance, and many use
large and heavy transformers to meet the voltage requirements needed to operate them. We have
taken on the task of developing a cheap and simple design of a PPT and the instruments
necessary to characterize the plume to serve as a model for further research efforts into PPT
performance. We tested the thruster and compared the measured performance against a
theoretical model of a PPT. This report describes in detail our design and testing methods, as
well as the analytical models used to confirm empirical data.

Over the course of a semester, a pulsed plasma thruster with Teflon propellant and plume
measurement instrumentation was developed by our team. Three different candidates were
considered for high-voltage generation: flyback transformer, tesla coil module, and capacitor
bank, while one candidate was considered for plume measurement: a set of Langmuir probes.
The Langmuir probes met the accuracy criterion with the exception of the ion number density
and floating potential, which have associated uncertainties of 54% and 20%, respectively.
Although the approximately $50 flyback transformer provided by the Aerospace Department at
no charge met the affordability criterion, it failed to handle the current levels required to produce
plasma pulses and thus was neither effective nor reliable. The tesla coil module also met the
affordability criterion, costing just $8 per module. The module was determined not to be
effective nor reliable for the main discharge circuit, but was effective and reliable for the
discharge initiation spark. Lastly, the traditional capacitor bank was affordable, costing us a total
of $68.16 for eight capacitors ($8.52 each) and was also effective for generating the main
discharge.

Our team was able to build a low-cost design PPT, with circuitry that is capable of generating the
main discharge and spark initiation however, our overall system has demonstrated some
irregularities. Based on the thruster’s ease of use, the accuracy of the instrumentation, and the
affordability of the entire system, we believe this thruster design can serve as a baseline for
optimization of future thrusters, though we do not recommend that this design be used to
characterize the exhaust plume due to its unreliability. We recommend a more advanced vacuum
chamber to increase the reliability of the thruster and that future teams develop a more thorough
theoretical model.

INTRODUCTION
Our team built a low-cost pulsed plasma thruster testing platform, as well as the instrumentation
required to characterize the plume, with the hope that this will serve as a baseline for future
optimization. In this report, we discuss the motivation for our research and the potential benefits
and impact of our project, detail our process for building and testing our PPT, and lastly
breakdown our management plan for budgeting and scheduling.

Defining the Problem and Benefits

PPTs are a combination of electromagnetic and electrothermal thruster in which a spring feeds
solid Teflon through a pair of copper electrodes. A combination of a sparking mechanism and
high electrical potential from an electrode cause the Teflon to break down into plasma. The

2
charged plasma completes the circuit between the electrodes causing a current to flow. This
current causes a magnetic field which interacts with the electric field from the electrodes to
create a Lorentz force acting on the plasma. The Lorentz force accelerates the plasma out of the
thruster, generating thrust [1].

PPTs have many advantages over other propulsion systems used for satellites. PPTs are very
lightweight and have a simple design. PPTs do not pressurize any fluids, therefore there is no
need for storage tanks or valves. The only mobile part of the PPT is a spring that pushes the fuel
bar forward. They also utilize a solid fuel, Teflon, which has advantages of its own. A solid
propellant has a long shelf life, vacuum compatibility, lower chemical reactivity, and temperature
resistance compared to liquid propellants. The thrusters, at optimum operating conditions, also
have the ability to vary the thrust at the same specific impulse by simply changing the pulse
frequency.

These characteristics of PPTs align with the “New Space” movement in aerospace engineering,
which favors lighter, less expensive, and more reliable spacecraft that can be developed and built
in short periods of time. Following this trend, NASA Glenn Research Center is currently
revitalizing and advancing PPTs due to their system simplicity and high specific impulse, which
is ideal for extended missions in space [2].

More generally, electric propulsion including PPTs, is ideal for the growing market of small
satellites and CubeSats since electric propulsion systems have a higher specific impulse than
chemical propulsion.

Despite their many advantages, PPTs are often overlooked for satellite propulsion due to
inefficiencies in thrust production caused by macroparticle production and late time ablation.
Functionally, some Teflon is removed as macroparticles, as opposed to plasma, which decreases
the available thrust. Late time ablation occurs because the Teflon is heated past its sublimation
point through the spark. This increased temperature causes gas and macroparticles to form
instead of plasma, which, again, decreases the available thrust.

The inefficiencies can be mitigated by well designed and optimally operated PPTs, but electric
propulsion systems, and PPTs in particular, do not have as extensive a history of research and
testing as chemical propulsion systems. Currently, there is no research into this type of
technology at the University of Michigan.

A design of a PPT that can be quickly and inexpensively reproduced will facilitate research and
experiments on the inefficiencies of the PPTs. Future researchers could employ such a design as
a baseline when characterizing and studying the thruster’s exhaust plume, which is where
evidence of inefficiencies are measured. This increase in research will, in turn, yield PPTs which
are more efficient and can help meet the demand for cheap, reliable, and easy to develop
propulsion systems in the New Space movement and, more specifically, the need for low cost,
low thrust propulsion in the growing CubeSat market.

3
Previous and Current Research
PPTs have an extensive in-space flight history, with the first dating back to 1964 when the
Soviets used them for their Mars probe, Zond 2. Although communication was lost not long after
reaching orbit around Mars, six PPTs serving as actuators for the attitude control system
successfully fired for 70 minutes prior to the loss, showing the potential of this technology [3].
The United States quickly followed with its own version of the PPT. In 1968 they launched their
first batch of PPTs on the LES-6 satellite and continued in the 1970s to test PPTs for low
delta-vee satellite maneuvers [2]. More recently, a PPT built by General Dynamics was tested in
the EO-1 mission that launched in 2000. This thruster was the first successful demonstration of a
PPT with throttling capabilities where it was tested to serve the function of a momentum wheel
[4].

Due to PPTs’ shortcomings in regard to thruster efficiency, what research there has been in recent
decades has focused on mitigating the unintended consequences mentioned above through
analytical simulation and empirical data. Research from the University of Washington from 2011
provides details of their thorough investigation of PPT exit plumes which has provided
inspiration and guidance for our proposed experiments [1]. To give some context to previous
research done on PPTs, the University of Washington had a primary goal of designing, building,
and testing a low-cost PPT. They used double Langmuir probes to map the density profile
throughout the PPT plume and exhaust velocity using a time of flight technique. They also
implemented high-speed cameras in their design which helped inform design modifications in
order to increase and isolate the plasma ionization region. A custom Labview software was used
to control the optical pulse generator, which sent signals to the scopes, cameras, and the initial
arc control circuit. The University of Washington’s research and procedure is similar to our
project, however, their secondary goal involved determining the feasibility of integrating a PPT
with a helicon system in their Advanced Propulsion Laboratory. Although our research will
primarily focus on employing various low-cost options for generating and accelerating plasma
pulses, we will frequently reference this research when constructing and testing our own
Langmuir probes to characterize the exit plume.

Task Details
The task for our team is to develop a pulsed plasma thruster testing platform that can be used for
future research. The task can be divided into three aspects: mechanical design, electrical circuitry
design, and testing methodology. The main task in terms of mechanical design is to create a solid
propellant feeding mechanism that is compatible with testing fixtures and integrates with the
electrical components to effectively ionize the Teflon propellant and generate thrust. For
electrical circuitry, the task is to design a system that will provide sufficiently large discharges
and sparks for Teflon ablation and a strong electromagnetic field for propulsion of ionized
particles. For testing methodology, the goal is to develop a strategy to effectively characterize the
exit plume of the thruster, as well as to determine performance characteristics mass ablation and
electron number density.

Our team did extensive research during the preliminary stages of our project on the history of
PPTs and current research detailing efforts to mitigate the efficiency losses that occur. Based on
the inspiration of past research, our team created multiple design iterations with our final design
being easily manufacturable, simple, and adjustable. In parallel with our design iterations, our

4
team conducted extensive testing on our electrical circuitry. Our discharge circuit needs to be
capable of high voltage generation on the magnitude of several kilovolts. Three different devices
were tested and verified for high voltage generation capability and high current sustainability.
Our circuit designs, experimental data, and results are detailed in this report. Our team has also
conducted research in Langmuir probe theory and calibration to determine the best
instrumentation for plume characterization.

We concluded that our final PPT system fully satisfies the affordability and accuracy criteria,
while only partially satisfies the effectiveness and reliability criteria. We advise that future
groups use this design as a baseline to be improved upon with optimization from analytical
simulation and models. We also recommend that testing be conducted in the Aerospace 305
electrical discharge vacuum facility. Future tests could compare the parallel plate configuration
against a concentric coil design, measure the plume divergence angle, or vary the electrode gap
and pressure of the surroundings.

CRITERIA
Four criteria were considered throughout the course of this project to assess the constructed
pulsed plasma thruster and testing platform. The following section describes each criterion in
detail: effectiveness, affordability, reliability, and accuracy.

Effectiveness
The primary criterion is the effectiveness of the configured PPT and test apparatus. The thruster
is considered effective if it generates thrust as intended: by producing a plasma from Teflon
ablation and accelerating it down the electrode rails to a high exit velocity.

Thrust generation requires a spark to arc across the electrodes to create an electron pathway for
the capacitor bank to rapidly discharge across the electrodes. This discharge must draw a high
enough current to ablate several micrograms of the Teflon surface and a high enough voltage so
that a plasma can form. We estimated a capacitor discharge greater than 5 J would be sufficient
based on previous research into PPTs [5].

The test apparatus should be simple, easily operable, and safe. Though these are difficult metrics
to quantify, we aimed to minimize the time it took to conduct a test fire (which is the operation
most researchers would conduct) in a safe manner. Ease of operation also means the thruster
should be able to be modified for experimentation. The variables a researcher would likely want
to alter are the input voltage, the electrode gap, and the electrodes themselves (by changing the
size or material). Therefore, our design allows any of those variables to be changed without the
thruster having to be completely disassembled. The test apparatus must also provide
measurements that can be analyzed to produce quantifiable performance metrics of the thruster
so that it can be compared with other PPTs, i.e. we must be able to determine the mass ablation
per pulse of the PPT and ideally other metrics including specific impulse.

The testing facility should be capable of testing the thruster in different environments,
specifically a range of pressures from ambient (101 kPa) to near-vacuum (6.3 kPa), in order to
more fully characterize the thruster.

5
Affordability
The affordability of the thruster is particularly important because it is intended for future
research groups. If the design is prohibitively expensive, it will limit the amount of research that
can be conducted. The cost is broken up into raw material cost and labor cost. Our group was
given a materials budget of $400, but this included materials for multiple design iterations and
debugging. The material and component costs of the final design should be lower, as the final
design can be expected to work without modification. Additionally, labor costs must be
minimized, which is why parts must be designed for easy machinability and assembly. By
designing around available stock sizes, constraining manufacturing processes to readily
accessible tools and machines, and using compatible off-the-shelf components, the labor costs
can be reduced to an accessible price point for research groups interested in studying PPT
technology.

Reliability
Reliability is an important criterion because the thruster will need to perform consistently
without any mechanical or electrical malfunctions during long burn tests in weak vacuum
environments. Data collection also needs to be reliable to compare data between tests and
quantify the effects of future modifications. All electrical components must be able to withstand
operating at required voltages and currents, and the mechanical structure needs to withstand both
internal forces and thrust forces as well as the effects of a vacuum. Finally, the structure must not
cause any electrical malfunctions due to poor insulation.

Accuracy
Like any engineering endeavor, we must rely on our measuring equipment to be accurate enough
to provide meaningful results. For our particular project, the accuracy of the Langmuir probes is
the central concern. First, the exhaust plume must be distinct enough for clean data to be
recorded by the probes. Extraneous arcing in unwanted locations of the electrodes must be
mitigated to ensure this. Although Langmuir probes are not the primary focus of the project, they
must each be accurate enough to reliably measure the properties of the exit plume. This
component of the criterion is met if the electron number density is within two orders of
magnitude of past PPTs. Thorough calibration must be conducted to guarantee this is met. As a
result, the accuracy of the probes proves to be a crucial criterion that directly relates to the
project's overall effectiveness. Plume data recorded by the probes must also be compared with
simulated theoretical values to confirm its validity.

DESIGN AND TESTING OF A PULSED PLASMA THRUSTER

The initial design phase was heavily influenced by the University of Washington’s pulsed plasma
thruster which featured a pair of electrode plates, spark wire, capacitor bank, and Teflon reservoir
[1]. We aimed to emulate the mechanical design of their PPT but with a cheaper, more compact
method for generating the plasma. In addition to the physical thruster, we developed a theoretical
model of the thruster to inform our analysis of it. This section provides details of the operation
and requirements, theoretical models, Langmuir probe theory and calibration, materials and
manufacturing, high voltage device testing, and PPT thruster testing.

6
Operation and Requirements
Immediately before firing, a capacitor is charged to a high discharge voltage on the order of
several kilovolts. The exact discharge voltage is a function of the gaseous mixture being ionized,
its pressure, and the distance between the electrodes. Evaluating discharge voltage as a function
of the product of pressure and gap distance yields what is called the Paschen curve for a given
gas.

First the capacitor bank is charged to just below the discharge voltage of air. To initiate a pulse of
thrust, a spark of electrons is released close to the Teflon surface to act as a catalyst for a
discharge of the capacitor across the electrodes at just below the discharge voltage through air.
The high voltage required for the initial spark is generated by a dedicated device, usually a spark
plug or spark wire. The discharge ablates several micrograms of the Teflon surface, which
produces a propellant plasma. The plasma is then accelerated as a current sheet down the
electrode rails by the Lorentz force, created by the interaction of the self-induced magnetic field
and the charged particles of the plasma. This process is depicted in Figure 1 below. Each pulse
creates a very small amount of thrust on the order of 100 µN, but pulsing the thruster multiple
times over a small period of time can allow it to achieve the required impulse bits for its
application.

Traditionally, a capacitor or several capacitors have been required to store the necessary energy
to ablate the Teflon surface because they can be stored for long periods of time while on a
satellite and output a clean voltage signal. But these benefits are less useful for our application,
since the thruster is only meant to serve as a platform for studying the plasma plume and won’t
actually operate on a satellite; thus, long-duration storage won’t be necessary and power supplies
will be available during tests. For this reason, other devices for generating the ablation spark
were considered, such as flyback transformers and high voltage tesla coil modules. If a device
can consistently release enough energy in a pulse to ablate and ionize the Teflon over many fires
without failure, then it is considered a viable alternative.

Figure 1: High-level PPT diagram

7
Theoretical Models
We developed a theoretical model of the thruster based on existing research into pulsed plasma
thrusters, specifically research from the University of Washington [1], University of Michigan
[6], and Manipal Institute of Technology [7]. The theoretical values produced by this model are a
benchmark against which the experimental values can be compared, allowing us to detect major
experimental errors. That is, the theoretical model tells us how the thruster should work,
allowing us to check if it is working incorrectly. As will be discussed later, the theoretical model
also informed our experimental design. From our model, we determined a rough range of inputs
(voltages) that would result in outputs (thrusts) that reflect a PPTs application.

The thruster system was broken down into several areas modeled separately. The electrical
components - the flyback transformer, tesla coil, and capacitor bank - were each modeled
individually. Based on research into each device, our models took an input voltage and predicted
an output voltage. That output voltage, along with physical variables from the Teflon and
electrodes, informed a model to predict the thrust generated by the PPT.

Flyback Transformer
From the characterization tests of the flyback transformer, we developed an analytical model of
the transformer's performance. Specifically, estimated a winding ratio, from which we can
predict the primary-to-secondary voltage ratio, using the equation,
Vp/Vs = Np/Ns , (1)
where Np and Ns are the number of winds on the primary and secondary, respectively, and VP and
Vs are the voltages of the primary and secondary. Rearranging the equation gives a simple linear
relationship between the input voltage (or primary voltage, Vp) and output voltage (or secondary
voltage Vs)
Vs = Ns/Np*Vp , (2)
which allows us to predict the output voltage from any input.

Tesla Coil
Like the flyback transformer, the tesla coil’s purpose is to produce high voltages to initiate the
teflon ionization. Also like the flyback transformer, the output voltage varies linearly with the
input voltage, though not as a function of the turns [8]. Instead, conservation of energy analysis
allows us to determine the relation between input and output voltage.
E = ½ CV2 (3)
where C is the capacitance of the circuit and V is the voltage. By equating the energy equations
for the primary and secondary circuits we can find the relationship between input voltage (or
primary voltage, Vp) and output voltage (or secondary voltage Vs):
Ep = ½ CpVp2 = Es = ½ CsVs2 (4)

Vs = 𝑉𝑝 𝐶𝑝/𝐶𝑠 (5)

8
Capacitor Bank
The final high voltage generation method we explored was a capacitor bank. The individual
capacitors are connected in parallel, charged by our power supply, then discharged to provide the
electrode voltage. This means the output voltage is a function of time and the time constant, 𝜏0.
The time constant is a function of the resistance, R, and capacitance, Ceffective,
𝜏0 = R*Ceffective (6)
In the charging circuit, R = 10 kΩ. In the discharge circuit, the resistance is governed by the
plasma in the electrode gap and discussed in the next section. The capacitance of an individual
capacitor is Cind = 1.2 µF and the capacitance of the bank is given by the equation,
Ceffective = ΣCind = n*Cind (7)
where n is the number of capacitors - six or eight in our tests.

Finally, we can calculate the output voltage at a given time during charge,
V(t) = V0(1-e-t/𝜏0) (8)
where V0 is the voltage across the resistor, or discharge,
V(t) = VCe-t/𝜏0 (9)
where VC is the initial voltage across the capacitor.

Thrust Generation
The theoretical model of the PPT aimed to calculate thrust as a function of input voltage. From
the capacitor bank model discussed above, we calculated the anode voltage Va from the input
voltage controlled by our power source. Va will serve as the independent variable for this section.

Other known variables include the dimensions of the thruster (the electrode dimensions and
electrode gap) and the material properties of the Teflon fuel and copper electrodes.

The first calculation was the current across the electrodes. We utilized two methods, Spitzer
resistivity, and space charge limits. The Spitzer method will be discussed first.

Spitzer resistivity is given by the following equation,

1/2
4(2π/3) 𝑍𝑒 𝑚
2 1/2
𝑒
𝑙𝑛Λ (10)
𝑛⊥ = 2 3/2
3(4πε 0) (𝑘 𝐵
𝑇 𝑒)

where e is the electron charge, me is the mass of an electron, εo is the vacuum permittivity, and kB
is Boltzman’s constant. For the entire analysis, we assumed the ionization, Z = 1. We estimated
the Coulomb logarithm, lnΛ = 10, based on the recommendation of the NRL Plasma Formulary
[9]. For electron temperature, Te, we used 29012 K (2.5eV) based on the range used in an
analysis of PPTs by Keidar, et al. [6].

With the Spitzer resistivity calculated to be 2.7250e-4 Ω/𝑚, we then calculated the resistance of
the plasma between the electrodes by approximating the electrode gap as a wire,

9
 R = n⊥d/A, (11)
where d is the electrode gap (.0127 m), i.e. the length of the wire, and A is the surface area of the
discharge, i.e. the cross-sectional area of the wire. A was calculated using the width of the
electrodes (also .0127) and the Debye length λD,
𝐴 = 𝑑 ∗ λ𝐷 (12)

2 (13)
λ𝐷 = ε0 ∗ 𝑘𝐵∗ 𝑇𝑒/(𝑛𝑒 ∗ 𝑒 )

Where ne is the electron number density, assumed to be 1024 based on Keidar.

Using Ohm’s Law, we could then determine the current between the electrodes:
𝐼𝑎 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑧𝑒𝑟 = 𝑉𝑎/𝑅. (14)

Alternatively, Child’s law gives the relation,

𝐽 = 𝐼𝑎/𝑆 = (4 * ε0/9) *
3/2
2 * 𝑒/𝑚𝑒 * (𝑉𝑎 /𝑑 ),
2 (15)

which can be rewritten to give Ia,

𝐼𝑎 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 = 𝑆 * (4* ε0/9) *

3/2
2 * 𝑒/𝑚𝑒 * (𝑉𝑎 /𝑑 )),
2 (16)

where S is the anode surface area, 1.91e-4 m2.

From the anode voltage current, we can calculate the energy into the propellant over the course
of a burn using Ohm’s Law,
𝐸 = 𝐼𝑎 * 𝑉𝑎 * ∆𝑡, (17)

where Δt is the burn time - approximately 20µ𝑠. We graphed the results (Figure 2) of the two
methods using a range of Va based on the Johnson thesis [1]. The two methods give results one
order of magnitude apart.

Figure 2: Energy into propellant vs Input (Discharge) Voltage using the Spitzer Model (left) and
Space Charge Model (right)

10
To calculate the thrust we used the model described by Misra [7], which ignores induced EMFs,
focusing entirely on inductance and current. Calculating inductance is simple, as the electrode is
two parallel plates,
𝐿 = µ0 * 𝑑/𝑤 (18)

Where L is the inductance per unit length, d is the electrode gap, and w is the width of the
electrode. Misra’s model gives the equation for force:

𝐹 = 1/2 * 𝐿 * 𝐼𝑎.
2 (19)

As with space charge, we calculated the force using the current from both the Spitzer and Space
Charge Models (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Thrust vs Input (Discharge) Voltage using the Spitzer Model (left) and Space Charge
Model (right)

Using the calculated thrust values, we determined the effective velocity of the propellant,
𝑣𝑒 = 𝐹/(𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥 ∗ 𝑔𝑎𝑝 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎), (20)

where F is the force and mflux = 24 kg/m2s, an estimate given by Keidar. Also from the estimated
mass flux and the known molar mass of the particles (the Teflon monomers) we can calculate the
particle flux,
𝑝𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥 = 𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥/𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 (21)

Finally, we assume the number of charged particles (pflux) is equivalent to the number of electrons
in the plasma plume (eflux) to calculate the electron density:
𝑛𝑒 = 𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥/𝑣𝑒 (22)

11
 Figure 4: Electron density vs Input Voltage using the Spitzer Model (left) and Space Charge
Model (right)

This range of values for the electron number density is slightly higher than the generally used
estimate given in Keidar and elsewhere (1024) [10]. We predict this difference is caused by the
estimate of mass flux being too high. However, the model is still useful as it gives us a
correlation between mass flux and electron density.

Triple Langmuir Probe

Langmuir probes are a powerful tool that have been used since the 1960s. The simplicity of
construction, operation, and methods of analysis make them an irreplaceable tool in the
measurement of the full state of a plasma. This information can be used to evaluate performance
losses as well as other plasmadynamic processes. A configuration of the Langmuir probe known
as the symmetric triple probe, also known as the triple Lanmguir probe, consists of three
equal-sized electrodes configured side by side. They require a resistor to be placed between
probe 1 and the bias voltage source but do not need a sweeping voltage to operate.

Theory
Since our PPT is much smaller than others used in spacecraft, the plasma sheet generated will be
very thin - our theoretical model predicts a thickness of 1.2e-8m. This means we can assume that
our Langmuir probes are governed by thin-sheath probe theory and the plasma sheet thickness is
negligible in comparison to the probe radius. Thus, once the probes are configured as a triple
Langmuir probe, we can directly measure the electron number density, n, from the equation [11]

( )
𝐼𝑝1 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑒𝑉𝑑1−3/𝑘𝑇𝑒𝑘) (23)
𝑛𝑒 = [1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑒𝑉𝑑1−3/𝑘𝑇𝑒𝑘)]
,
0.61*𝐴1* 𝑘𝑇𝑒𝑘/(𝑚𝑖)

where mi, k, Tek , e, Ip, A1, and Vd1-3 are the ion mass, Boltzman’s constant, electron temperature
(in kelvin), single electron charge (1.60 × 10−19 C), probe current, the potential difference
between probes 1 and 3, and the surface area of the probe respectively. Using the assumption
[12] that the electron temperature in eV,
𝑘*𝑇𝑒𝑘 (24)
Te = 𝑒
.

12
We can calculate Te from the data collected from the Triple Langmuir probes using the following
relationship [11]:
(𝑉𝑑1−3)𝑎𝑣𝑔 (25)
Te, avg = 𝑙𝑛(2)
.
The relationship between Te and Tek gives us the final equation:

( )
𝐼𝑝1 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑉𝑑1−3/𝑇𝑒) (26)
ne = [1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑉𝑑1−3/𝑇𝑒)]
.
0.61*𝐴1* 𝑇𝑒/(𝑚𝑖*𝑒)

We were also able to determine the mean thermal electron speed [12] by using
(27)
8*𝑒*𝑇𝑒
𝑉𝑒 = π*𝑚𝑒
,
where me is the mass of a single electron.

Construction
The Langmuir probes used in our system are made from thoriated tungsten for the probes and are
encased in plastic tubes taken from mechanical pencils as the carrier tubes. The gaps between the
carrier tubes and probes were filled in with electrical tape to reduce the amount of escaping
electrons. The triple Langmuir probe design also needs a bias voltage but does not require a
sweeping voltage unlike a single or double Langmuir probe. For our system, we are using three
9V batteries for a total of 28.88 V as the bias voltage, and a 10 kΩ resistor between the bias
voltage and probe 2. An oscilloscope was connected to the 1st and 3rd probe to measure the
peak-peak voltage difference. A wiring diagram for the testing setup including the probes,
batteries, and oscilloscope is shown in Figure 5. A basic wiring diagram [11] for the triple
Langmuir probe is shown in Figure 6, the fully constructed triple Lanmuir probe is shown in
Figure 7.

Figure 5: Triple Langmuir Probe Testing Wiring Diagram

13
 Figure 6: Triple Langmuir Probe Wiring Diagram

Figure 7: Developed Triple Langmuir Probes

Data Acquisition
Unlike the single or double probes, a triple Langmuir probe does not need to be calibrated.
However, it does require the averaging of multiple measurements in order to reduce noise in the
results. During testing, the triple Langmuir probe was connected to an oscilloscope that was
measuring the peak-peak voltage difference between probes 1 and 3, and collected data at four
positions relative to the face of the electrodes, 0.25 in, 0.5 in, 1 in, and 1.5 in. We fired 10 - 15
shots per position to provide a large sample size to average. Like all measurement devices, the
Langmuir probes have uncertainty ranges in their data. The specific uncertainty ranges are
discussed in detail under the support for accuracy section.

Materials and Manufacturing

In order to build a functional pulsed plasma thruster, the mechanical design, material properties,
and manufacturability was carefully considered. The PPT mechanical design uses copper
electrodes designed for high conductivity. A high level of conductivity is necessary for optimal
function. The copper is 99.99% pure, which is harder than the “easy machine” copper alloys
offered by McMaster-Carr but is still machinable and comes in a convenient stock size, reducing
the total amount of machining required.

14
 Insulation of electrodes for function and safety proved to be a necessary consideration of the
design. The structural elements of the thruster are made of nylon because it is non-conductive,
cheap, readily available, and comes in a variety of compounds that can be matched to the part’s
intended function. Nylon for the screws is stronger and more durable, whereas the nylon used in
the structural support is designed for improved machinability.

Another design consideration for the PPT was compatibility with testing methods. As a result,
our team opted to use a standard 80/20 bracket that is compatible with the vacuum facilities at
the PEPL, as well as the vacuum used in our experiments. The thrust stand bracket is made of
anodized aluminum. This is not ideal because aluminum is a conductor, but it was the only
available material for a bracket that was compatible with the mounts used in the vacuum
chambers. The conductivity problem is mitigated through the use of a nylon structure which
insulates the charged electrodes from the bracket.

Table 1: Summary of hardware components and relevant material properties.

Component(s) Material Source Relevant Properties

Density: 0.323 lbs./cu. in.

Electrodes “Super-Conductive” Readily available. Modulus: 17.0 ksi x103
High Purity Copper Purchased from Resistivity: 1.68 x10-8 Ω-m
[13] McMaster-Carr Hardness: Rockwell F75
Composition: Copper (99.99%)

Modulus: 4.27 ksi x103

Bolts Nylon Plastic [14] Readily available. Tensile Strength (Yield): 10.4 ksi
Purchased from Shear Strength: 9.6 ksi
McMaster-Carr Resistivity: 1 x1013 Ω-m
Hardness: Rockwell R113

Modulus: 4.27 ksi x103

Structural “Easy Machine” Readily available. Tensile Strength: 10 ksi
support, spark MDS Filled Nylon Purchased from Resistivity: 1 x1013 Ohm-m
plug stand [15] McMaster-Carr. Hardness: Rockwell R110

Density: 0.0975 lbs./cu. in.

Bracket Stand Anodized Aluminum Readily available. Modulus: 10,000 ksi
[16] Purchased from Tensile Strength (Yield): 40 ksi
McMaster-Carr Resistivity: 3.99 x10-8 Ω-m

Tensile Strength: 2.5 ksi

Propellant Teflon PTFE [17] Mixed availability. Hardness: Durometer 52D
Purchased from Temp. Range: -213 - 260℃
McMaster-Carr Friction Coefficient: 0.05-0.08

15
A successful PPT design also needed to integrate well with electrical components. The spark
plug selected for the thruster was the NGK 2238. Initial testing with the spark plug showed that it
was unable to ionize the Teflon propellant. As a result, our team switched to using a tesla coil
module and spark wire. The mechanical configuration has been modified by removing the spark
plug from earlier designs and attaching the spark wire near the Teflon surface with electrical
tape. Table 1 summarizes the relevant mechanical properties of the materials used for each major
component of the PPT.

The PPT design used a parallel plate configuration in which Teflon propellant is held between
two electrodes and forced by a spring against a notch in the lower electrode. This configuration
is simpler than a coil-based design, and the spacing can be easily adjusted by switching out the
spacer. A spark plug is held by a stand near the Teflon surface to generate plasma during
operation. The electrodes are separated by a spacer and secured to the structure with bolts. The
supporting structure and spark plug stand are bonded to the bracket mount with an
industrial-strength double-sided tape, which allows for easy adjustment of spark plug spacing
during calibration. Figure 8 shows the final assembly of the PPT. Note that the gap distance is
0.5”, but is easily modifiable by replacing the spacer and teflon with blocks of different
thickness.

Figure 8: PPT assembly with labeled components (top left), front view (top right), top view
(bottom left), and side view (bottom right)

16
All nylon and copper parts required machining and have been designed with manufacturability in
mind. The electrode stock already gives the necessary cross-section for the electrodes, but the
notch was made using a 3-axis mill to bring part of the face down. The nylon stock is also in a
convenient size that requires minimal modification. All stock was cut to the correct size and bolt
holes were made on a drill press. The biggest manufacturing challenge is lining up the bolt holes
and tapping the screw holes in nylon, but these can be mitigated by relying on manufacturing
support from the University’s Aerospace Engineering department.

The parallel electrode configuration is based on similar historical designs and was chosen for its
simplicity, feasibility, and adjustability. Materials have been selected primarily for their structural
and electrical properties, as well as their manufacturability. Overall, we are confident that this
mechanical design is feasible and will perform its intended function.

High Voltage Device Testing

Three different devices underwent extensive high voltage tests: a flyback transformer, a tesla coil
module, and a traditional capacitor bank. Due to the high levels of voltage and current, typical
lab measurement devices cannot be used because they are not rated to withstand such high power
levels. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to accurately capture a measurement of such a
short current pulse without expensive equipment like a Rogowski coil. In order to measure the
voltage produced from each device, we can pass the signal through a voltage divider and then
use a standard voltmeter. A voltage divider is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Voltage divider

Functionally, a voltage divider uses resistors to lower the voltage so that the output voltage is
only a fraction of the input voltage. This allows a voltmeter to measure the output voltage
indirectly without having to take measurements of such large voltages. Voltage dividers are
designed such that the voltage output is given as
𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑅2 (28)
𝑉𝑖𝑛
= 𝑅1+𝑅2
.

Flyback Transformer
A flyback transformer (Figure 10) was considered for high voltage generation due to its low-cost
and compact structure. One has been provided by the Aerospace Department but required testing
since the winding ratio between the primary and secondary coils was not already known. A

17
schematic of the circuit built for testing the flyback transformer with a voltage divider is shown
in Figure 11. With resistors, 𝑅1 = 25 Ω and 𝑅2 = 0. 5MΩ, the voltage output of our voltage
−5
divider is 5 × 10 times the voltage input.

Figure 10: Flyback transformer voltage lines

Figure 11: Flyback transformer test circuit schematic

A 5Vpp square waveform with +2.5 offset was passed through the transformer at varying
frequencies to determine its best frequency operating range. What is effectively a switching
signal was used in particular due to the nature of flyback transformers, which generate voltage
through a field collapse. While current is flowing through the inductor, energy is accumulated in
the magnetic field then when current flow is shut off, energy is released as a voltage pulse. We
expect there to be a resonant frequency because energy storage in the magnetic flux of their core
is modelled as a circuit with capacitance thus making the circuit an LRC, or resonant circuit. An
oscilloscope was connected to read the high voltage output (with voltage divider) as well as the
input voltage from the function generator to monitor the impedance of the circuit, which varies
with frequency. Figure 12 indicates that the optimal frequency is 38kHz.

18
 Figure 12: Flyback transformer output vs. frequency

Figure 13: Flyback transformer voltage output at 38kHz

The voltage output as a function of voltage input at 38kHz shown in Figure 13 was promising.
Although it plateaued for input voltages past 10V, the output voltage reached past 18kV, which
would be substantial for our application. A Global Specialties PB-105 Protoboard MOSFET was
then integrated into the flyback transformer circuit to operate at current levels higher than the
function generator is capable of. The transformer requires rapid switching of the input signal to

19
function properly so a DC power supply alone would not be sufficient. The MOSFET acts as a
high-frequency switch so that the power supply can behave like a function generator. The
integrated MOSFET circuit is depicted in Figure 14, with the function generator settings
unchanged from the previous tests. The power supply used was a Tektronix PS280 DC Power
Supply.

Upon testing with the MOSFET, it was determined that the flyback transformer could not handle
higher current levels because the output voltage remained roughly at 1kV despite varying the
input voltage provided from the power supply. The test circuit displayed in Figure 11 without the
MOSFET was set up to perform a hysteresis test to determine whether the issue was with the
MOSFET or the flyback transformer. The flyback transformer was now outputting maximum
800V, far from the output capabilities shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, thus we concluded it
was an issue with the transformer and not the MOSFET. It should be noted that this irreversible
failure occurred due to increasing input voltage over an extended period of time. Apparent
smoking of the transformer observed in the laboratory at 1.44W power input indicated that
internal arcing may have been the cause of failure.

Figure 14: Flyback transformer circuit with integrated MOSFET

Tesla Coil Module

Next, a Juerly MC105 tesla coil module (Figure 18) was purchased and tested as an alternative to
the flyback transformer. The module is essentially a resonant transformer in that instead of just
transferring energy as ordinary transformers do, energy is stored in a capacitor as well,
effectively creating a tuned circuit. For resonant transformers, the output voltage is practically
independent of the ratio of windings between the primary and secondary coils and instead
depends on the inductance and capacitance between the two coils. This allows for much higher
voltages to be generated [18]. Specifications of the tesla coil were not provided thus some
characterization of its voltage capabilities was necessary. A schematic of the circuitry for a basic
tesla coil is given in Figure 15.

20
Initial testing showed just how high the voltages were that could be generated by the tesla coil
module. The module would arc across the 0.5” electrode gap with an input voltage of just 2.1V
drawn at 0.78A. Figure 16 shows the voltage output characterization of the tesla coil module.
The calibration function for the tesla coil is
𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 669. 00𝑉𝑖𝑛 − 199. 30. (29)

Figure 15: Schematic of a tesla coil circuit

Figure 16: Tesla Coil Voltage Output as a Function of Voltage Input

21
Next, the output wires of the tesla coil module were connected to the electrodes of the PPT while
an NGK 2238 spark plug was placed right at the Teflon surface. The tesla coil module was
powered to just under the discharge voltage, then a spark was discharged from the plug, in an
effort to initiate a discharge across the electrodes. It was concluded that the spark plug could not
produce a large enough spark to initiate a discharge. The tesla coil module was then fired
individually across the Teflon surface to determine if it could release enough energy to ablate the
Teflon surface. Ultimately, the tesla coil module could not ablate the surface despite the high
voltage it produced because it could not drive a high enough current. However, the module could
achieve a discharge gap long as an inch with relative ease. Compared to the NGK 2238 spark
plug that could only achieve a discharge gap of a few millimeters, the tesla coil module would be
much more capable of initiating a discharge across the electrode pair. Thus, the module would be
used in replacement of the NGK 2238 spark plug.

Figure 17: Tesla Coil Module

Capacitor Bank
Finally, the traditional capacitor bank used for high voltage discharge for PPTs was constructed
and tested. Various types of capacitors were considered, ultimately selecting the cheapest option
that would work for our PPT. Eight 1600V, 1.2µF film capacitors (Figure 18) were purchased at
$8.52 each. Although this now limited us to a discharge voltage below 1600V, these capacitors
had the highest voltage rating at an affordable price with a moderate capacitance. Based on past
development, the capacitor bank needs to release at least 5 J of energy per pulse [5]. The energy
stored in a capacitor is given as

𝑈=
1 2
𝐶𝑉 , (30)
2

which is interpreted as the maximum energy that can be released per pulse. In reality, the value
will be lower due to efficiency losses. From Eqn. 30, four capacitors in parallel can produce up
to 6.144 J and eight capacitors in parallel can produce up to 12.288 J. Thus, our operating range
is 6.144 J to 12.288 J per pulse.

Figure 19 provides a schematic of the main discharge capacitor circuit. A Bertan Associates, Inc.
Series 230 High Voltage Power Supply was connected to charge the capacitor bank to the

22
discharge voltage. While the capacitor bank charges and discharges, the voltage is monitored by
an oscilloscope with a 100X voltage divider. The high voltage power supply was also calibrated
using the oscilloscope with 100X voltage divider, and its calibration curve is shown in Appendix
C. A ballast resistor was inserted to prevent current flowing back into the capacitor bank during a
fire.

Figure 18: Mouser Electronics HV Film Capacitor

Figure 19: Main capacitor discharge circuit schematic

Paschen Curve
The Paschen curve displays the relationship between the product of pressure-gap distance and
discharge voltage for gases. The behavior shows that instead of varying monotonically there is an
asymptote in which the discharge voltage spikes, a minimum at a mid range of the pressure gap
product, then an exponential relationship. Discharge voltage as a function of pressure gap
product data through air was recorded at 0.75 cm and 0.30 cm gaps using the tesla coil module.
The tesla coil was used instead of the capacitor bank due to inconsistencies between discharges
of the bank. Figure 20 plots the data on a log-log scale which resembles roughly a Paschen
curve. This shape is attributed to atmospheric changes between discharges as well as the smallest
incremental voltage (0.1V) of the power supply driving the tesla coil being relatively large. For
reference, a 0.1V increase in input voltage corresponds to an increase in output voltage by 669V.
The range of test pressure gap values was limited by the lowest pressure the vacuum could pump

23
down to, 6300 Pa. Data was collected at gap distances of 0.75 cm and 0.3 cm to cover a broader
range.

Figure 20: Paschen Curve of air

Pulsed Plasma Thruster Testing

With a fully integrated pulsed plasma thruster, testing of its performance could be performed.
Particularly, we are interested in making measurements of mass ablation of the teflon propellant
per a fire or collection of fires, and electron number density. Mass ablation has been adopted as a
standard metric for examining how the amount of energy expelled affects PPT performance.
Number density is measured directly with the triple Langmuir probe. We were not able to
measure specific impulse and thrust without having calculated the mass flow rate, which would
have required the velocity profile throughout the duration of a fire. We suggest using a data
acquisition program such as Labview to record this data in real time for future work.

Testing of the PPT was conducted at the Aerospace 405 labspace inside of a general operation
non-clean chamber (GONCC) provided by PEPL. The GONCC contains the thruster and the
triple Langmuir probe, while all of the circuitry sits outside of the chamber and is fed through
with banana plugs as shown in Figure 21. The vacuum chamber is pressurized by a TA350
Kozyvacu vacuum pump capable of pumping down to 0.063 bar, which is the pressure at which
we performed fire tests. Figure 22 provides a schematic of the complete test fire circuitry. Note
that it is essentially the same set up as the main capacitor discharge circuit (Figure 19) with the
addition of the tesla coil spark wire and the triple Langmuir probe circuitry.

24
 Figure 21: Full experimental setup of PPT test fires

Figure 22: Full schematic of test fire circuitry

Mass Ablation
Mass ablation was recorded by measuring the mass of the teflon block with an American
Scientific Products ER-120A Electronic Balance before and after 50 fires for each quantity of
capacitors. We recorded the mass every 50 fires instead of every fire because the setup and
teardown process is time consuming and the mass scale cannot not measure mass differences
smaller than a tenth of a milligram. Our intention was to record mass ablation as a function of
capacitor energy from 6.144 J to 12.288 J by incrementing from four to eight capacitors,
however we could not keep the voltage of the capacitors constant between test fires because the

25
voltage at which the bank would discharge across the electrodes would change significantly.
Between each set of tests, the thruster must be taken out of the GONCC once it is depressurized,
disassembled so that the teflon block can be weighed, reassembled, and put back into the
GONCC which is then pressurized. The plasmadynamics of a system can change remarkably
during this process without a highly controlled environment, that which we did not have with the
GONCC. Thus, we concluded that these large fluctuations in discharge voltage can be attributed
to the surrounding environment affecting the system. It is advised to perform future test fires in
the Aero 305 electrical discharge vacuum facility.

Table 2 details the results from the mass ablation test. The large variation in discharge voltage
between tests is reflected in the capacitor voltage, which then also affects the energy per pulse.
While there is no clear trend between mass ablation and energy per pulse, the specific mass
ablation is close to the range of 1-3 µg/J from past PPTs [1].

Table 2: Comparison of ablated mass at different energy levels

Number of Capacitor Energy per Mass Ablation Specific Mass
Capacitors Voltage (V) Pulse (J) per Pulse (µg) Ablation (µg/J)

4 1141.11 3.13 8 2.56

5 794.95 1.90 3 1.58

6 929.29 3.11 2 0.64

7 1121.21 5.28 14 2.65

8 961.61 4.44 3 0.68

Triple Langmuir Probe

The voltage difference between probes 1 and 3 were recorded using an oscilloscope measuring
peak-peak voltage. The probe was set to 0.125 inches below the centerline of the electrodes due
to PPT arcing across the probes when located at the centerline. After recording the voltage
difference from 10 - 15 shots, the GONCC was depressurized, the triple Langmuir probe was
moved to a different position, and the GONCC was repressurized for the next test. This was
repeated until data was recorded for four predetermined positions relative to the face of the
electrodes, 0.25 in, 0.5 in, 1 in, and 1.5 in. The results are shown in Figures 23 and 24.

26
 Figure 23: Electron Number Density vs Distance From Electrodes

Figure 24: Mean Thermal Electron Speed vs. Distance From Electrodes

Compared to previous research with PPT’s, the electron number densities we were recording
were an order of magnitude different. A similar study conducted at Worcester Polytechnic
Institute [19] saw number densities between 1019 and 1020 m-3 and mean thermal electron speeds
similar to ours. However, Worcester Polytechnic Institute did not vary the probe positions like
we did but we do not expect this to cause a difference in electron number densities more than an
order of magnitude.

27
SUPPORT
In this section, the components of each criterion are analyzed for our pulsed plasma thruster
system. We have determined that our final PPT system meets the affordability and accuracy
criteria completely, but only partially satisfies the effectiveness and reliability criteria.

Support for Effectiveness

The thruster design is considered effective if it can generate plasma and be operated in a safe
manner at a wide variety of pressures. During initial tests, the voltage and current limits for the
flyback transformer and tesla coil were too low to generate the required voltage difference
between the electrodes. As a result, the team switched to using a capacitor to generate the voltage
difference. In terms of spark generation, the NGK 2238 spark plug was too weak to effectively
ablate the Teflon. The team instead successfully repurposed the tesla coil module to generate
larger sparks for capacitor discharge initiation.

The thruster design is also easy to operate and safe if used properly. In preparation for testing,
Teflon needs to be inserted between the electrodes, and wires need to be placed to connect the
electrodes to the circuitry. Additionally, all exposed surfaces of the electrodes (with the exception
of the discharge surfaces forward of the propellant) need to be covered with insulating tape in
order to prevent arcing in undesirable locations. This simple assembly ensures quick set up. In
terms of safety, all high voltage sources are effectively grounded and insulated. The nylon and
teflon effectively isolate the charged electrodes from each other, and spark generation is
controlled by the placement of the tesla coil wire. The vacuum chamber used to test the thruster
effectively replicates an acceptable range of pressures from 0.063 bar to 1.013 bar. However, it is
recommended that future groups consider using other facilities for testing at stronger vacuum
pressures with better control of the environment conditions. The bracket stand used for the
thruster is already compatible with 80/20 fixtures, which are acceptable for use in the PEPL
Laboratory.

In terms of firing the thruster to reliably and consistently generate thrust by accelerating plasma,
the system is only partially effective. Our PPT did successfully fire over several durations,
sufficient for recording mass ablation and triple Langmuir probe data. The specific mass ablation
results were promising in that they fit the range of past PPTs, and that several micrograms were
ablated per pulse. The input variables such as energy per pulse and voltage of the capacitor bank
did not meet the effectiveness criteria because they were not very controllable due to the effects
that the surrounding environment had on the plasmadynamics of the system. Specific impulse
could not be recorded without having information on the mass flow rate, but the electron velocity
could be measured reliably.

Support for Affordability

The total cost of materials for all design iterations must be within our team’s $400 budget. Our
current system is well within the budget, having spent just under $210 on just materials and
$1430 for the machinist and electrical consultant, over the course of all design iterations. The
PPT without circuitry costs just over $78 and just under $260 with all of the circuitry and
material for the test apparatus. The cost of each individual component is shown in Table 3. Using
the knowledge gained from each design iteration, the cost could be reduced down by $50 just by
removing excess materials and unused parts. Since a majority of the parts machined could be

28
done on a 3-axis mill or drill press, there are no time-consuming or costly manufacturing
processes necessary to develop the PPT.

Table 3: Material Costs

Category Item Unit Costs ($) Units Cost ($)
Non-Circuitry PPT
Components
Teflon Block (0.5"x0.5"x12") 20.40/each 1.00 20.40
Copper Sheet (0.25"x0.5"x12") 17.28/each 1.00 17.28
Spring (1" travel, <0.5" OD) 11.42/pack of 12 1.00 11.42
Plastic Bolts (10-32 2") 9.28/pack of 100 1.00 9.28
Easy-Machine Nylon Stock 8.40/each 1.00 8.40
80/20 Compatible Bracket 11.53/each 1.00 11.53
Subtotal 78.31
PPT Circuitry
Spark Plug 3.39 1.00 3.39
Ignition Coil 45.99 1.00 45.99
Tesla Coil Module 8/each 2.00 16.00
HV Capacitors 10.03/each 8.00 80.24

Subtotal 145.62
Test Apparatus
Thoriated Tungsten 20/pack of 5 1.00 20.00
9V Batteries 16/pack of 4 1 16
Total 259.93

Support for Reliability

Reliability of a candidate device was assessed based on whether it can withstand high currents,
and consistency of performance over many uses. All bench equipment such as power supplies
and oscilloscopes have been calibrated and are assumed to be reliable. The set of Langmuir
probes were found to be reliable at measuring all plasma properties except the electron number
density and floating potential due to their high uncertainties. The flyback transformer had
completely failed once attempting to run at higher currents thus it was deemed unreliable. The
tesla coil module was reliable for the spark discharge initiation so long as the module was not
defective itself; some of the modules were defective upon arrival putting the durability and
reliability of the device into question. Fortunately, the module costs $8 and the ones that arrived
functioning properly have not broken since then. The purchased capacitors could withstand the
required voltages and currents during operation.

The individual electrical components were tested and can all withstand operating conditions
reliably, however the PPT system as a whole is not reliable due to its inconsistent fires. For
example, five consecutive fires may each look drastically different in terms of size of plume and

29
intensity of plasma color. Thus, analyzing data to look for trends on performance is somewhat
ineffective.

Support for Accuracy

The triple Langmuir probe is the largest cause of inaccuracies because of the uncertainty in the
measurements. Based on referenced data [11], from a similarly dimensioned Langmuir probe, we
can expect machine measurement uncertainties of 1% for the voltage, probe length, and electron
current, 5% for the probe radius, and 10% for the ion current. The uncertainties for the plasma
properties are 13%, 8%, 54%, 2%, and 20% for the electron temperature, electron number
density, ion number density, probe voltage, and floating potential, respectively. Extraneous
arcing was mitigated effectively with electrical tape to reduce the effect the probe inaccuracies
had on the readings. A similar study conducted at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [19] saw
number densities between 1019 m-3 and 1020 m-3 and mean thermal electron speeds similar to ours,
ranging between 1337 and 2590 km/s and averaging about 1956 km/s. This wide range is due to .
Ultimately, our measured electron number densities (~1018 m-3) were within two orders of
magnitude of that of past PPTs thus we concluded the triple Langmuir probe met the accuracy
criterion.

CONCLUSION
A pulsed plasma thruster was designed, developed, and tested over the course of a semester with
the primary objective of establishing a low-cost platform for electric propulsion plume study.
The following section describes the results, omissions, errors, limitations, and future research of
this project.

Results
The three candidate devices assessed for generating high voltages were the flyback transformer,
tesla coil module, and capacitor bank. We had hoped that the flyback transformer would be a
viable option because of how cheap and compact it is, however it could not withstand higher
currents. Thus, the flyback transformer was determined to be neither effective nor reliable. The
tesla coil module could produce arcs with ease at only $8 a piece however, this device too could
not draw high enough currents to ablate Teflon. It was concluded that the tesla coil module
would not be effective for generating the main discharge, but would be feasible for the discharge
initiation spark. Some of the modules purchased were defective and clearly damaged upon
arrival thus they are not as reliable as the other candidates. Finally, the traditional capacitor bank
was affordable by costing us $8.52 for each capacitor, ultimately purchasing eight of them. The
capacitor bank did limit us to a discharge voltage below 1600V however, it was still effective in
generating the required voltage difference between electrodes.

Based on our team’s findings, we do not propose this design to be used for future research on
plume characterization due to only partially satisfying our effectiveness and reliability criteria.
We do, however, recommend that our design be used as a baseline for further design
optimizations using analytical models and constructing a complete simulation model of the
thruster. We also believe our data inconsistencies could be due to our weak vacuum conditions.
We recommend for further testing to be conducted in a different facility with stronger vacuum
conditions, such as the Aerospace 305 electrical discharge vacuum facility. In addition, we would
also propose automating the initiation and main discharge circuits to make the thruster more

30
efficient and safer. We believe our project will provide valuable input for future projects on this
technology but do recommend these modifications before moving onto plume characterization.

Omissions
The primary omission of our theoretical model is of gas-dynamic forces acting on the plasma.
Although a method for accounting for these forces was outlined in Misra, it required an
understanding of the mass flow, which we were unable to develop. The omission of a mass flow
model is itself a significant omission, as propellant usage is a significant part of propulsion
modeling.

Perhaps the most significant omission was the treating of the thruster fire as a steady state, rather
than analyzing the profile at different points in time during the burn. We lacked the capability to
read in data from the Langmuir probes at the time scale of a thruster discharge, i.e.
microseconds. As a result, our tests focused on characterizing the plume at different locations,
rather than over time.

Inconsistent thruster performance also limited the number of tests were able to perform. We did
not characterize the plume at different heights or offsets from the electrode gap, instead only
forming a one dimensional model at different distances from the electrode face

Errors
The theoretical model and experimental data of the flyback transformer are shown below. The
average deviation of experimental from theoretical values is 0.93 kV. The experimental values
were gathered through three tests. While the values from the first and second tests are
indistinguishable (the data points overlap on the plot), the third test resulted in voltages that are
much higher than the others, which suggests a systematic error source.

Figure 25: Experimental values and theoretical model of the Flyback Transformer

The mass flux calculated from our mass ablation tests yielded a mass flux on the order of 10-5
kg/(m2s). This is several orders of magnitude lower than the value used in our simulation, on the
order of 10 kg/(m2s). This error likely lies in the simulation, as the value used was a broad
estimation for PPTs, while our thruster is on the low energy end of the spectrum of PPTs. Also,
the theoretical value did not take into account inefficiencies, while our thruster certainly suffered
from inefficiencies in mass ablation.

31
The electron number density also sees significant variation between the theoretical model and
experimental data. From our langmuir probe data, we calculated electron number densities on the
order of 1018, while our model predicted values on the order of 1025 and 1026. This deviation may
be a result of inefficiencies in ionization in our thruster that were not accounted for in the
theoretical model - the lower rate of ionization resulting in fewer electrons - or it may be a result
of the deviations in mass flux. Electron number density is proportional to the square of the mass
flux, meaning a lower mass flux will result in a lower electron density. This trend was roughly
born out in the difference between the theoretical model (which estimated a high mass flux value
and calculated a high electron density) and the data (which measured a lower mass flux and a
lower electron density).

Limitations
Given a materials budget of just $400, we were limited to only spending it on raw materials for
manufacturing and not on professional engineering products. For example, we initially
considered purchasing a Langmuir probe from a local company, Hiden Analytical, but quickly
had to scratch the plan once we discovered the initial quote for their product was $20,000.
Instead, we built Langmuir probes in-house which added considerable time before we were able
to test with plasma plumes. The financial limitation was exacerbated by the abandonment of the
spark plug as the source of the ablation energy. Because the spark plug and ignition coil were
already purchased, we were forced to develop an alternative at a reduced budget. Nevertheless,
this project can still be successfully implemented with the $400 material budget.

Although a much-appreciated donation from PEPL, our vacuum chamber volume is quite small
in size which hinders our ability to measure many properties at once. We will also not be able to
test our pulsed plasma thruster in true space conditions, but our vacuum can achieve a medium
vacuum of 6.66 Pa in room temperature surroundings. Since absolute vacuum conditions will not
be achieved, we will study the variance in discharge voltage as a function of pressure so that we
can extrapolate data to approximate discharge voltage in an absolute vacuum.

Because the vacuum used by our group was weak, outgassing of materials was not a major
concern. If this design is used in stronger vacuum environments, the adhesives used to secure the
nylon supports to the bracket stand will likely need to be replaced by metal screws or a
vacuum-compatible adhesive. Additionally, nylon plastic is known to have poor outgassing
properties in vacuums [20], so it is recommended that future research groups switch to Teflon
PTFE for all electrically insulating structural components.

Future Research
Plasmadynamics is an advanced field of study that our team of student engineers has only just
been exposed to, so our knowledge is quite limited compared to other aerospace subjects such as
fluid dynamics. Given more time and technical knowledge, our team would spend more time
optimizing the design with analytical models. We would also consider constructing a complete
simulation model of the thruster via MATLAB so that knowledge can be gained without having
to physically fire the testing apparatus each time.

Future design iterations of the thruster would modify past designs based on empirical and
simulation data to achieve a more efficient thruster, but other modifications could be made to the

32
thruster and surrounding instrumentation to improve the tests themselves. The ability to automate
the application of voltage to the initiation and main discharge circuits and a mechanism to
quickly adjust the gap distance would allow tests to be conducted more quickly. Testing the PPT
in the Aerospace 305 electric discharge vacuum facility, or some other vacuum chamber more
advanced than the GONCC, would improve the reliability of the tests, as it gives us greater
control of the testing environment. It would be worthwhile to set up LabVIEW or other virtual
instrumentation to record live data, which would give us a time profile of the thruster’s
characteristics.

With an improved test setup and more time, additional tests can be conducted on the thruster.
Future research could compare the parallel plate configuration against a concentric coil design,
measure the plume divergence angle, or vary the electrode gap and pressure of the surroundings.
All of these additional tests would contribute to a more thorough understanding of PPT
operations.

MANAGEMENT PLAN
Setting a feasible project budget and timeline was critical to the team's success. At regular
intervals during the project timeline, we conducted reviews and briefings with advisors to
maintain an updated status for both the budget and schedule. We also met every week for
individual updates and to set objectives for the next week. The entire project was completed
under budget and within the allowable timespan.

Budget
The budget for this project, as with most engineering projects, is a significant design driver. The
cost breakdown for all resources required for this project is shown below in Table 4. We had a
number of parts and materials donated for use in our project and there, can be excluded from the
project’s material budget. The vacuum chamber and pump were donated by Professor Jorns, but
the thoriated tungsten rods were donated by Terry Larrow. The team purchased 11 different items
using the allotted materials budget, accounting for a total materials expenditure of $339.93 which
is well within the materials budget. The copper cathode/anode, nylon stock, and Teflon block
was manufactured by a professional machinist within the aerospace department; his labor cost is
included in the budget but is not considered in the team's materials budget of $400. The single
largest contributor to the cost is the 417 total hours of labor expended by the five engineers
working on this project.

A total of 417 hours of labor at a standard rate of $40/hr for a labor cost of $16,680. Also
included in the final budget are a 50% overhead cost and an additional 10% for contingency
costs, such as increased labor requirements or replacement parts. The total materials cost is
expected to remain within the provided $400 budget. Comparing the initial, estimated budget to
the final budget, we can see a significant decrease in overall cost despite the fact that multiple
expenditures not included in the proposed budget were incurred throughout the course of the
project. Multiple materials were not initially considered in the preliminary budget, however, the
overestimation in the cost of some materials covered the extra expenditures. Another significant
contribution was the 6 hours of work by a professional machinist to manufacture the
cathode/anode, nylon stock, and Teflon block, requiring another $180 in labor costs. However,
the final budget was $18,634.18, a 45% lower cost than the initial cost estimation despite the

33
aforementioned additional costs. This substantial decrease can be attributed to the overestimated
hours projected for an Aerospace Engineer and substantial projected overhead. Factoring in the
elimination of the 10% contingency cost and 55% overhead means that the final cost was
$18,634.18, lower than anticipated.

Table 4: Full Budget

Category Item Unit Costs ($) Units Cost ($)
Labor Aerospace Engineer 40/hr 417.00 16680.00
Electrical Consultant - Aaron
Borgman 50/hr 25.00 1250.00
Machinist Consultant - Terry
Larrow 30/hr 6.00 180.00
Subtotal 33,430.00
Materials Teflon Block (0.5"x0.5"x12") 20.40/each 1.00 20.40
Copper Sheet (0.25"x0.5"x12") 17.28/each 1.00 17.28
Spring (1" travel, <0.5" OD) 11.42/pack of 12 1.00 11.42
Plastic Bolts (10-32 2") 9.28/pack of 100 1.00 9.28
Easy-Machine Nylon Stock 8.40/each 1.00 8.40
80/20 Compatible Bracket 11.53/each 1.00 11.53
Spark Plug 3.39 1.00 3.39
Ignition Coil 45.99 1.00 45.99
Miscellaneous Electronics 100.00
Tesla Coil Module 8/each 2.00 16.00
HV Capacitors 10.03/each 8.00 80.24

Triple Langmuir Probe Thoriated Tungsten 20/pack of 5 1 20.00

9V Batteries 16/pack of 4 1 16
Subtotal 343.93
Grand Total 18,634.18
Proposal Budget Total 55,972.22
Budget Surplus 37,338.04

Scheduling
Due to the difficulties of learning to build a PPT, we designed our project schedule so that there
was ample time to resolve any manufacturing/design issues. These issues included
misunderstanding the use of the spark plug in the PPT and the development of the triple
Langmuir probes. Although these issues caused delays in our work, the team was able to remain
on schedule. Included below in Figure 26 is the final schedule breakdown for the project

34
including the initial investigation (Phase I) and the Proposal, but focused on the main project
development period (Phase II).

From the schedule, it can be noted that the Phase II build phase and testing stage both suffered
delays from the beginning due to the manufacturing/design issues. Despite these delays, the team
was able to gradually catch up. It is important to note that all report and presentation drafting and
editing, as well as the manufacturing of the PPT, were completed either on or ahead of schedule.
This shows that the team continued to make progress on the aspects of the project that did not
require the spark plug or triple Langmuir probe.

Figure 26: Project Timeline

35
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Johnson, I., “The Development of a Pulsed Plasma Thruster as a Solid Fuel Source for a High
Power Helicon,” University of Washington, 2011

[2] “Pulsed Plasma Thrusters,” NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland OH, retrieved 4 Feb
2021.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs23grc.html

[3] “In Depth | Zond 2” NASA Science, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA, published
online 27 Feb 2019.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/zond-2/in-depth/

[4] Kramer, H.J., “EO-1 (Earth Observing 1),” eoPortal Directory, published 2002.
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/e/eo-1

[5] Cassady, R., Rayburn, C., Hoskins, W., “A micro pulsed plasma thruster (PPT) for the
Dawgstar spacecraft,” IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, Feb. 2000.

[6] Keidar, M., et al., “On the model of Teflon ablation in an ablation-controlled discharge,”
Journal of Physics, 2001
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/34/11/318/pdf

[7] Misra, K., “Mathematical Modeling of Liquid-fed Pulsed Plasma Thruster,” Manipal Institute
of Technology, Manipal, India
https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/5/1/13

[8] Burnett, R., “Richie’s Tesla Coil Webpage,” richieburnett.co.uk, Accessed 20 April 2021

[9] Richardson, A.S., “NRL Plasma Formulary,” Naval Research Laboratory, Washington DC,
2019
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/News-Media/Publications/NRL-Plasma-Formulary/

[10] Anand, V., Nair, A., Gowravaram, M. R., “Estimating the number density and energy
distribution of electrons in a cold atmospheric plasma using optical emission spectroscopy,”
Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology, A 36, 2018
https://avs.scitation.org/doi/10.1116/1.5023107#:~:text=This%20analysis%20estimated%20the%
20value,approximated%20using%20a%20Maxwellian%20distribution

[11] Naz, Muhammad, et al., “Double and Triple Langmuir Probes Measurements in Inductively
Coupled Nitrogen Plasma”. Progress In Electromagnetics Research, 2011. 114. 113-128.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273337393_Double_and_Triple_Langmuir_Probes_Me
asurements_in_Inductively_Coupled_Nitrogen_Plasma

[12] Robert B. Lobbia and Brian E. Beal,“Recommended Practice for Use of Langmuir Probes in
Electric Propulsion Testing,” Journal Of Propulsion And Power, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B35531

36
[13] “Super Conductive 101 Copper Bar” McMaster-Carr Accessed Mar. 6th 2021
https://www.mcmaster.com/3350K211/

[14] “Overview of Materials for Nylon 6, Cast” MatWeb Accessed Mar. 6th 2021
http://matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=8d78f3cfcb6f49d595896ce6ce6a2ef1&ckc
k=1

[15] “MDS Filled Cast Nylon Bar” McMaster-Carr Accessed Mar. 6th 2021
https://www.mcmaster.com/2882K21/

[16] “Aluminum 6061-T6” MatWeb Accessed Mar. 6th 2021

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=b8d536e0b9b54bd7b69e4124d8f1d
20a&ckck=1

[17] "Bar Made from Teflon PTFE," McMaster-Carr Accessed Mar. 30th 2021
https://www.mcmaster.com/8735K36/

[18] “What is a Tesla Coil,” Stoneridge Engineering, Accessed Mar. 31 2021

http://www.capturedlightning.com/frames/whatis.html#:~:text=A%20Tesla%20Coil%20is%20a,
air%2Dcore%20resonant%20transformer%22.&text=Unlike%20low%20frequency%20power%
20transformers,links%20with%20the%20secondary%20winding

[19] Zwahlen, Jurg C., "Investigation of a Pulsed Plasma Thruster Plume Using a Quadruple
Langmuir Probe Technique" (2003). Masters Theses (All Theses, All Years). 33.
https://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/etd-theses/33

[20] "Plastics in Vacuum Applications" Meyer Tool & MFG, Published Aug. 27, 2010.
https://www.mtm-inc.com/av-20100827-plastics-in-vacuum-applications.html

37
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Flyback transformer plots code

38
39
40
41
Appendix B: Paschen curve plots code

42
43
44
45
46
 Appendix C: High voltage power supply calibration curve

Appendix D: Thruster Theoretical Model Code

% Physical Constants
m_e = 9.9109383*10^(-31); % (kg) mass of electron
e = 1.602176*10^(-19); % (C) electron charge

e0 = 8.854187*10^(-12); % F/m vacuum electric permittivity

k = 1.38*10^(-23); %Boltzman constant
mu0 = 1.2566*10^-6;

% Teflon Experimental Constants from Keidar et. al

P_c = 1.84*10^20; % (Pa)
T_c = 20815; % (K)

%Experimental Constants
d = .0127; %(m) electrode gap = 1/2"

w = .0127; % electrode width

L = .0254; %(m) electrode length
thick = .0127/2; %electrode thickness = 1/4"

A = thick*w;
S = d*w; %m^2 electrode surface area

Gap_area = d^2;

% Input variables
V_in = (10:.1:20)*1000; %(V) input voltage range specified in proposal

47
T_s = 625; %(K) Surface Temperature, estimate given in Keidar
T_e = 29000; % Electron temperature. Also Keidar.
n_e = 10^24; % approx. electron density from Keidar and other sources
Debye_Length = sqrt(e0*k*T_e/(n_e*e^2))

%% Spitzer Resistivity
Z = 1; % Assumption
ln_Delta = 10; %Assumption based on NRL Plasma Formulary
p_Spitz = 4*sqrt(2*pi)/3*Z*e^2*m_e^(1/2)*ln_Delta/((4*pi*e0)^2*(k*T_e)^(3/2));

% Derived Electrical Info

R_plasma = p_Spitz*d/(Debye_Length*d);
Va = V_in; %(V) anode voltage
Ia_Spitz = Va/R_plasma %(A) anode current

%% Child-Langmuir Law
m_m = 1.66*10^(-25); %(kg) mass of teflon monomer
Ia_CL = S*4/9*e0*sqrt(2*e/m_e)*Va.^(3/2)/d^2

%% Energy Into Plasma

deltaT = 20*10^-6;

E_Spitz = Ia_Spitz.*V_in*deltaT;

E_CL = Ia_CL.*V_in*deltaT;

figure(1)

plot(V_in/1000,E_Spitz, 'LineWidth',3)
xlabel("Input Voltage [kV]",'FontSize', 24)
ylabel("Energy [J]",'FontSize', 24)
set(gca, 'FontSize', 18,'fontname','times')
figure(2)

plot(V_in/1000,E_CL, 'LineWidth',3)
set(gca, 'FontSize', 18,'fontname','times')
xlabel("Input Voltage [kV]", 'FontSize', 18)
ylabel("Energy [J]", 'FontSize', 18)

48
%% Mass Flux

P_surface = P_c*exp(-T_c/T_s); % Vapor pressure of the teflon

m_m = 1.66*10^(-25); %(kg) mass of teflon monomer
m_flux = P_surface/(sqrt(2*pi*m_m*k*T_s)) %mass flux (kg/(s*m^2))

m_flux = [24;10^-5;10^-3]; %From Keidar

m_dot = m_flux*Gap_area %(kg/s) mass from teflon ablation

particle_flux = m_dot/m_m;
charge_flux = particle_flux*e; % = current parallel to eletrodes (C/s = A)

%% Lorentz Force
Inductance = mu0*d/w; %Inductance per unit length. From
http://www.nessengr.com/techdata/inductance/induc.html

F_Lorentz_Spitz = .5*Inductance*Ia_Spitz.^2
F_Lorentz_CL = .5*Inductance*Ia_CL.^2 % From Kaartikey Misra

plot(V_in/1000,F_Lorentz_Spitz, 'LineWidth',3)
xlabel("Input Voltage [kV]",'FontSize', 24)
ylabel("Thrust [N]",'FontSize', 24)
set(gca, 'FontSize', 18,'fontname','times')

figure()

49
plot(V_in/1000,F_Lorentz_CL,'LineWidth',3)
xlabel("Input Voltage [kV]",'FontSize', 24)
ylabel("Thrust [N]",'FontSize', 24)
set(gca, 'FontSize', 18,'fontname','times')

%% Further Propulsion Analysis

m_dot/m_m
v_e_CL = F_Lorentz_CL./m_dot;
n_CL = particle_flux./v_e_CL% electron number density = teflon monomer density

v_e_Spitz = F_Lorentz_Spitz./m_dot;
n_Spitz = particle_flux./v_e_Spitz% electron number density = teflon monomer
density

plot(V_in/1000,log10(n_Spitz),'LineWidth',3)
xlabel("Input Voltage [kV]",'FontSize', 24)
ylabel("Electron Density [n/m^3]",'FontSize', 24)
set(gca, 'FontSize', 18,'fontname','times')
legend("Mflux = 24","Mflux = 10^-5")

figure()
plot(V_in/1000,log10(n_CL),'LineWidth',3)
xlabel("Input Voltage [kV]")
ylabel("Electron Density [n/m^3]",'FontSize', 24)
set(gca, 'FontSize', 18,'fontname','times')

50
 Appendix E: Langmuir Probe Plot Code
x = [0.25,0.5,1,1.5];
ne = [6.24,6.52,7.46,6.34];
Ve = [1810.464384,1733.077453,1515.240061,1782.127361];

figure()
scatter(x,ne,40,'filled')
xticks(0.25:0.25:2)
ylim([0 8]);
xlim([0 2]);
xlabel("Distance From Electrode Face [in]")
ylabel("Electron Number Density [*10^{18} m^{-3}]")
box on;
set(gca, 'FontSize', 16,'fontname','times')

figure()
scatter(x,Ve,40,'filled')
xticks(0.25:0.25:2)
ylim([0 2000]);
xlim([0 2]);
xlabel("Distance From Electrode Face [in]")
ylabel("Mean Thermal Electron Speed [km/s]")
box on;
set(gca, 'FontSize', 16,'fontname','times')

51
52