Well which unit do we build.The john or bob popper?
One has some flash electronics and frequencies,while the other just seems to discharge a large current into the cylinder useing caps and good old mechanical relay's.
There is only one way to find out if its legit-and that is to build the darn thing.
IMHO, I believe that the charging of the large capacitors will take too much time to be practical for a an engine requiring repetitive discharges. The charge time is 'dead time', and the relay delay is dead time as well. Lets suppose that the cap can be charged in 20ms or so. An engine running 1800 RPM (30 RPS), requires 33.3ms per rev. The 20ms plus dead time becomes a very significant problem for the controller designer, especially when you consider factoring in a speed dependent spark advance curve, a throttle demand signal, etc.
The original engines demonstrated used the cap discharge method - don't get me wrong - it can be done. I would just like to think that there is a better way to do it now, with more precise timing, and we should look to John's work for those answers.
The HV coils also have a charge time or dead time to deal with. For the stock Ford (2 wire) coils, the current can be seen to saturating above 4ms. The controller I am presently working on takes into account for a 3.5ms charge time, and allows for a speed dependent, user defined, advance curve.
I will be releasing a schematic for my controller as well as the .asm files to program the microprocessors as soon as I can get it all in a presentable format.
The video posted earlier in this thread titled: "Part_II__Inteligentry_open_sourcing_Noble_Gas_Engine_core_design.flv" explains how the cylinder coil, the reaction chamber coil, and the RF, all come together to excite the gas mixture that is then ignited by the four HV coils. The the durations, advance, and amplitudes of the various inputs go toward changing the speed of the engine.