NOTE:  This is a bit of a rushed response as I don't want to lose the idea that came to mind reading the above posts.

What if the expansion is exothermic and the collapse (gas clustering) is endothermic--zero sum temperature change?

Can we characterize gas clustering as an endothermic reaction?  If we can, than these wildly high temperatures could potentially be cancelled out and the overall engine operation would not produce an excess of heat.  Now suppose we were not able to get the gas to fully cluster back to its original state.  Would we not end up with a thermal excess potentially destroying the engine?  I recall one of Papp's early demonstration engines did just that.  Someone unplugged the device from the wall correct, against Papp's better judgement.  (I suspect Papp was using this as a current sink, not a current source).  So if we have some idea of how this thing is working, can we assume the portion of the device plugged into the wall was responsible for the endothermic gas clustering mechanism?  Wouldn't that be the big coils around the cylinder?  How do they extract the excess energy needed to promote gas clustering?  Would that mean gas clustering can be controlled electromagnetically?

Sorry there are more questions here than answers.  Please pick them apart and lets see if there isn't something to it all.  Based on K.C.'s computations, there must be another side to it--a balanced equation.  To get usable energy out of this device, we must be able to adjust the power generation equation and gas clustering equation in such a way to have a controlled net result.

Something Tom Bearden always stresses is asymmetry.  Any device extracting useful energy out of the vacuum must create unbalanced conditions.  What I'm getting at is if you don't stop the return of energy back to the vacuum, its natural tendency is to take all of it back--symmetry, zero sum, no net energy left over.  So in the case of the Papp engine, I suspect we DO NOT ALLOW the gas clustering to return all the way back to its initial state.  Which makes sense that over some time span, the fuel mix would need to be evacuated and recharged with freshly conditioned and calibrated noble gases.

And as always, once the concepts are fully understood, building a device to emulate those concepts should in theory be trivial.

Quote from Dog-One on April 19th, 2013, 11:49 AM

NOTE:  This is a bit of a rushed response as I don't want to lose the idea that came to mind reading the above posts.

What if the expansion is exothermic and the collapse (gas clustering) is endothermic--zero sum temperature change?

Yes!  Same is true for the example where liquid water at 212F makes a change of state to water vapor at 212F, add heat for the expansion, remove the heat to put it back.  The water liquid/vapor cycle is reversible.  

I believe a similar statement can be made about the gas clusters, although I hesitate to use the term 'heat', hence my use of 'energy of clusterization' (clusterization not a word (yet)) - also reversible, and at a lower energy/penalty than vaporization, because we are dealing with something that is technically still a gas, not a liquid.

Quote

Can we characterize gas clustering as an endothermic reaction?  If we can, than these wildly high temperatures could potentially be cancelled out and the overall engine operation would not produce an excess of heat.

We no longer need the wild temperatures to expand a gas, we are getting expansion from a change of state at a constant (or substantially constant) temperature.

Quote

Now suppose we were not able to get the gas to fully cluster back to its original state.  Would we not end up with a thermal excess potentially destroying the engine?  I recall one of Papp's early demonstration engines did just that.  Someone unplugged the device from the wall correct, against Papp's better judgement.  (I suspect Papp was using this as a current sink, not a current source).  So if we have some idea of how this thing is working, can we assume the portion of the device plugged into the wall was responsible for the endothermic gas clustering mechanism?  Wouldn't that be the big coils around the cylinder?  How do they extract the excess energy needed to promote gas clustering?  Would that mean gas clustering can be controlled electromagnetically?

Sorry there are more questions here than answers.  Please pick them apart and lets see if there isn't something to it all.  Based on K.C.'s computations, there must be another side to it--a balanced equation.  To get usable energy out of this device, we must be able to adjust the power generation equation and gas clustering equation in such a way to have a controlled net result.

Something Tom Bearden always stresses is asymmetry.  Any device extracting useful energy out of the vacuum must create unbalanced conditions.  What I'm getting at is if you don't stop the return of energy back to the vacuum, its natural tendency is to take all of it back--symmetry, zero sum, no net energy left over.  So in the case of the Papp engine, I suspect we DO NOT ALLOW the gas clustering to return all the way back to its initial state.  Which makes sense that over some time span, the fuel mix would need to be evacuated and recharged with freshly conditioned and calibrated noble gases.

And as always, once the concepts are fully understood, building a device to emulate those concepts should in theory be trivial.

I can't comment much on the engine explosion, except that possibly the gas clusters are very large, and only a small amount of the cluster is 'vaporized' and put back for each cycle.  That would be the normal/stable operation.  Over-vaporize the clusters, and things may get very unstable very quickly.  Pure speculation...

I'm not sure about the rest of your statements, but I may see your point?  I have more thinking to do...

kcd

Quote

KCD: "but we need to make the clusters first."

For making clustered gas.
We need a small glass tube, maybe with a wax seal (a smaller cylindrical cork then the opening and using candle wax to close it of, whilst it still can move inside a little when the clustering vacuums the tube a little)

(n.b. even simpler, just use a syringe itself...)


Put it on a balancing contraption, to see if the weight alters.

Then threat the tube to the experiments.
-magnetism (try something like the dr.dr. anomaly)
-electrical fields (put a positive field around the tube, so it will loose and give of its electrons)

Share the results here and we will figure out how to change improve the experiments if needed.

How can we know we made clusters? -The weight goes up*, the cork sucks in.         (* more air on top? no...is same outside pressure..we have to do it with disaplacement of body of water, like how % gold was measured by archimedis)

How can we test if clustered gas is more powerful? Take a seringe and put the mix in a popper (a popper that is tested with the same gas before treatment, and is a popper where we can read of the power by some means)

If its not more powerful, then clusters aren't the real (or only) answer.

So its a doable test.
-----------------------------------------

Quote

Dog1:
if you don't stop the return of energy back to the vacuum, its natural tendency is to take all of it back--symmetry, zero sum, no net energy left over.

What if the expansion is exothermic and the collapse (gas clustering) is endothermic--zero sum temperature change?

Mostly it takes it all back by friction, heat etc. And then also wants to go to more entropy, brake down the structures  into lose compounds.
Its like the vacuum is the bank and it will only chip in if there's no other option. But sure it will get it back from energy-taxpayers from other parts of the universe?
Must have some robbery insurance for us to get some more out of it.

Even if i also think that the expansion is exo- and the contraction is endotherm. I can't believe there are significant temperatures involved. Temperature is radiant, how could the plasma keep it inside? And as the down stroke is much more powerful then the upstroke...etc. If it was a hot plasma, it could never hide it.

And Papp also always checked for temperature rising, if it was it said "big trouble!"

Si i think, when temperature comes into play the pappreaction is on its way to de-rail

And i'm sure it can de-rail in more then one way.

Inside the cluster theory i see the gas going to plasma as a logic result of the reordering of the bombarded gas clusters, which have a temporary lack in shielding (and thus radiation comes lose, but not the core stuff like with real radioactive materials) and show this imbalance with the bright light and EMP

So in my mind we could also popper a gas that has no clusters..to see if the opposite is also true. It should not pop well.

Anyhow, this is all within our reach to find out ourselves.

And i even trust this road that much that i have a tendency to shut up about it as to not give away the advantage

I have been thinking about Clustering and Cluster testing. Not sure I believe in the RF preparation approach, I'm more of the vacuum approach as the Semiconductor industry uses this daily in their etch and deposition machinery. Still all avenues need to be tested. Weighing the gas may be very difficult so an easier way may be looking at the pressure. Below is a possible way to evaluate the clustering.

 Cluster testing by pressure.
1) Container
         Pressure gauge
         Spark generator
         Vacuum Pump
         Syringe Injection Port
         Ground pin (isolated)

Vacuum the container down as far as possible,
inject Argon into the container (pre-cluster formed if possible)
Spark the container once
Watch the pressure gauge to see how far the pressure goes up

Very small amounts of gas other wise it will explode. If there is a significant drop and it stabilizes, then Pop it again and see where the second pressure returns to.

May want to add a ground point that is disconnected and after the pop, touch it to ground and see if the pressure drops. This will test if a discharge is required to recluster.

To assist the clustering try packing the chamber and gas in ice to cool it down.

By watching the pressure it may be much easier to monitor the clustering results.

I hope this make sense to everyone.

I'm wondering what to do with side-info

like:

http://www.chemistry.org.il/booklet/18/pdf/gerber.pdf

There seems to be no good place for it. And do we need a academic info bank or just links. And do we need a central place for them or just put them where they have a little relationship?

(maybe also a question for the roundtable forum)
===============================

I believe the pressure of a clustered gas to be the same as a non-clustered. I believe it takes more power to further pressurize a clustered gas then a non clustered gas.

I think the RF can have a vibrational effect, which can be useful or destructive in the forming of clusters. (see also gerber.pdf above)

When using a pressure gauge in a popper, it seems that they blow up, so Bob always turns the valve to them off when popping.

When u vacuum the chamber, there's always residual air, it is a good thing to extra flush the chamber with the mix in use, especially when using lighter or heavier gas. (bring the exit point lower or higher)

The clustering we want is different then a pressurized gas. Within a pressurized gas there still is the force outwards, not with a clustered gas. (see the flascs Papp used at the canon) (and see the chamber pressure after a pop, still 15 psi)

Also we don't want the temperature factor, that will slow down the browns movement of the gas and the heat/cold exchange will scramble the results in a not yet clear way.

So making clusters without temperature and without pressure is what i think is needed here.**

Quote

BobN
May want to add a ground point that is disconnected and after the pop, touch it to ground and see if the pressure drops. This will test if a discharge is required to recluster.

This side of your test suggestion i agree with, there must be some link to the electrons playing along.

Sorry if i sound snooty, but i'm afraid of loosing track with this new theory, so i have to be strict/precise.

More thoughts about weighing the clustered gas.

Use two syringes (plugged shut) on a balance. Balance them out, even with a little extra weight on one side.

Do the experiments on 1 of the syringes. If the gas shrinks, the syringe will get sucked in a bit. Look at where the syringe points at and push some gas out of syringe 2 to the same measure point.

Now you will see the imbalance and see the shrunken gas is heavier per portion.

===============

What may we use to shrink the gas?
-electric fields, especially the one's that will suck out electrons from the gas.
-magnetic fields, not sure yet which type, and vibrating or not.
-RF fields, not sure how
-microwave, not sure how
-gravitation? centrifuge? maybe not as it acts like pressure.
-light? yes, well the popp reaction gives of light, maybe it can be used the other way round.

I think the entrance towards clustering is depriving the mix of electrons. That helps the natural tendency to reorder into more electron efficient groups..i.e. clusters.

On the power side of the clustering theory.

As we see that a rock will crack when water gets in and freezes up. We see how much power is involved in that process.

Normally we use electricity in an indirect way, we change it into magnetics and with that turn an electric engine, drill etc.

I suppose that in the pappmix, electricity is used as the mechanical force. Only in a more direct and sufficient way. As the clustered gas cloud is deprived of electrons, it attracks the electronflow of the capdischarge. So that can dig in deeply and cause big mayhem.

The force that works on the piston is like the upside down of the ice cracking the rock.

The cracked clusters take more space up individually. That a lot of them are out of sinc, have a lack of electrons in the right orbits, makes that the plasma and the light are formed. (compare it with a nuclear reaction where two reactive substances brought together give of a flash of light while they react to each other violently)

We can also look at the fourth state of matter as a possibility, or the new state of matter as Keshe found.

Its not a strange thing that the clusters react violently under the bombardment with electricity, its more strange how the state returns back to clustering.

And because this is so strange i also suspect the plasmalike reaction to have something to do with it.

Normally one could think that the plasma repairs and brings the gas back into their normal not clustered particles. Then we would see that the piston stays where it stopped at bdc.

On FB i read that Simon Derricutt says the declustering of the mix is driven by Electro Magnetic radiation, per papp-stroke some 4Kjoules of it.

I was thinking that the clusters are bombarded with electrons, brake up and due to becoming unstable radiate light and EMP outwards.

 

 SO Papp engine has so little gas how it can create pressure could not possibly but it works and it is no heated how is that possible

only one way----if we create a vacuum in the cylinder example  -2.5bar put some gas now we have -2bar Now we heat with a spark the small amount of gas and nullifies -2bar when the piston goes down,when going up we have work -2bar And we have equilibrium With a small amount of input energy Without heat because of the small amount of gas And the energy lies in the maximum stresses gas particle that is, PLASMA
PLASMA THRUST Is the strongest when he has the biggest difference LIKE IN THE UNIVERSE
Well tell that I'm wrong  
RIS POWER

Ris,

I see that you like to do the math - I believe that doing the math is essential to figuring out what the process can and cannot be.  Have you had a look at

this??  ----> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=3211

and then read this post...

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1020&pid=14593#pid14593

kcd

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 07:49 AM

Ris,

I see that you like to do the math - I believe that doing the math is essential to figuring out what the process can and cannot be.  Have you had a look at

this??  ----> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=3211

and then read this post...

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1020&pid=14593#pid14593

kcd

Data from Table So should be for a normal ENGINE Am I right
I can not feel through words When someone jokingly OR IS SERIOUS Therefore, YOU have to say exactly what you mean This is not my national language
So what did you think Am I right or not

Quote from Ris on April 26th, 2013, 09:07 AM

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 07:49 AM

Ris,

I see that you like to do the math - I believe that doing the math is essential to figuring out what the process can and cannot be.  Have you had a look at

this??  ----> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=3211

and then read this post...

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1020&pid=14593#pid14593

kcd

Data from Table So should be for a normal ENGINE Am I right
I can not feel through words When someone jokingly OR IS SERIOUS Therefore, YOU have to say exactly what you mean This is not my national language
So what did you think Am I right or not

Ris, you are correct, the excel sheet does need some explaining:  The excel sheet calculations use a single (not multiple) 'combustion' event and the Papp engine dimensions (2 cylinders: bore = 3", stroke = 4.25", head (dead) space volume 9.8 sq in), a 1 atm 'pre-combustion' pressure, a 135-out-of-180-degrees-crank-rotation expansion, and a polytropic index of 1.4.

To explore what an engine can do, the user can adjust the Pressure (p) (cell B6) and see the resultant horsepower and torque for that pressure at the given rpm.

The Papp engine was certified to produce 776 ft# torque at 726 rpm = 107 hp, therefore, when the pressure is set to 2820 psia, we can see the hp numbers come up to the value of 107 hp.

What this helps to shows is, that for a single pressure causing event (I call it 'combustion' with quote marks for lack of a better nomenclature) the pressures would HAVE to be 2820 to make the thing work as claimed.

(Also note, the excel sheet uses 2 tabs, the first worksheet uses the Pressure-Volume curve to calculate the the power, the second worksheet uses power calculated from the torque - both methods yield the same results)

First, the excel sheet is useful to disprove the claims made by others.  For example, JPR claims 100's of KW output with 5x gas/plasma expansion. Are these claims valid?? We can test what a 5x pressure increase would do in a 2 cylinder engine with the Papp engine dimensions - even though not the JPR engine dimensions, it should be close, an order of magnitude estimate. Answer = 3 hp (that's 2.2KW) (using Pressure = 75) That's a far cry from 100's of KW.

The second use is to do some temperature calculations.  If we entertain (for the moment) that the energy comes from a plasma heating the gas, or nuclear energy heating the gas, then we have laid the groundwork to see what these temperatures would have to be in order to make the 2820 psia.

So, we have to go from 15 psia (1 atm) to 2820 psia., a simple ideal gas calculation: P1*V1*T2 = P2*V2*T1...

Lets run the calculations. State 1 is immediately before 'combustion', State 2 is immediately after 'combustion', (immediately before and after 'combustion', the piston has not moved yet, so, V1 and V2 are the same value and drop out of the equation, therefore T2 = T1(P2/P1). Looking first at just the pressures, (P2/P1) = 2820/15 = 188. The temperature values need to be ABSOLUTE temperature values. So, for degrees F, we need to add 460 degrees to get degrees R (Rankin - Absolute scale) 120 degrees F (warm to the touch) is 120 F + 460 = 580 R. So T2 = 580 * 188 = 109040 R. Next we can subtract 460 to get back to degrees F. 109040 - 460 = 108580 F. (60304 C)

I hope that you recognize how absurd that temperature is!  Some people here would simply dismiss that number saying that it is just a very quick flash, it doesn't have time to heat the cylinders, the gases layer to insulate the cylinders, etc.  A 'flash' type impulse won't work!  We need something that lasts longer than a flash to produce the torque and horsepower of the Papp engine. In the example, it needs to last from 0 to 135 degrees after TDC - that's much much longer than a flash!

Then there are folks that would have you believe that because the gas is expanded and produces work, that the temperature drops.  That is absolutely true, the temperature DOES drop as the gas is expanded!  

Doing the calculations:  Let's now define State 1 as immediately after 'combustion' (at TDC before expansion), and State 2 at 135 degrees rotation after expansion, (and just before the mysterious collapse to a somewhat lower pressure). So now P1 = 2820, P2 = 466 (look in the pressure column at 135 deg. rotation). T1 = 109040R, calculate T2.

For this example we are using a polytropic index = ni = 1.4, therefore, T2 = T1 (P2/P1)^((ni-1)/ni) = 65194R = 64734 F. (35945 C).  So it did cool down! It cooled down some 44000 degrees F!  But, as you should clearly see, it did not cool down much...  At these temperatures, the metals in the engine are not just molten, they are vaporized!!

So, at this point, you are probably asking what is wrong with the calculations?  I hope that you can confirm the calculations are correct.  So, again, what is wrong??

There was one MAJOR underlying assumption made for all of the calculations above. It is the SAME MAJOR underlying assumption made by all current major players in this project - and THAT assumption is WRONG!

The assumption is that the gas in the chamber, both before and after 'combustion' is an ideal gas. To say it differently, it simply CANNOT be the same STATE before and after 'combustion'. - It is not possible!

I am going to pause here to get your response, because it is of the utmost importance that you understand the last sentence stated above.  If you do not agree, then it is pointless for me to go any further into the explanation.

kcd

I understand that 90% So should be It's hard to translate But I know MECHANICS  And what they need. We need a minimum of 100 bar there is not much mystery and it must be done.
Tell me  absolute vacuum to the 0bar Do you have some table  by which it can be  describe the size of that force- example -1bar= 10bar,,,-2bar= 50bar did you figure it out what we need for our theory
I understand your thoughts  Do you understand my
the gas must change the state of at least a little and that the engine was slightly warm to the touch ,If you overdo it with the heat, then explodes,, cylinder heat sinks This can be calculated the amount of gas  the size of the cylinder and thermal conductivity
everything you wrote is so but you forgot the amount of gas and their heat capacity that is, the amount of particles of gas determines all and by that everything can be calculated
with such a small amount of plutonium can not get so much pressure get it ha ha ha ha

Ris,

If I understand correctly, to convert bar to psi absolute, multiply by 14.7. - ie. 1 bar = 14.7 psia.  In the example above, I used 15 (instead of 14.7 - just an old habit of mine) therefore the pressure change from 15 psia to 2820 psia is x 188, or 188 bar.

Additionally, the heat capacities are used in the calculations since the polytropic index is the ratio of constant pressure heat capacity and the constant volume heat capacity.

Does that answer your question?

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 11:08 AM

Ris,

If I understand correctly, to convert bar to psi absolute, multiply by 14.5. - ie. 1 bar = 14.5 psia.  In the example above, I used 15 (instead of 14.5 - just an old habit of mine) therefore the pressure change from 15 psia to 2820 psia is x 188, or 188 bar.

Does that answer your question?

not that I was looking can you give me comparison vacuum--pressure get it  - /+
How much power has -1bar  How much power has +1bar  can not be the same

Does this help?


Or this??

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23972886/Pressure-conversion-table-Bar---Pascal---psi
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/79759536/ALTITUDE-Conversion-Tables

that it's    scared me with a huge table
Ask what you want I think we're on the same track do not have to write all I've read almost allI'm sorry now I see not what I meant  look like this which is more powerful  vacuum or pressure Such comparisons I need but in numbers or bar

Quote from Ris on April 26th, 2013, 11:29 AM

that it's    scared me with a huge table
Ask what you want I think we're on the same track do not have to write all I've read almost all
I'm sorry now I see not what I meant  look like this which is more powerful  vacuum or pressure Such comparisons I need but in numbers or bar

For 'bar' there are no negative numbers, ie. no such thing a -1bar.  Zero bar (0) is zero atmosphere = outer space....

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 11:42 AM

Quote from Ris on April 26th, 2013, 11:29 AM

that it's    scared me with a huge table
Ask what you want I think we're on the same track do not have to write all I've read almost allI'm sorry now I see not what I meant  look like this which is more powerful  vacuum or pressure Such comparisons I need but in numbers or bar

For 'bar' there are no negative numbers, ie. no such thing a -1bar.  Zero bar (0) is zero atmosphere = outer space....

there must be a comparison
but the two of us agree so that a small amount of noble gases can not produce enough pressure it could but requests million degrees  but its not an option Is so

vacuum but also has a mechanical strength to withdraw the piston up from BDC to TDC  It's working STROKE  NOW you turn on  plasma TO RESET THE VACUUM To facilitate DESCENT OF PISTON
You must understand that Get it what I mean
I'm trying to explain that can work on VACUUM What's the opposite of the pressure
FOR PRESSURE NEED LOTS OF ENERGY IN THE SYSTEM
FOR VACUUM It takes a lot less energy For the same work


only one way----if we create a vacuum in the cylinder example -2.5bar put some gas now we have -2bar Now we heat with a spark the small amount of gas and nullifies -2bar when the piston goes down,when going up we have work -2bar And we have equilibrium With a small amount of input energy Without heat because of the small amount of gas And the energy lies in the maximum stresses gas particle that is, PLASMA
PLASMA THRUST Is the strongest when he has the biggest difference LIKE IN THE UNIVERSE

Sorry Ris - i just ain't 'buying it'  We are officially at an impasse.  Perhaps the folks in the regular popper thread will like to hear about plasma and how much the vacuum in the cylinder contributes to the overall output - but not here...

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 12:38 PM

Sorry Ris - i just ain't 'buying it'  We are officially at an impasse.  Perhaps the folks in the regular popper thread will like to hear about plasma and how much the vacuum in the cylinder contributes to the overall output - but not here...

Just think REVERSE THAT  BEFORE YOU WROTE I tell you everything  YOU ARE only one who understand it
REVERSE  you Can  calculate THIS
TAKE PISTON And pull it FROM TDC to BDC-------How much is force required  You can do it  calculate To prove Whether it can thus operate And it's essential OF EVERYTHING

Quote from Ris on April 26th, 2013, 12:55 PM

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 12:38 PM

Sorry Ris - i just ain't 'buying it'  We are officially at an impasse.  Perhaps the folks in the regular popper thread will like to hear about plasma and how much the vacuum in the cylinder contributes to the overall output - but not here...

Just think REVERSE THAT  BEFORE YOU WROTE I tell you everything  YOU ARE only one who understand it
REVERSE  you Can  calculate THIS

I don't understand it, sorry....

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 01:00 PM

Quote from Ris on April 26th, 2013, 12:55 PM

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 12:38 PM

Sorry Ris - i just ain't 'buying it'  We are officially at an impasse.  Perhaps the folks in the regular popper thread will like to hear about plasma and how much the vacuum in the cylinder contributes to the overall output - but not here...

Just think REVERSE THAT  BEFORE YOU WROTE I tell you everything  YOU ARE only one who understand it
REVERSE  you Can  calculate THIS

I don't understand it, sorry....

Stand up and fought  does not matter working or not, one against many This is important and it is be remembered

Okie dokie.

Working with the excel sheet, worksheet #2, the FORCE on the piston starts at 19,933 pounds at TDC, and goes down to 3,296 at 135 degrees after TDC.  For the rest of the cycle (returning to TDC), the pressure in the cylinder at 1 atm., or at a vacuum makes very little difference.  14.7 x 7.07 = 103 pounds force on the piston.  That number is negligible in comparison to the power part of the cycle.

kcd

Quote from k c dias on April 26th, 2013, 02:56 PM

Working with the excel sheet, worksheet #2, the FORCE on the piston starts at 19,933 pounds at TDC, and goes down to 3,296 at 135 degrees after TDC.  For the rest of the cycle (returning to TDC), the pressure in the cylinder at 1 atm., or at a vacuum makes very little difference.  14.7 x 7.07 = 103 pounds force on the piston.  That number is negligible in comparison to the power part of the cycle IN BAR

kcd


Electrons emitted from the filament move several times in back and forth movements around the grid before finally entering the grid. During these movements, some electrons collide with a gaseous molecule to form a pair of an ion and an electron (Electron ionization). The number of these ions is proportional to the gaseous molecule density multiplied by the electron current emitted from the filament, and these ions pour into the collector to form an ion current. Since the gaseous molecule density is proportional to the pressure, the pressure is estimated by measuring the ion current.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_measurement        From HERE I SEE THAT EASY  You better understand YOUR LANGUAGE  But leave that for later


Ionization efficiency is the ratio of the number of ions formed to the number of electrons or photons use

Forget what I wrote  But I promise TO YOU  You'll get your PRESSURE