Quote from Ris on April 26th, 2013, 01:16 PM

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

I thought that the maximum force getting out of the vacuum was 15 psi, never more, and so the backstroke doesn't attribute much in the whole pappcycle.

Although it takes a lot more power to separate a Maagdenburger bowl...hmm

Quote from FaradayEZ on April 27th, 2013, 12:09 PM

Quote from Ris on April 26th, 2013, 01:16 PM

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

I thought that the maximum force getting out of the vacuum was 15 psi, never more, and so the backstroke doesn't attribute much in the whole pappcycle.

Allthough it takes a lot more power to separate two maagdenburger bowls...hmm

I just read PATENTS Forget what I wrote
This is one rotten HUNGARY  WHICH IS THOUGHT  SELL WATER to me
RETAIL test will confirm Am I in the right.

Lets talk about the power of a vacuum for a min. The maxum vacuun is 15 lbs. per sq. inche . The papp engine had a bore of 3 inches and a stroke of 4.25 inches ( the roser , wet engine ) . Radius sq. 1.5x1.5= 2.25 x the stroke 4.25 =9.5625 x 15 lbs =143.437 total lbs. of vacuum . As I see it thats not a lot of power but it is replaceing the compression stroke in a ice engine which  most engines I've checked were around 150 lbs. per sq. inche or a gain of around  300 lbs. give or take . Now remember papp's engine is 2 cycle  and as I remember it most people at the roser engine explosion thought the engine was running between 2 and 3 thousand rpm .Lets say 2500 x 300 lbs. vacuum =750000 lbs of vacuum per min. x 2 cylinders = 1.5 million lbs of 1/2 is  work saved and 1/2 is vacuum . Did I make a mistake or are we talking about a lot energy but lets remember that it's not a total vacuum but less work if there is any vacuum it could increase the horsepower a lot . make it easyer to run the engine very slow with out stalling it . Can some one tell what happens to heat in a vacuum . Please rethink the power of the vacuum .The research goes on Ed hemphill

Quote from edxhemphill on April 28th, 2013, 09:52 AM

Lets talk about the power of a vacuum for a min. The maxum vacuun is 15 lbs. per sq. inche . The papp engine had a bore of 3 inches and a stroke of 4.25 inches ( the roser , wet engine ) . Radius sq. 1.5x1.5= 2.25 x the stroke 4.25 =9.5625 x 15 lbs =143.437 total lbs. of vacuum . As I see it thats not a lot of power but it is replaceing the compression stroke in a ice engine which  most engines I've checked were around 150 lbs. per sq. inche or a gain of around  300 lbs. give or take . Now remember papp's engine is 2 cycle  and as I remember it most people at the roser engine explosion thought the engine was running between 2 and 3 thousand rpm .Lets say 2500 x 300 lbs. vacuum =750000 lbs of vacuum per min. x 2 cylinders = 1.5 million lbs of 1/2 is  work saved and 1/2 is vacuum . Did I make a mistake or are we talking about a lot energy but lets remember that it's not a total vacuum but less work if there is any vacuum it could increase the horsepower a lot . make it easyer to run the engine very slow with out stalling it . Can some one tell what happens to heat in a vacuum . Please rethink the power of the vacuum .The research goes on Ed hemphill

Yes MAN  That was my thought  And when you've got VACUUM Everything is easier to work in him IONIZATIO HITING.As regards the HEAT LOOK bulbs WITHIN YOU HAVE 1500-2000C*BECAUSE OF THE VACUUM LOWER is heated BUT if you put SOME GAS 100% will explode Got it.
BUT PAPP ENGINE  DOES NOT FUNCTION THUS
Something else devised For now from me RADIO SILENCE
GREETINGS

Quote from edxhemphill on April 28th, 2013, 09:52 AM

Lets talk about the power of a vacuum for a min. The maxum vacuun is 15 lbs. per sq. inche .
...
 Please rethink the power of the vacuum .The research goes on Ed hemphill

So Ed, a thought that came to mind is:

What would happen in that engine if you evacuated the crankcase to nearly zero PSI absolute?  Would it no longer run?  Meaning the majority of the power is coming from the collapsing pressure of the gas.  Any evidence of the crankcase pressure being manipulated from your research?

Quote from Dog-One on April 28th, 2013, 11:18 AM

Quote from edxhemphill on April 28th, 2013, 09:52 AM

Lets talk about the power of a vacuum for a min. The maxum vacuun is 15 lbs. per sq. inche .
...
 Please rethink the power of the vacuum .The research goes on Ed hemphill

So Ed, a thought that came to mind is:

What would happen in that engine if you evacuated the crankcase to nearly zero PSI absolute?  Would it no longer run?  Meaning the majority of the power is coming from the collapsing pressure of the gas.  Any evidence of the crankcase pressure being manipulated from your research?

But the flywheel and the second cylinder drive the stuff forward..or did you mean this to an engine with one cylinder?

Stays strange that Papp said no man with his power could crank the shaft by hand.*..so with so much internal resistance how also then remain having low rpms and still smooth running?


* i guess he meant with the engine on the dynamo

I'm curious how things stand with the gasclustering...

Is the setup with the positive electric field around the gas already tried?

Quote from FaradayEZ on May 18th, 2013, 06:15 AM

I'm curious how things stand with the gasclustering...

Is the setup with the positive electric field around the gas already tried?

Life and real work keep getting in the way..  I'll get tuit when I can.  Bob speculates that the JPR 'gas is all gone' anomaly did likely happen, because something somewhat similar happened to him as well - the details are sketchy...

I suppose that others may be working in this direction also, but if they are, they are not being open about it...

kcd

Quote from k c dias on May 18th, 2013, 08:47 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on May 18th, 2013, 06:15 AM

I'm curious how things stand with the gasclustering...

Is the setup with the positive electric field around the gas already tried?

Life and real work keep getting in the way..  I'll get tuit when I can.  Bob speculates that the JPR 'gas is all gone' anomaly did likely happen, because something somewhat similar happened to him as well - the details are sketchy...

I suppose that others may be working in this direction also, but if they are, they are not being open about it...

kcd

Maybe they are not open cause they realize that this is a key thing in getting to the Papp-secret. Bob knows it happened to JPR, he himself had some oddities and also more of them while operating without the capacitors. The glaslike crackings..

EZ, I suspect you are right...

Quote from k c dias on May 18th, 2013, 10:15 AM

"One of the chief theories as to why Papp never told anyone of his operations was [because] it was believed that it would be so completely simple that Papp assumed people would take it and laugh off paying for it." Bob Rohner

So lets come up then with an idea thats ridiculous simple.. to prep the gas..like you had with putting it in a tv-tube and put some juice into it..how does a papmix come out of that? Ready to go?

Maybe we should inventory the idea's for prepping the gas also.

Quote from FaradayEZ on May 18th, 2013, 11:28 AM

Quote from k c dias on May 18th, 2013, 10:15 AM

"One of the chief theories as to why Papp never told anyone of his operations was [because] it was believed that it would be so completely simple that Papp assumed people would take it and laugh off paying for it." Bob Rohner

So lets come up then with an idea thats ridiculous simple.. to prep the gas..like you had with putting it in a tv-tube and put some juice into it..how does a papmix come out of that? Ready to go?

Maybe we should inventory the idea's for prepping the gas also.

I suspect we are all trying to make this sh!t way too complicated (as Bob seems to indicate).  It really could be just as crazy simple as putting a gas or gas mix in a powered picture tube.  Papp was not a brilliant engineer/scientist, he was just jacking around one day with some old crap in his garage and made some keen observations.

Want to help?  Do what Papp did.  Get creative and try something crazy.  Swill a few beers down while you at it...

kcd

Until we fully understand the concepts, you are right K.C. we have to try simple stuff until it starts to make sense.  Only don't drink too many beers before you test, because if you luck into something, you'll never be able to write it down.  hehe.

I saw on FB that kc found a link to a process to get clusters at room temperature...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12906546

:)