Quote from k c dias on September 5th, 2012, 12:39 PM

Quote from TinMan on August 29th, 2012, 06:03 AM

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.

Thanks,
kcd

k c dias,

dont forget that using the voltage/curent gained from the plasma collapsing will go back in to the other cylinder to help fire it... this is why papps motors always had 2 cylinders. or pair of cylinders...

so if we are trying to make a one piston system we are going to have problems using a cap bank. but if we have 2 pistons we can use the energy to keep the caps charged as we use the " crossover" energy...

NOW, if we use RF we may be able to excite the gas enough to be allright... and that is what john was saying.

Chuck,

i dont know if we can just boost an output like that but...

we can use an LC circuit to get a capacitor discharge...

i'm using this theory to run my latest circuit... posting a video soon. uploading now.

~Russ

Morning Pap/popers!

Summarizing what i've read from you...

an engine requires a different approach then a one cilinder test... sure

The engine needs electrical power to sustain the reaction... sure and timing issues

The Ron one cilinder test give's extra electrical energy.. also known (but how much?)

**But all stands or falls with the outcome of the first test!

We can jump the gun and presume it will work and already set up an engine...
but we have to watch out that we don't confuse the both with eachother...

Maybe its time to divide the thread of discussions... into engine issues and into concept proofing?

**If the concept-test doesn't provide enough energy to make it an ongoing thing...
then we are still left with nothing.

Other way around also..if we have a working concept...its "useless" until you make the motor to present and deliver the power.

Proofing the concept should be much much easier to do then building the engine.
(cause the engine also needs the working concept)
Its repeating what the video Dallen Roberts / Rob Rohner in essance shows.

 http://youtu.be/_zWJNyoFgJM

And putting the measurements on that.. calculating input and output.

If that's done..then the whole world can start to build the engine's


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question.. can anybody here calculate how much watts are produced in the pistonvideo?  The 2 something inch push on the man's weight piston?


power being force time's distance

but i'm an (lazy) SI-guy


lol, have a nice one!

Greetingsss :) :)

EZ, Holland

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 5th, 2012, 11:50 PM

Quote from k c dias on September 5th, 2012, 12:39 PM

Quote from TinMan on August 29th, 2012, 06:03 AM

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.

Thanks,
kcd

k c dias,

dont forget that using the voltage/curent gained from the plasma collapsing will go back in to the other cylinder to help fire it... this is why papps motors always had 2 cylinders. or pair of cylinders...

so if we are trying to make a one piston system we are going to have problems using a cap bank. but if we have 2 pistons we can use the energy to keep the caps charged as we use the " crossover" energy...

NOW, if we use RF we may be able to excite the gas enough to be allright... and that is what john was saying.

Chuck,

i dont know if we can just boost an output like that but...

we can use an LC circuit to get a capacitor discharge...

i'm using this theory to run my latest circuit... posting a video soon. uploading now.

~Russ

Well this is one of the reasons i designed the motor for the popper engin set up.With my design it dosnt matter how many rpm the crank is doing-it just rely's on pistion speed.So the pistion would only have to fire once every say 2 seconds,and the crank speed would remain the same.
So crank shaft speed is determond by pistion speed,not how many time's the pistion fire's.
If we used a large flywheel,we could drop the pistion stroke's down to say once every 5 seconds-and the crank could still be doing 4000rpm(depending on setup)
And if more torque is required,it just a matter of shifting the conrod out further on the crank(as in video)

Hey Poppers,

Here's an interesting video on a high voltage spark plug circuit::idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOhNtRhJ5Rw

Chuck

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 5th, 2012, 11:50 PM

dont forget that using the voltage/curent gained from the plasma collapsing will go back in to the other cylinder to help fire it... this is why papps motors always had 2 cylinders. or pair of cylinders...

~Russ

Russ,

Witn no disrespect to Mr. Bob Rohner, or to the late Joe Papp, I don't believe that the voltage returned form the plasma collapse is real.  If Bob would reveal more of his secrete circuit, perhaps the mysterious voltage can be proved or disproved.  In Bob's video, look at the size if the wire going to the spark gap.  I estimate that it ts a 4 or 6 ga. wire.  Next look at the wire jump when it is pulsed and jumps the gap - that is a lot of current (and a lot of initial DC voltage to jump that gap).  As with all spark gaps, the current will flow through the arc until the voltage in the capacitor drops to a point that it can no longer jump the gap - the arc extinguishes itself.  There WILL be a residual voltage on the capacitor.  I'll repeat that: There WILL be a residual voltage on the capacitor.  If there is some sort of mysterious back emf from the collapse, then show it recharging the capacitor. Or DISCONNECT the cap from the circuit and show the back emf driving a small motor, for example.  But leave the cap connected, and run the motor with the residual charge left in the cap??  Really, whazzup widat??  So, you can see, without details of how that cap is switched into and out of the circuit, I will be very suspicious of any substantial and useable back emf from the plasma collapse.  Of course I could be wrong.

Thank you,

kcd

Quote from k c dias on September 6th, 2012, 08:42 AM

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 5th, 2012, 11:50 PM

dont forget that using the voltage/curent gained from the plasma collapsing will go back in to the other cylinder to help fire it... this is why papps motors always had 2 cylinders. or pair of cylinders...

~Russ

Russ,

Witn no disrespect to Mr. Bob Rohner, or to the late Joe Papp, I don't believe that the voltage returned form the plasma collapse is real.  If Bob would reveal more of his secrete circuit, perhaps the mysterious voltage can be proved or disproved.  In Bob's video, look at the size if the wire going to the spark gap.  I estimate that it ts a 4 or 6 ga. wire.  Next look at the wire jump when it is pulsed and jumps the gap - that is a lot of current (and a lot of initial DC voltage to jump that gap).  As with all spark gaps, the current will flow through the arc until the voltage in the capacitor drops to a point that it can no longer jump the gap - the arc extinguishes itself.  There WILL be a residual voltage on the capacitor.  I'll repeat that: There WILL be a residual voltage on the capacitor.  If there is some sort of mysterious back emf from the collapse, then show it recharging the capacitor. Or DISCONNECT the cap from the circuit and show the back emf driving a small motor, for example.  But leave the cap connected, and run the motor with the residual charge left in the cap??  Really, whazzup widat??  So, you can see, without details of how that cap is switched into and out of the circuit, I will be very suspicious of any substantial and useable back emf from the plasma collapse.  Of course I could be wrong.

Thank you,

kcd

Just a suggestion, you should watch some of Tinman's videos, then you will see what Russ is talking about and remember to, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, I really think Russ to be right, just from tests I have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TinManPower

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 6th, 2012, 09:00 AM

Just a suggestion, you should watch some of Tinman's videos, then you will see what Russ is talking about and remember to, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, I really think Russ to be right, just from tests I have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TinManPower

Jeff,

Thank you for your response.  Is there a specific video or two I should look at?
 
One of the things that I am learning with this project is to be open-minded and humble.  Extracting power from the plasma collapse may indeed be real, and testing, of course, will show this.  Russ's popper kit could have an independent set of electrodes added to monitor the back emf.  A scope trace will reveal if it is happening at the time of collapse, or if it is a result of the plasma expanding, a possible em pulse.  But please, let us not use any more relays and electric motors...

Thanks,

kcd
 

KCD:

Really, whazzup widat??  So, you can see, without details of how that cap is switched into and out of the circuit, I will be very suspicious of any substantial and useable back emf from the plasma collapse.  Of course I could be wrong.


Hi Kcd,

As also in a video with  Jimmy Sabori he shows all kind of papp engine stuff  

 http://youtu.be/JKm09vJQdqQ

there is mentioning of a lot of extra current release... excess power..put into a bank of resistors? or capacitors..

So go figure... plasma is still strange.

Greetzz..

Erik

Quote from k c dias on September 6th, 2012, 09:47 AM

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 6th, 2012, 09:00 AM

Just a suggestion, you should watch some of Tinman's videos, then you will see what Russ is talking about and remember to, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, I really think Russ to be right, just from tests I have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TinManPower

Jeff,

Thank you for your response.  Is there a specific video or two I should look at?
 
One of the things that I am learning with this project is to be open-minded and humble.  Extracting power from the plasma collapse may indeed be real, and testing, of course, will show this.  Russ's popper kit could have an independent set of electrodes added to monitor the back emf.  A scope trace will reveal if it is happening at the time of collapse, or if it is a result of the plasma expanding, a possible em pulse.  But please, let us not use any more relays and electric motors...

Thanks,

kcd

Hi KCD, I could not find the specific video, but I was hoping Tinman could step in and shed some light on this, it might not be the specifics we are looking for, but I think he will have an answer on another forum, here
http://iaec.forumco.com/

 I know not much help at this point. With Russ's new scope he might be able to show backwards EMF. I did have an idea, wonder what would happen if one were to pump mercury through an EPG at say 200 psi. Wonder what would happen if you spun mercury within itself very fast, in a spherical container, would it create an anti  gravitational or a magnetic field, yes I'm getting way out there in left field, but at this point anything is worth a try.

Jeff,

Thanks for your reply.  The EPG is yet another item that I need to get up to speed on:) You guys are kinda way ahead of me on this stuff.  Please, everyone, do have a look at the MSDS for mercury before experimenting with it. :exclamation: :)

Somewhere (possibly in one of the patents I read) it was stated that some of the commercially available gasses would work in this process, it is certainly not limited to one and only one very specific mixture - let's hope.  That said, below are a few mixes I found that seem interesting.  As far as availability, anything with a helium component will be restricted to current customer accounts, with rationing on those accounts.  A walk in customer will have some difficulty in scoring some helium under the current shortage, but not impossible, as Russ has found a line on some.  

kcd

KCD, All, good discussion going on here... Only testing will tell, plasma is a strange thing.

Here is my latest update; will post schematic later after I'm happy with it..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYIBJcz6mk


God bless,

 ~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 7th, 2012, 03:06 AM

KCD, All, good discussion going on here... Only testing will tell, plasma is a strange thing.

Here is my latest update; will post schematic later after I'm happy with it..


God bless,

 ~Russ

Is looking good Russ!

Such a spark could get a civil servant to speed work :D

Greetingsss...

EZ








I just watched the Rob piston video again..and i found something of interest.

Rob states that he has blown up a cilinder or 2... that it can be dangerous..and powerfull.

Ok..all the better?.. well... as i see how he enters the gas...he makes pretty damned sure that even the rest of the normal air is removed!

O yeah? Yeah..cause after he vacuumed ;) he puts always a bit too much in...

Why? Because the gas is lighter then air...so some remains of the normal air (cause a vacuum aint a real vacuum) are on the bottom and are pushed out by him pushing the piston downwards!

Small but maybe important detail... because who knows if there even will be a reaction when some little normal air is still in it..or who knows if the reaction becomes unstable or too violent?

If he does it constantly this way he must have a good reason for it...

Think about it, he's not a stumbling guy who always puts everywhere too much in just to be seen as a big spender?

No way, there's something behind in what he does

Greetingsss.... :)

EZ

And his other 2 cents





 

Very nice Russ, can't wait to get the schematics for that.:cool::D:P

very great work Russ.New discovery!!! high voltage help low voltage discharge.
dc disruptive discharge very powerful.tried with water yet???

thanks
geenee

Quote from geenee on September 7th, 2012, 05:50 AM

very great work Russ.New discovery!!! high voltage help low voltage discharge.
dc disruptive discharge very powerful.tried with water yet???

thanks
geenee

;)

I'm one step ahead of you... But I have not tried it yet.

;)

Yeah!

Faradayez,

I'm sure he is slightly above atmosphere so he dose not get any out side contaminants in the chamber... He did mention this some where that all the cup seals on the orgnal motor were backwards than one would think as it seemed Papp was worried about outside stuff than his gas leeking out...  

Jeff, soon... Still want to make some modifications..

~Russ      

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 7th, 2012, 04:36 AM

I just watched the Rob piston video again..and i found something of interest.
Rob states that he has blown up a cilinder or 2... that it can be dangerous..and powerfull.
Ok..all the better?.. well... as i see how he enters the gas...he makes pretty damned sure that even the rest of the normal air is removed!
O yeah? Yeah..cause after he vacuumed ;) he puts always a bit too much in...
Why? Because the gas is lighter then air...so some remains of the normal air (cause a vacuum aint a real vacuum) are on the bottom and are pushed out by him pushing the piston downwards!
Small but maybe important detail... because who knows if there even will be a reaction when some little normal air is still in it..or who knows if the reaction becomes unstable or too violent?
If he does it constantly this way he must have a good reason for it...
Think about it, he's not a stumbling guy who always puts everywhere too much in just to be seen as a big spender?
No way, there's something behind in what he does
Greetingsss.... :)

EZ

"Why? Because the gas is lighter then air...so some remains of the normal air (cause a vacuum aint a real vacuum) are on the bottom and are pushed out by him pushing the piston downwards!"

Respectfully, no.  Wrong on two counts.  
1) If there are argon, krypton, and xenon gas components, these are all considerably heaver than air.

2) Gas mixtures do not tend to stratify, our atmosphere does not significantly stratify, except at very high altitudes.  Bob's tank of mixed gases did not require a  'shake before use' nor do any other common industrial gas mixtures.

You are right on the "it can be dangerous..and powerful" part.  And I think that this is what Bob is being careful about.

I suppose everyone should read this patent so that we have an idea of what not to do: US3680431, "Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces."  This issue needs to be addressed so that good well meaning experimenters don't expire in an unexpected and instantaneous house remodeling event.

I am sure that other folks just passing through could use this information for harmful purposes, but we need to know what to avoid, in order to play safely.

So what does US3680431 have that we need to avoid? Some of my observations are as follows:

1) The plasma needs space to expand, ie. a moving piston.  A piston that can becomes seized or lodged in the cylinder for any reason is one possible concern.

(Remember the Rohner_Roberts_Video, the explanation at the end?  About the plasma expansion, and then collapse?  Suppose the expansion is not allowed.  Could something go critical at that point??)

2) The pressure, at full compression (TDC for an engine or a popper contraption) needs to be low, ie. 1 atmosphere.  I think that this is the primary reason Bob squeezes out the excess gas.  Pressures used in US3680431??  One to three atmospheres.  That's it - that's all that's needed!!  I strongly believe that that is a range of pressures that needs to be avoided.  I intend to use a pressure switch, if I get an engine going, to shut the thing down if it tends to have too much air leak in.  Possibly, the pressure regulating system on the Papp demonstration was what got unplugged by Dr. Feynman.  Its anyone's guess, just speculation on my part...

3) Other items used in US3680431 that could be a concern.  Direct and prolonged heating with a hot filament, particle emitting isotopes, strange gas mixtures, and last but not least, the dumping of large amount of energy from a capacitive discharge - all unknown territory...

Please consider some control when urging the gas mixture to a plasma - just use what is reasonably needed, and no more - if for no other better reason than improving overall system efficiency.

Just my $0.02, I could be wrong.

kcd

Russ or anyone!

I’m trying to wrap my head around what is going on! ( I’m new to HV!!! ) :blush:

In Bob Rohners video he warns of the extreme power and dangers of the popper cylinder build.

From what I can tell he is using the exact same gas mix in both the low and high power tests and the same volume fill (about 1 psi over normal atmospheric pressure)

So I’m not completely sure where the extra power is coming from.

In your latest video you have the HV spark across the gap and that causes the 330 volts/dc current from the cap bank to then discharge across the same gap (ionized path).

So my question, is it the amount of volts/current in the cap bank that causes the difference in Bob’s power output?

He doesn’t have the external coil on the test rig so the different powers can’t come from that.

element 119

Quote from element 119 on September 7th, 2012, 01:38 PM

Russ or anyone!

I’m trying to wrap my head around what is going on! ( I’m new to HV!!! ) :blush:

In Bob Rohners video he warns of the extreme power and dangers of the popper cylinder build.

From what I can tell he is using the exact same gas mix in both the low and high power tests and the same volume fill (about 1 psi over normal atmospheric pressure)

So I’m not completely sure where the extra power is coming from.

In your latest video you have the HV spark across the gap and that causes the 330 volts/dc current from the cap bank to then discharge across the same gap (ionized path).

So my question, is it the amount of volts/current in the cap bank that causes the difference in Bob’s power output?

He doesn’t have the external coil on the test rig so the different powers can’t come from that.

element 119

I kinda think the whole reason for folks like us building an engine or a piston-in-a-tube popper is to get some independent verification of this process.  Its is the reason I am building an engine, I'm not going to believe it until I hold it in my hands.  Obviously, I WANT to believe in it enough to go to the trouble of doing the build, but truly understanding and believing in the thing remains to be seen.

The same goes for the extra power.  I or someone else needs to prove or disprove it.  If it is that significant, then lets feed it into a grid-tied inverter and turn the electric meter backwards, while pumping water for the cows!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Joe Papp and Jimmy Sabori claim the extra power comes from the cylinder coils.  Bob Rohner say's that it comes from the electrodes, and, btw, Bob shows, quite nicely, that the coil is not used, at least for the extra power.  So, independent verification is required on this one...

kcd

K C dias :

EZ: << "Why? Because the gas is lighter then air...so some remains of the normal air (cause a vacuum aint a real vacuum) are on the bottom and are pushed out by him pushing the piston downwards!" >>

Respectfully, no.  Wrong on two counts.  
1) If there are argon, krypton, and xenon gas components, these are all considerably heaver than air.

<< Ok, then he would not be able to push out the remains of normal air after he sucked the chamber. But he gives Helium as the big clue and also i think he used xenon (although very expensive..it gives of a green light, which can be seen at the old time video where Jimmy Sabori takes credit?) >>


2) Gas mixtures do not tend to stratify, our atmosphere does not significantly stratify, except at very high altitudes.  Bob's tank of mixed gases did not require a  'shake before use' nor do any other common industrial gas mixtures.

<< i used a translation site on the word stratify... it gave me stratify as translation..lol  When thinking about it you may mean that they don't separate quickly into layers? like fluids do?  Well thats another bummer then! So it means that Rob always puts in too much and then pushes the piston down to just a bit over 1 psi... on the other side it also says then that the dangers are lesser then thought (by me) when a tiny little normal air is still in the cylinder >>

You are right on the "it can be dangerous..and powerful" part.  And I think that this is what Bob is being careful about.

I suppose everyone should read this patent so that we have an idea of what not to do: US3680431, "Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces."  This issue needs to be addressed so that good well meaning experimenters don't expire in an unexpected and instantaneous house remodeling event.

<< for sure, let the piston be free at the first tries..and if it costs a whole in Russ's roof..then that's still a small prise for a huge success ;) >>
<<
http://www.powerlabs.org/plasmaglobes.htm

explains the plasma's in globe's.. not quiet what we need but some general things to know.

I put out the question about own-frequency of helium to some folk.

Thx KCD for your info and i agree with being careful all around

Greetingsss...

EZ  >>


So what does US3680431 have that we need to avoid? Some of my observations are as follows:

2) The pressure, at full compression (TDC for an engine or a popper contraption) needs to be low, ie. 1 atmosphere.  I think that this is the primary reason Bob squeezes out the excess gas.  Pressures used in US3680431??  One to three atmospheres.  That's it - that's all that's needed!!  I strongly believe that that is a range of pressures that needs to be avoided.  I intend to use a pressure switch, if I get an engine going, to shut the thing down if it tends to have too much air leak in.  Possibly, the pressure regulating system on the Papp demonstration was what got unplugged by Dr. Feynman.  Its anyone's guess, just speculation on my part...

<< As i grasp it there was no pressure regulating system... because the concept is a closed system. That runs for months and uses maybe one atom per stroke. So the plasma expansion that forces the piston has a great force and it has also when retracting a great collapsing vacuum pulling force. The whole reaction chamber is closed off and uses teflon pistonrings to be as closed off as possible.

So in the engine...no pressure release system..or a very tight one, a safety one, bordering on the edge of what the pistonhousing can take.

In the pistonpopp test sure there should be one >>


3) Other items used in US3680431 that could be a concern.  Direct and prolonged heating with a hot filament, particle emitting isotopes, strange gas mixtures, and last but not least, the dumping of large amount of energy from a capacitive discharge - all unknown territory...

<< The heat in the engine version (and also in the pop-test after it succeeds..) needs to be monitored.
The Papp engine did not produce much heat..not more then the piston-friction would give of after a while of usage. a couple of degrees i'm talking about. (In the gas mixture there are also gases that help keeping the temperature low...if that's the whole explanation for them..)
But also the reaction itself should not give of much heat. Normally plasma is created by heat and or bombardment, but that's not what we need or want in the Papp proces. >>


Please consider some control when urging the gas mixture to a plasma - just use what is reasonably needed, and no more - if for no other better reason than improving overall system efficiency.

Just my $0.02, I could be wrong.

kcd

<<
Thx again.. and i had (more worth?) 2 eurocents.. :P;)

Greetzz

EZ

>>

Quote from element 119 on September 7th, 2012, 01:38 PM

Russ or anyone!

I’m trying to wrap my head around what is going on! ( I’m new to HV!!! ) :blush:

In Bob Rohners video he warns of the extreme power and dangers of the popper cylinder build.

From what I can tell he is using the exact same gas mix in both the low and high power tests and the same volume fill (about 1 psi over normal atmospheric pressure)

So I’m not completely sure where the extra power is coming from.

In your latest video you have the HV spark across the gap and that causes the 330 volts/dc current from the cap bank to then discharge across the same gap (ionized path).

So my question, is it the amount of volts/current in the cap bank that causes the difference in Bob’s power output?

He doesn’t have the external coil on the test rig so the different powers can’t come from that.

element 119

The point bob was trying to make was that the popper didn't have a coil around it and that makes it dangerous. (it actually comes with one but its just not pictured with it) The coil is used to align the gas molecules from smallest to largest from the center out. This creates an aligned shaft like spike inside the cylinder that shoots vertically towards the piston head. Without the coil the gas mixture expands violently in all directions which can blow out the side walls of the piston housing. He was also proving that the coil is not acting like a solenoid. So that's what I took away from the video does that sound about right or am I completely off base?

Quote from GordonFreeman on September 7th, 2012, 04:32 PM

The point bob was trying to make was that the popper didn't have a coil around it and that makes it dangerous. (it actually comes with one but its just not pictured with it) The coil is used to align the gas molecules from smallest to largest from the center out. This creates an aligned shaft like spike inside the cylinder that shoots vertically towards the piston head. Without the coil the gas mixture expands violently in all directions which can blow out the side walls of the piston housing. He was also proving that the coil is not acting like a solenoid. So that's what I took away from the video does that sound about right or am I completely off base?

Welcome Gordon, thx for your thoughts on this.

Bob is Bob Rohner, performing (and co-creator of) the piston action in some video's.
He does it with and without the coil around the cylinder chamber.
That the coil is not the primary feedback current provider is to be seen in the video's because the electromotor (the one for the excess energy) still runs on the excess current, (now presumably from the electrodes) after the flash/bang when not using the coil.

That the coils can have a directing effect on the expansion force, maybe so. The inventors also tell about it.
But how the coils could layer the gases in a mass like way is unclear to me.
And how a coil is able to not act like a solenoid is double unclear to me, when the coil is placed, it is also connected, and being then a closed electrical circuit loop.. that alone makes it receive and give of a magnetic field with a force component..!!

A closed loop coil with (plasma) electrons running through it will give of energy and also will give an induced field counteracting the change.
Like any normal coil with a magnet going towards or through it.

That's also why i don't believe in the EPG system. The pickup coils will give drag. Its simple induction doing that.

Greetzz..

EZ

Quote from GordonFreeman on September 7th, 2012, 04:32 PM

The point bob was trying to make was that the popper didn't have a coil around it and that makes it dangerous.

Without the coil the gas mixture expands violently in all directions which can blow out the side walls of the piston housing. He was also proving that the coil is not acting like a solenoid. So that's what I took away from the video does that sound about right or am I completely off base?[/quote]Hello GordonFreeman

Well I don’t know!

In the video on the right labeled ( For Wes – Coilles ) it is a lower power setup. He says 30% power.

The video on the left labeled ( Popper Builders – Beware ) it is the higher power setup. He says 50% power.

http://www.rohnermachine.com/pagedocuments.html

Also watch the (Unedited ) video on page 6. It’s about 240 cc gas volume at 1 psi.
 

But after watching the videos again it could be that he is putting more gas in for the higher power. One thing is clear, one setup has a lot more power then the other one. And neither one has the external coil in place.

So does the dangerous power level come from extra gas or a higher cap current/volts?

This could be an important starting point to be safe.
Maybe Bob can clear this up for us?

element 119

Quote from element 119 on September 7th, 2012, 08:14 PM

Quote from GordonFreeman on September 7th, 2012, 04:32 PM

The point bob was trying to make was that the popper didn't have a coil around it and that makes it dangerous.

Without the coil the gas mixture expands violently in all directions which can blow out the side walls of the piston housing. He was also proving that the coil is not acting like a solenoid. So that's what I took away from the video does that sound about right or am I completely off base?

Hello GordonFreeman

Well I don’t know!

In the video on the right labeled ( For Wes – Coilles ) it is a lower power setup. He says 30% power.

The video on the left labeled ( Popper Builders – Beware ) it is the higher power setup. He says 50% power.

http://www.rohnermachine.com/pagedocuments.html

Also watch the (Unedited ) video on page 6. It’s about 240 cc gas volume at 1 psi.
 

But after watching the videos again it could be that he is putting more gas in for the higher power. One thing is clear, one setup has a lot more power then the other one. And neither one has the external coil in place.

So does the dangerous power level come from extra gas or a higher cap current/volts?

This could be an important starting point to be safe.
Maybe Bob can clear this up for us?

element 119[/quote]I really think it logical that both would have an affect on the power or explosive power output of the devise. So, at any rate lets be safe and start off with small amounts of gas and low current levels, then work from there.:D

Hi there everybody.!!

My name is Zissis and I am from Greece. I am a fan of Russ just because he has got a clean soul, and shares everything with his own special way.!! Well done from me Russ.!!

First time writing here and I want to show you my work from 4 years ago.
I saw Russ' try, on youtube, to make a huge spark.!

I did it that time ago, and my proposal is here. (everything was post at overunity.com)

Here is the Circuit and parts list.:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3067/3052259785_cd6dccb269_b.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3289/3052261491_717c96926d_b.jpg


Here is the Circuit (bench test)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMxSDsNPzQ
Testing on an 2stroke engine (gasoline)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1soHSdFYTc
2stroke engine spark plug out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qb2mTT-6wg
Test on a Dead 4stroke engine (no gasoline)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AdyO79ZBMg
Test on a working 4stroke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piR4fqOVDDg

Some other pictures.:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3087/3143703869_b511e099cd_b.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3284/3144513026_b26d5d2751_b.jpg

Thats all from me. Its a simple and low-cost system that can work fine with automotive parts and even with 12v power supply. If you have any questions feel free to ask.!!

Sorry for my bad English at videos. I was 17 years old.!! :angel:
Greetings,
Zis.!! :rolleyes:

Quote from zchiotis on September 8th, 2012, 06:05 AM

Hi there everybody.!!

My name is Zissis and I am from Greece. I am a fan of Russ just because he has got a clean soul, and shares everything with his own special way.!! Well done from me Russ.!!

First time writing here and I want to show you my work from 4 years ago.
I saw Russ' try, on youtube, to make a huge spark.!

I did it that time ago, and my proposal is here. (everything was post at overunity.com)

Here is the Circuit and parts list.:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3067/3052259785_cd6dccb269_b.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3289/3052261491_717c96926d_b.jpg


Here is the Circuit (bench test)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMxSDsNPzQ
Testing on an 2stroke engine (gasoline)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1soHSdFYTc
2stroke engine spark plug out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qb2mTT-6wg
Test on a Dead 4stroke engine (no gasoline)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AdyO79ZBMg
Test on a working 4stroke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piR4fqOVDDg

Some other pictures.:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3087/3143703869_b511e099cd_b.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3284/3144513026_b26d5d2751_b.jpg

Thats all from me. Its a simple and low-cost system that can work fine with automotive parts and even with 12v power supply. If you have any questions feel free to ask.!!

Sorry for my bad English at videos. I was 17 years old.!! :angel:
Greetings,
Zis.!! :rolleyes:

Good work,:cool::D:P thanks for sharing.