Faking an FBI raid is, itself, a Federal crime.

If the FBI had no knowledge of having conducted such a raid, the mere appearance on Inteligentry's site of this announcement would be grounds for immediate criminal investigation going after those who faked the FBI raid if not those who reported a non-existent FBI raid.

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on March 7th, 2013, 09:31 PM

interesting... i'm having the feeling after reading all what was posted on the "hot seat" this almost seems like a fake raid to get out of trouble...

http://www.inteligentry.com/report.html

Quote

They departed with all existing engines, luckily I had partly disassembled the one I used for the weekend tests. So they got NO completed engines but they took all engines that were either almost ready or partially assembled.

as if they cant reassemble it?

interesting story. oh well lets not stir up the hype but rather let it pan out as it is... time will tell the story.

~Russ

It's REAL!!
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22639.htm

Quote from drew on March 9th, 2013, 07:09 AM

It's REAL!!
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22639.htm

Thanks!

Thanks for clearing this up Drew. I also have confirmed this to be true with a few other people that I know.

Quite interesting. Well now we must press on!  It's starting to warm up just a tiny bit I'm hoping to get out and make a video of some of the items that I've gathered for some future progress on the popper

~Russ

Russ: At this point, what do you think we need in matter of volt and current to make the papp engine work?

Quote from atanguy on March 12th, 2013, 12:36 PM

Russ: At this point, what do you think we need in matter of volt and current to make the papp engine work?

well. with out knowing if the short  pulse duration will help with our discharge current and rate its still up in the air.

to be honest i think if we used the radiation sources that papp had we may be able to get the result with just 24Vdc using batters as out storage device. instead of caps.

the amount of ionization radiation in that chamber should have been enough to make this happen. this is a gut feeling and not a sitinfic fact... :) just my thoughts.

but back to what we know.

we know that we need a lot of ionization to get low voltage ( under 100V)  to jump a gap in the gas envelope in the chamber.  we also know that we need around 1000J of energy ( using voltages over 160VDC) to get the desired result ( in the cu rent set up)

so all this beginning testing had been much needed and we learned a lot. now its time to test some new theory's that have been discussed here to answer your question correctly.

hope this helps.

~Russ

PS. its starting to warm up just a bit and I'm hopping it can find some time to work on this. its too bad i work for a living! lol  and have a family to take care of first... :)

Quote from drew on March 9th, 2013, 07:09 AM

It's REAL!!
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22639.htm

And not  for any engine claims.  Engines were just the front used to fuel the alleged scam.  For the paper crimes.  I/P/P had plenty of opportunities outside of any consumer show to display what they claimed to investors and on each dated consumer show they failed just that.  And now that they are being investigated, I/P/P now claims it was just about to unveil their stuff when the plug got pulled as the current was flowing down the wire, figuratively speaking.

Christopher Wolfer


Wasser / Water Explosion - Free Energy
www.youtube.com
Water can explode when ignited with High Voltage. Peter Graneau and Richard Hull found out that the Explosion releases more Energy than was put into. Water i...
Like ·  · Unfollow Post · Share · 21 hours ago
Seen by 32

Simon Derricutt Also used for explosive-forming of dental plates. It's an interesting world.
15 hours ago · Like

Bill Peiman water gun + taser - instant fun.
13 hours ago · Like

Christopher Wolfer I just find the explosive power very interesting and it simply a combination of air, Nitrogen (N2) -- 78.08% Oxygen (O2) -- 20.95% Argon (Ar) -- 0.93% Neon, Helium, Krypton -- 0.0001% and water vapor. Now theres a lot of talk on Russ Gries forum on the early versions of the papp engine that had water mixed with mineral oil and chlorine. This to me gives even more credibility to the Feyman incident and the legitimacy of the papp process. the arc would create hydrogen and cause the noble gases to excite and give off UV which would trigger the hydrogen and chlorine. I know stanely meyer looped the exhaust in his buggy using steam to slow the hydrogen burn so that it was closer to gasoline combustion maybe the noble gases also contributed to that since the original prototypes were ICE conversions. It also might lend a clue to the liquid in the containers in the cannon video. Maybe Simon Derricutt can chime in and confirm or refute my theoretical meanderings.
9 hours ago · Like

Christopher Wolfer I also find it very interesting there claim of more power out than in.
9 hours ago · Like

Christopher Wolfer


Hydrogen and Chlorine Reaction
Hydrogen and Chlorine react explosively to form Hydrogen Chloride. The reaction ...
See More
9 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

Simon Derricutt Sorry Chris, I haven't yet got around to testing this. I have a few WAGs about why there may be excess energy here, but I'm not yet certain of the veracity of the measurements. As I've said before here (I think), measurement is a lot harder than people think, and too easy to get it wrong by enough to make you think there's something free somewhere. If we can make a cyclic process that drives itself and some other load, then we can be certain of there being an excess of energy and can go invent a theory about it, but without that solid demonstration (or a damned good lab) it's just not solid enough evidence. With detonation rather than pressure, things deform much differently, so we can't look at the explosive qualities and say there's X amount of energy produced.

Short translation - I don't know....
8 hours ago · Like

Bill Peiman I concur, Simon. Measurement is everything.
8 hours ago · Like

Christopher Wolfer I think people obsess on the overunity. I would be ecstatic if it would run like an ICE which self runs in essence but is definately not overunity. It runs the load at the price of the fuel which is fine in my opinion. I find it frustrating that everyone thinks that the engine is not valid unless it produces more energy than input. I believe as long as its close to efficient as an ICE we are good due to the fact that the fuel is cheaper.
8 hours ago · Edited · Like

Simon Derricutt Chris - by definition the standard ICE is over-unity - burning the fuel is what it takes. The energy we put in is the starter-motor and the ignition, the output is the output - lots of over-unity there. What we're obsessing about is the cost of the fuel and the pollution. If we get away from Oil and burn nuclear instead, but don't have the nuclear waste problem, that's a good aim. Maybe you're thinking I meant over-unity as getting energy from nothing? I don't believe that is possible, so we have to burn some sort of fuel and change some mass into energy.
8 hours ago · Like · 1

Christopher Wolfer Your average ICE is only 25-35% efficient and if a papp based engine could achieve that we would have a viable alternative due to the fact that the fuel used is much cheaper. If you read around the net people believe that unless a papp based engine achieves over 100% efficiency then its pointless and not valid in there opinion. This is what frustrates me when in reality you should only have to come close to matching the efficiency of an ICE because gasoline is so damn expensive. Maybe I am wrong ? When it comes to measurement the ICE and the Papp engine are 2 different animals one is a heat engine and the other isnt. But if I could get a engine that would give me the equivalent to 40mpg at 1 usd per gallon then I am sold !
7 hours ago · Edited · Like

Simon Derricutt With a gas ICE, you put maybe 10W into the ignition and get maybe 100kW out. With a Diesel I don't know the energy needed for the injection, and I'd expect somewhere in the 500W-1kW range input energy. So we have the Coefficient of Performance (COP), and with both it's of the order of 100 or greater.. The fuel has a certain energy-density, and as you say the mechanical energy we get out is somewhere 20%-40% of that input energy. That's an efficiency. With the Papp process, we need to know where the energy is coming from and how great it is before we can work out the efficiency, but judging by Papp's figures and the lack of cooling required, the efficiency is probably pretty high, of the order of 90% or more. There could be a load of energy being wasted un-noticed if a load of neutrinos are generated, so we can't be at all sure of the real figures until we really know what's happening and what the reaction is.

If it all works as planned, then your cost of driving would be much less than a dollar for 40 miles. Way less, in fact. You'd probably need the equivalent of a hybrid, though, where the Papp motor runs a generator and charges the battery or capacitor, and the wheels are driven electrically. I think it's unlikely that the early versions will have the same foot-to-the-floor-and-go of a Mustang. I suppose that will reduce the cost of the tyres, as well....
7 hours ago · Like · 1

Bob Rohner After putting forth the theory that Papp had simply found something that could keep an engine running for somewhat over an hour in a sealed system (speculation). we did some research and testing on this concept. If you read the papers on this carefully, although not completely understood. the fog will not continue to repeat until the water is reconditioned in the sunlight again. No where in the research do I believe we see any repeatability capable of driving an engine discussed. I could be wrong as it has been a couple years .. The best paper on the subject was probably: POSSIBILITY OF LIBERATING SOLAR ENERGY VIA WATER ARC EXPLOSIONS

Almost all fuels will give you over unity performance depending on the frame of reference. For instance, alcohol fuels when burned will take you over the mountains with just the spark of your ignition system. However, looking at a this fuel in a broader framework, it physically takes six times more energy to create than it produces.
6 hours ago · Like

Simon Derricutt The early oil-wells needed only about a barrel of oil to produce 100 barrels for sale. Some of the latest low-grade finds would take around a barrel to produce two, one of which would be used up in getting the other one. It's important to look at the total energy input into a usable fuel.

On the "recharging by sunlight" bit in the fog/water explosions, it seems it's a difference in the strengths of Hydrogen bonds, and the smaller the droplet the less energy is in the water, so yes, after it's been exploded the Sun needs to evaporate it and then we let it condense again to get the energy again. It looks like using the fog energy would mean a lot of very foggy days. It's probably not a good idea to try to make a motor that uses this - although I think it would work, unless there's a hot sunny day the exhaust from it would be a problem.
6 hours ago · Like

Maybe I am delusional or sleep deprived but I feel these connected a lot of the dots on the early papp wet engines. So I decided to share my hairbrained ideas with the group.

To Russ:
"to be honest i think if we used the radiation sources that papp had we may be able to get the result with just 24Vdc using batters as out storage device. instead of caps."
That would be great, I have been using Americium sources, that you can find in smoke detectors, for another app, but you may look at it for the popper, it comes encapsulated in glass and should be exposed directly to the gases without shield . Also one good source of ionization is UV light: There are some UV LED that may be adequate?

Quote from atanguy on March 13th, 2013, 11:47 AM

To Russ:
"to be honest i think if we used the radiation sources that papp had we may be able to get the result with just 24Vdc using batters as out storage device. instead of caps."
That would be great, I have been using Americium sources, that you can find in smoke detectors, for another app, but you may look at it for the popper, it comes encapsulated in glass and should be exposed directly to the gases without shield . Also one good source of ionization is UV light: There are some UV LED that may be adequate?

[attachment=3483]

Why not a negative ion generator?

I think as I expressed in my previous post that just the arc and or the excitation of the gases would provide enough UV to trigger the reaction. No need for separate UV input and papp never used any separate UV input.

ps sorry bout that thought you were replying to my post

I found this that could be interesting for the popper:
High Voltage Pulsers and Spark Generators :  http://www.sci-experiments.com/HighVoltagePulser/

It may have other very useful applications too.  Nice link atanguy.

CaptainKirk have a look.

Quote from heero yueh on March 13th, 2013, 11:02 AM

Christopher Wolfer
Water can explode when ignited with High Voltage. Peter Graneau and Richard Hull found out that the Explosion releases more Energy than was put into. Water

Christopher Wolfer I just find the explosive power very interesting and it simply a combination of air, Nitrogen (N2) -- 78.08% Oxygen (O2) -- 20.95% Argon (Ar) -- 0.93% Neon, Helium, Krypton -- 0.0001% and water vapor. Now theres a lot of talk on Russ Gries forum on the early versions of the papp engine that had water mixed with mineral oil and chlorine. This to me gives even more credibility to the Feyman incident and the legitimacy of the papp process. the arc would create hydrogen and cause the noble gases to excite and give off UV which would trigger the hydrogen and chlorine. I know stanely meyer looped the exhaust in his buggy using steam to slow the hydrogen burn so that it was closer to gasoline combustion maybe the noble gases also contributed to that since the original prototypes were ICE conversions. It also might lend a clue to the liquid in the containers in the cannon video. Maybe Simon Derricutt can chime in and confirm or refute my theoretical meanderings.
9 hours ago · Like

Nice post heero,

I guess the remarks are the ones from utube?

Maybe Russ can try the explosion of just water with his big cap bank attached.

(And maybe Dog-one can boost up his sparkplugs on his engineproject some way)

But these are hopefull findings for a papp engine system.

And others are thus closing in as it seems...

Old Comments
**********************
Russ,

Love it when a plan comes together. You are
the leader of the A-Team. Water cannons, Papp
water, water cavitation, http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/
...... Water water all around and only a few dare
to drink.

Now, what are the orders of the day?

Chan
***********************
Vortex Update,
See:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74544.html

Chan

***********************************************************

Russ,

Please consider applying for a patent. Here is reference
help from a hands on experimenter who still bears the
scars of a hydrogen explosion. https://deighta.com/
Simple view of your inventive genius is introducing
hydrogen into a torroid cavity within a piston and cylinder.

Said hydrogen is activated by way of a high voltage AC
spark within the chamber.

Next, unleashing a very high quantity of electrons into the
activated hydrogen using a DC discharge of high capacity
capicitors at voltages under 500 v to take advantage of
the conductivity of the activated hydrogen.

Papp patents reduced to simple view are identical except
he used water as core reactant. Your genius was to use
hydrogen, a far more convenient reactant, because it is a
gas, unaffected by gravity as far as possible engine
orientations.

You have already reduced your invention to practice. Papp
did it and went on to patent the explosive devise. Perhaps
it would be a natural extension of your work.

Again, congratulations to you and your discovery. Do not
be dismayed by the fog which is created mostly by others
to hide your basic invention. Relegate Nobel gases, coils,
circuits, cylinder material, measurements, calorimeters
and ad nauseam to your team of followers for future study.

Chan

***********************************************************
Russ,

Re: Patent
1. Try electronic. It is quite easy and inexpensive.
2. Turn all anxieties other people have over to God.
3. Just elaborate on the simple view I pointed out
as the genius of your discovery.
4. Keep Claims broad and simple to begin with. Ex:
Claim 1. A device consisting of a piston and cylinder such
that when hydrogen is introduced into the cavity between
the piston and cylinder head, an expansion of the cavity
moves the piston against an apposing force resulting in
work performed. Said expansion is caused by electrodes
sealed within the chamber. The expansion is caused by a
sequence, the first of which is activation of the hydrogen
gas through discharge of a high voltage pulsating spark.
The activated hydrogen is then exploded by discharge of
very large amperage current through the activated hydrogen.
The voltage driving this current can be as low as under
500 v depending on gap size.

Remember my Mom's pitcher pump, Axil? Also TinMan had
a wooden mock-up ready to attach to the Russ Popper.

The second claim should bring in volume collapse and
a coil around cylinder to collect more work.

Trust completely in God. As one headed toward 90, it
works for me. God takes care of those who give themselves
to Him. God has at times heaped terrible vengeance on those
who tried to do harm to me.

Chan

***********************************************************

Sharing my suggestions to a young, curious man. I said,
1. Trip up to the moon.
http://m00n.awardspace.co.uk/Shake.html
http://m00n.awardspace.co.uk/EMF.html
And do not ignore the Frog.
http://fr0g.awardspace.co.uk/Reduction.html
http://fr0g.awardspace.co.uk/Plasma.html
(AKA Do a literature search!)
2. Drill tiny hole in end of light and secure end of coat
hanger wire to magnet. Now up/down on other end of
wire lights stationary light.
3. Buy 1/2 " Thread to Slip PVC connect.
4. Take to Auto store and buy a suitable spark plug to
screw into connect. Glue into place.
5. Attach short length of 1/2" PVC pipe.
6. Bore tiny hole each side of assembly at spark point.
7. Glue needle or wire into each such that a gap for
low voltage, high amperage arc will occur if ionized
cloud present.
8. Attach hanger wire to small piston that slides easily
up/down inside of PVC pipe.
9. Add a quantity of deionized H2O, boiled to De-oxygenate,
enough to cover wires.
10. Snap, crackle, pop, HV spark to ionize, pulse high
amp current from capacitor, and pop a light.

PS: Arrange concrete blocks between you and device before
pop.

Chan

***********************************************************

Some one else asked for the two best links to help him
with building the snap, crackle, pop.

1. Look and you will lern lenr (AKA LEARN)
http://l00k.awardspace.co.uk/arc.pdf
2. I feel like a Spider spinning WEBs
http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/

Chan

***********************************************************
And one new comment:

Eliminate Chlorine and Oxygen suggestions. They poison reaction. H + O or Cl
gaseous mixrures need only a tiny spark to cause a CHEMICAL explosion.

Torroid cavity referenced above ESSENTIAL.

Chan

Gentlemen.

The fix is here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74544.html

Chan

To Chan:
"Torroid cavity referenced above ESSENTIAL"
Yep! See Primer Fields

As the papp engine uses up the noble mixture eventually, we can't claim that it is a real overunity device.
Its just that we don't know where the lot of energy is comming from, we don't know what is depleating. And if the depleating reaction gives of a whole lot more energy then expected in combustion-chemistry, then its still a new found side of reaction instead of the infinite tapping in on zero-point energy. Even if it gets some of its energy from outside our understood realm of the universe.

If it could be only depending on that realm, it would go on the livetime of the other parts involved in the engine.i.e. indefinitly.

So logically, every papp-pop, every stroke uses or changes some elements in the mixture.

So if we knew how much strokes a 200 ml mixture can produce, we could reverse engineer which elements in the mixture are contestants to be the cause.

And so it becomes necessary to find a way to examine the content of the depleated mixture on a molecular or atomic scale.

The easiest way would be to borrow some old papp mixture from rob rohner...haha and run that before and after through a analyzer. Then our job could be done in a week, the secret would become clear and the world could be made better..

Well.. he won't do that..(if he even still has that mixture) so how do we determine the pappmixture then?

I think only by testing look-a-likes, including the preshrinking of gasses, the rol water can play and maybe some chemical additive's.

We are left with the/some pieces of this puzzle and knowing what amounts of energy there are possible in the different chemical, molecular and atomical bonds
can give clue's as to where to look for the energy present in the papp mixture reaction.

We know his little input, we can even calculate per stroke his output. This could give a clue as to what kind of reaction is present. And knowing the amount of strokes per 200 ml, we should be able to find if we are then talking about atoms or electrons or molecules or clusters.

So access to a gas chromatograph looks to be essential.

The next steps will probably be to trial and error all kind of things, all the time checking the input and output. And bring the promising stuff to the analyzer, re-theorize and build further on the found facts.

The popper is enough to find the validity of the papp process. And we have kc's engine standing by to check how any outcome performs in a rpm way.

So what chance do we have to find this holy grail?
How much luck do we need?

We know already we need better weather for one, lets see then what spring will bring us.

And lets enter this quest with our eyes on the essentials to find real solid data to build on further.

:angel:

FaradayEZ,

E=MC^2    Think of 1 followed by 46 ZEROS TO ONE RATIO. THAT IS A VERY LARGE NUMBER, RIGHT!
Lose a grain of sand and get a train load of energy sand so to speak. I know it is hard to comprehend.  
Check out a video of the H Bomb test over the ships. The conversion of only a few milligrams of H into energy.

So a couple of atoms of H disappear per whatever, So the engine if attached to an alternator, isolated within a metal sphere feeding a bank of lights attached to its surface, running in the RWG H mode and given enough velocity to leave our solar system will still shine long after the earth, sun and all else is gone.

So I am too lazy to do the math. All of you suffering from low self esteem will try to put me down, At least
I hope the magnitude of the mass to energy concept sinks in.  

The burst of electrons is sent SPIRALING through the torroid aided by timing, magnetic and electrostatic forces forming a structure like ball lightning, pressuring the chamber to expand. Do a literature search and write the rest of the theory yourself.

ChanGentlemen,

US Patent 6617775

After you have perused this, I ask, "Is this clear?".

My Professors would hear the yes and then send some one
to the board to derive the equations.

Enjoy!

Chan

Quote from Chan on March 16th, 2013, 10:46 AM

FaradayEZ,

E=MC^2    Think of 1 followed by 46 ZEROS TO ONE RATIO. THAT IS A VERY LARGE NUMBER, RIGHT!
Lose a grain of sand and get a train load of energy sand so to speak. I know it is hard to comprehend.  
Check out a video of the H Bomb test over the ships. The conversion of only a few milligrams of H into energy.

So a couple of atoms of H disappear per whatever, So the engine if attached to an alternator, isolated within a metal sphere feeding a bank of lights attached to its surface, running in the RWG H mode and given enough velocity to leave our solar system will still shine long after the earth, sun and all else is gone.

So I am too lazy to do the math. All of you suffering from low self esteem will try to put me down, At least
I hope the magnitude of the mass to energy concept sinks in.  

The burst of electrons is sent SPIRALING through the torroid aided by timing, magnetic and electrostatic forces forming a structure like ball lightning, pressuring the chamber to expand. Do a literature search and write the rest of the theory yourself.

ChanGentlemen,

US Patent 6617775

After you have perused this, I ask, "Is this clear?".

My Professors would hear the yes and then send some one
to the board to derive the equations.

Enjoy!

Chan

Hello Chan,

With the sand analogy your assuming that there is mass loss in the depleted pappmixture.

I agree, it probably will have less atomic weight.
But Papp never claimed his process could go on forever. Its not a clean H to energy thing. Something else makes it stop after a while. Some triggerreaction stops, some molecules are changed and after 3 months there all gone, changed.


I'm not an easy calculator, but when Papp predicted the mixture could work approximately for 3 months straight, we have something to calculate on.

Say at a constant rpm of 800; in the 2-cylinder engine, we have two explosions and two contractions per 1 turn of the crankshaftwheel. we know his horsepower output, so we can convert to joules somewhere.

Lets only count the explosions. 1600 per minute. 96.000 per hour. 2.304.000 per 24 hour. times 30,5 = 70.272.000 per month. 210.816.000 per 3 months.
Then his mixture of say 200 ml is depleted.

At the start, the mixture was composed of a certain amount of moles of a type A and B and C gases plus some water.

If we would theorize that the papp reaction consist of changing one molecule of B in combination with 2 molecules of water, producing 5 Joules of energy and molecule D.

Then we would have to say that the amount of energy we calculated from the horsepower per stroke, lets say 100 Joules makes the reaction schematic per stroke to 20 B with 40 water produces 100 Joules plus 20 D

That times 210 million gives us many clue's. Cause we recalculate those numbers back to moles and we see then if the theory is possible.

If you only theorize that E=MC^2, you probably still wouldn't be able to find out what is really going on. There isn't much mass loss after calculating the totals, and the power delivered per stroke isn't like an atomic reaction.

I think there is a chemical side and that maybe most elements in the pappmix will stay the same before and after the 3 months. But some new molecules will be found, maybe even elements not put in before.

Eventually we have to come up with a chemical reaction scheme that explains what happens inside. Cause otherwise there would be no depletion of the mix...
O.U. or not, there is also a depletion of some molecules or super clusters put in at the start.

And their reaction may not explain all the energy transfers, but they will certainly have a role in the cascading or initiation of the reaction.

Next question is how to find out without having papps mix? We only have a papplike plasma reaction in a popper. What if we could run it for 3 months or a lesser time, (even by using a bit more inputpower then what comes out) what difference in input-, and outputelements will we find? (needing gasanalyzer!) And what will that say about the reactionscheme?

I think this to be the logical and sure road to finding stuff, and to be going ahead with the coming time.

Cheers!

Papp's engine wasn't entirely sealed correct?  If the mixture escapes into the crankcase, it certainly wouldn't get scavenged back into the cylinder would it?

Just asking because if I had to guess, I would think you would leak mixture long before you would consume it.

Quote from Dog-One on March 16th, 2013, 07:27 PM

Papp's engine wasn't entirely sealed correct?  If the mixture escapes into the crankcase, it certainly wouldn't get scavenged back into the cylinder would it?

Just asking because if I had to guess, I would think you would leak mixture long before you would consume it.

Legitimate question and one could fill the crankcase also with the mix... but i hope that papp would have formulated such a bit different then. They play it (to me) like its the potion wearing of, not like leakage, witch would differ greatly then per design of the engine also.

The way I understand it: It's a chock wave that moves the piston,the piston creates then a low pressure in the spark chamber that moves back the piston and any noble gas that leaked in the crankcase...?

Hi Russ , I saw a vidio on the facebook / papp nge group that showed a cork blown out a test tube that had hydrogen and chlorine in it . Papp put deoxed water and chlorine in the 68 roser engine . Maybe the radio active  nodes and the noble gases where just to make it hard to duplicate . He put 24v dc across  the radio active nodes and the plates that where connected to the spark gap on the up stroke and ac across them on the down stroke .The dc would electroliss the water which would give us a small amount of hydrogen that will expand rapidly when the ac arc's in the foggy mist inside the cylinder. Please try a small amount of this mixture in your popper and please be very careful . This is just a guess but it just may work . The research goes on Ed xHemphill

Quote from edxhemphill on March 20th, 2013, 05:44 PM

Hi Russ , I saw a vidio on the facebook / papp nge group that showed a cork blown out a test tube that had hydrogen and chlorine in it . Papp put deoxed water and chlorine in the 68 roser engine . Maybe the radio active  nodes and the noble gases where just to make it hard to duplicate . He put 24v dc across  the radio active nodes and the plates that where connected to the spark gap on the up stroke and ac across them on the down stroke .The dc would electroliss the water which would give us a small amount of hydrogen that will expand rapidly when the ac arc's in the foggy mist inside the cylinder. Please try a small amount of this mixture in your popper and please be very careful . This is just a guess but it just may work . The research goes on Ed xHemphill

correct ED, i did see that.

here is my problem at the moment...

a quote from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_chloride

Quote

Safety

Hydrogen chloride forms corrosive hydrochloric acid on contact with water found in body tissue. Inhalation of the fumes can cause coughing, choking, inflammation of the nose, throat, and upper respiratory tract, and in severe cases, pulmonary edema, circulatory system failure, and death. Skin contact can cause redness, pain, and severe skin burns. Hydrogen chloride may cause severe burns to the eye and permanent eye damage.

The gas, being strongly hydrophilic, can be easily scrubbed from the exhaust gases of a reaction by bubbling it through water, producing useful hydrochloric acid as a byproduct.

Any equipment handling hydrogen chloride gas must be checked on a routine basis; particularly valve stems and regulators. The gas requires the use of specialized materials on all wetted parts of the flow path, as it will interact with or corrode numerous materials hydrochloric acid alone will not; such as stainless and regular polymers.

so although this may be a good answer. i'm wondering how one would protect them self's from this toxic gas...

also I'd say it would be a good test test try! with the proper precautions in place.

~Russ