We are beyond #4 because we can see the wheel on the feedback current motor spinning.Quote from k c dias on March 30th, 2013, 12:48 PM Or we need to measure and verify where it is coming from before loosing to much sleep over it.Quote from Axil on March 30th, 2013, 12:22 PM The feedback current motor stopped spinning near the end of the video. This is concerning because something is stopping the feedback current generation.
In a two cylinder Papp engine, the feedback current should be constant to power the other cylinder.
The evolution of strange phenomenon:
1) Wow that's cool!
2) What could it be?
3) It looks like (fill in the blank)
4) Let's verify that!
5) Let's tell everyone!!!
We are at step #3. Need to do step #4 before moving on to step #5.
Just saying...
kcd
It is verified; the Papp reaction produces feedback current.
Bob Rohner’s two cylinder motor won’t work until he can fix what is killing the feedback current.
This video shows the popper working but does it begin to fail as time goes on? We have no evidence that it retains its power production over a long timeframe.
The failure of the feedback current may indicated that the popper is losing power over time.
Yeah, but...Quote from Axil on March 30th, 2013, 02:04 PM We are beyond #4 because we can see the wheel on the feedback current motor spinning.Quote from k c dias on March 30th, 2013, 12:48 PM Or we need to measure and verify where it is coming from before loosing to much sleep over it.Quote from Axil on March 30th, 2013, 12:22 PM The feedback current motor stopped spinning near the end of the video. This is concerning because something is stopping the feedback current generation.
In a two cylinder Papp engine, the feedback current should be constant to power the other cylinder.
The evolution of strange phenomenon:
1) Wow that's cool!
2) What could it be?
3) It looks like (fill in the blank)
4) Let's verify that!
5) Let's tell everyone!!!
We are at step #3. Need to do step #4 before moving on to step #5.
Just saying...
kcd
It is verified; the Papp reaction produces feedback current.
Bob Rohner’s two cylinder motor won’t work until he can fix what is killing the feedback current.
This video shows the popper working but does it begin to fail as time goes on? We have no evidence that it retains its power production over a long timeframe.
The failure of the feedback current may indicated that the popper is losing power over time.
In the new video, we now see where and how the feedback circuit is connected. I have concerns as to the validity of the source. Please see post:
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=659&pid=14238#pid14238
Thank you.
kcd
Russ - I decided it was too much hassle trying to build and calibrate a Geiger counter, so I bought one. It's a neat little box, and looks to be excellent design - should do all you need.
http://www.dosimeter4you.com/geiger-counter-radiation-detector-soeks-defender-p-93.html
Note there is also a cheaper version that does not have the dose totalisation. They are around half the cost of any equivalent I've seen, and I'd suspect the Russians have become pretty good at building them, anyway.
I doubt that there's any need to check for alphas (this detects higher-energy betas, gammas and X-rays), but if that does become necessary then a detector is easy to build.
Bob did it again, released a fantastic video showing little to no heat build up with the popper running.
https://www.youtube.com/user/bjrohner
Maybe now that the other guy is out of the picture Bob will release more updates showing his setup and progress!!! We can only hope and hats off to Bob.
Russ with your new 3d printer you could print out a popper body. :D
No need to Teflon insulate the electrodes with an ABS body. Do you think the ABS would hold up to the pressures?
element 119
To Bob Rohner and Russ and the builders in the group,Quote from heero yueh on March 29th, 2013, 04:36 PM
I have done the experiment of dumping a 32,000 Microfarad capacitor into plain air and I get no temperature rise whatsoever. The initial flash is very bright. I have a balloon on my chamber and it inflates instantly, and after 3.5 seconds it returns to its initial drooped position indicating return to the exact atmospheric pressure that existed at the start.
The air or any gas can expand due to heat or it can expand by another procses and be heated by the new pressure that it is under. When the force that caused this new pressure goes away (after the 3.5 seconds) the contracting of the gas exactly removes the heat caused by the pressure. My theory is that the Papp process is entirely electrostatic! The nobel gasses are very good Insulators electrically. Therefor a static charge is deposited on the molecules of the gasses and causes them to repel each other. This repelling causes the increase in pressure and as the static charge leakes back into the electrodes or surrounding metal to zero charge the pressure slowly reduces to equal atmospheric pressure again. I will assume that it is a negative charge caused by the high concentration of current at the positive electrode. This high concentration causes each electron received by the anode to knock two or three or more others off of the tungsten electrode. This is similar to Photo multipliers used in image enhancers where each electron knocks off several electrons that are all attracted to the next stage for further multiplication till after the last stage the signal is approximately 1 Volt P to P. This is also used in Image Orthicones used in TV cameras of the 1960's age. As the problem seems to be the long delay in return to atmospheric pressure, if this theory is correct all that needs to be done is to add some conductive material or gas to the mixture of nobel gasses so that the charge will leak off quicker. Then the RPM could be increased to a much higher value. I hope that this helps. The world needs this technology, so I will do whatever I can to further its development.
Willard[/size][/font]
We are beyond #4 because we can see the wheel on the feedback current motor spinning.Quote from k c dias on March 30th, 2013, 12:48 PM Or we need to measure and verify where it is coming from before loosing to much sleep over it.Quote from Axil on March 30th, 2013, 12:22 PM The feedback current motor stopped spinning near the end of the video. This is concerning because something is stopping the feedback current generation.
In a two cylinder Papp engine, the feedback current should be constant to power the other cylinder.
The evolution of strange phenomenon:
1) Wow that's cool!
2) What could it be?
3) It looks like (fill in the blank)
4) Let's verify that!
5) Let's tell everyone!!!
We are at step #3. Need to do step #4 before moving on to step #5.
Just saying...
kcd
It is verified; the Papp reaction produces feedback current.
Bob Rohner’s two cylinder motor won’t work until he can fix what is killing the feedback current.
This video shows the popper working but does it begin to fail as time goes on? We have no evidence that it retains its power production over a long timeframe.
The failure of the feedback current may indicated that the popper is losing power over time.
Youre right, what's the problem, what's the deal here? We already know there isn't much heat in the papp reaction. So testwise etc. this video isn't showing much to get new insights.Quote from Ris on March 30th, 2013, 05:43 AM My observations on heat.Every liter of noble gases HAS POTENTIAL THERMAL CAPACITY 0.900J-1J roughly 250cc have 0.250J of heat
Carbonsteel 1kg 450J--ALUMINIUM 1kg 900J heat capacity If you submit TEMPERATURE FROM SPARKS WE NEED 3600 IGNITIONS TO raise the temperature of 1 degree not yet taken into account the thermal conductivity of Aluminium And how much in SPARKS THE HEAT SIZE CYLINDER PISTON TIME NO IGNITION AIR TEMPERATURE TUNGSTEN CONDUCTION.Forget FIGURES-,PARTICLE NUMBER IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO.The universe is a terrible cold, but no particleswhich would have carry the COLD.BECAUSE I THINK Since WE have a little particle We can QUICKLY warm and cool Which is very important for this model.
NOT UNDERSTAND EVERY TIME FROM VIDEO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM(And from conversations) Would be good if someone tells me the exact problem.
So where are you Russ man,talk with me whether is valid what I am writing.
SO WHAT DO YOU SAY.
If Bob would show some different mixtures and show how they perform and put the numbers along with it, then we would have gotten some new information.
Even if he would give the electric input numbers it would be worth looking at, but he's not open sourcing, he is just showing and staying within the realm of what he agreed to share with his co-developers/investors.
So we can't really hassle him about giving more info
What we can find in this and other video's is how he gets the feedback current.
We Russ-poppies haven't found that with proof yet, but could easily make that little milestone victory the coming time.
can some one explain why bob only runs his popper for 30 min MAX???
i plan on running this for at least a day... will be setting up a web cam and let er rip!
prob not a full power at first but yes i will be doing longer tests than 30 min??? some explain why bob dose not do more than that?
~Russ
can some one explain why bob only runs his popper for 30 min MAX???Quote from Axil on March 30th, 2013, 02:04 PM We are beyond #4 because we can see the wheel on the feedback current motor spinning.Quote from k c dias on March 30th, 2013, 12:48 PM Or we need to measure and verify where it is coming from before loosing to much sleep over it.Quote from Axil on March 30th, 2013, 12:22 PM The feedback current motor stopped spinning near the end of the video. This is concerning because something is stopping the feedback current generation.
In a two cylinder Papp engine, the feedback current should be constant to power the other cylinder.
The evolution of strange phenomenon:
1) Wow that's cool!
2) What could it be?
3) It looks like (fill in the blank)
4) Let's verify that!
5) Let's tell everyone!!!
We are at step #3. Need to do step #4 before moving on to step #5.
Just saying...
kcd
It is verified; the Papp reaction produces feedback current.
Bob Rohner’s two cylinder motor won’t work until he can fix what is killing the feedback current.
This video shows the popper working but does it begin to fail as time goes on? We have no evidence that it retains its power production over a long timeframe.
The failure of the feedback current may indicated that the popper is losing power over time.
i plan on running this for at least a day... will be setting up a web cam and let er rip!
prob not a full power at first but yes i will be doing longer tests than 30 min??? some explain why bob dose not do more than that?
~Russ
I suspect that that fine coating inside the cylinder like talcum powder is a problem. That can't be good. That build-up may be what accounts for the drop-off of the harvested energy as evidenced by the motor not spinning towards the end of the video.Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on April 2nd, 2013, 04:54 AM can some one explain why bob only runs his popper for 30 min MAX???Quote from Axil on March 30th, 2013, 02:04 PM We are beyond #4 because we can see the wheel on the feedback current motor spinning.Quote from k c dias on March 30th, 2013, 12:48 PM Or we need to measure and verify where it is coming from before loosing to much sleep over it.Quote from Axil on March 30th, 2013, 12:22 PM The feedback current motor stopped spinning near the end of the video. This is concerning because something is stopping the feedback current generation.
In a two cylinder Papp engine, the feedback current should be constant to power the other cylinder.
The evolution of strange phenomenon:
1) Wow that's cool!
2) What could it be?
3) It looks like (fill in the blank)
4) Let's verify that!
5) Let's tell everyone!!!
We are at step #3. Need to do step #4 before moving on to step #5.
Just saying...
kcd
It is verified; the Papp reaction produces feedback current.
Bob Rohner’s two cylinder motor won’t work until he can fix what is killing the feedback current.
This video shows the popper working but does it begin to fail as time goes on? We have no evidence that it retains its power production over a long timeframe.
The failure of the feedback current may indicated that the popper is losing power over time.
i plan on running this for at least a day... will be setting up a web cam and let er rip!
prob not a full power at first but yes i will be doing longer tests than 30 min??? some explain why bob dose not do more than that?
~Russ
What is the source of this deposit? Bob says the color changes from white through indigo blue, blue and even black based on the amount of contamination of the gas - but the implication is it is always there.
If it's from the gas itself, maybe that's what Papps conditioning of the gas achieved - the elimination of the deposits and therefore the longevity of the engine operation?
I suspect that that fine coating inside the cylinder like talcum powder is a problem. That can't be good. That build-up may be what accounts for the drop-off of the harvested energy as evidenced by the motor not spinning towards the end of the video.
What is the source of this deposit? Bob says the color changes from white through indigo blue, blue and even black based on the amount of contamination of the gas - but the implication is it is always there.
If it's from the gas itself, maybe that's what Papps conditioning of the gas achieved - the elimination of the deposits and therefore the longevity of the engine operation?
To Russ and all builders in the group,
I used 42 volts as my capacitor was only rated at 40 Volts DC. I used the igniter method of setting off the spark. My next experiment is to try Hydrogen gas. I wish I could monitor the temperature through the time period of 3.5 seconds. If i can find a fast enough probe I will monitor it on my storage oscilloscope. I hope this helps. Keep up the good work Russ, Bob Rohner and all others.
Willard
greeting man.whether you can do the test with the volume(since you have the same power then just different amounts of gas)it would help me because I think build a system with the hydrogen-standard engine(easily accessible and it is easy to keep a system under pressure)THANKS
Hello all,
Outstanding job. I have been lurking on the forums and youtube channels for a while now and following Russ's progress with the popper replication in particular, with avid interest. With all the "fuelless generators" that have been propposed and ultimatly failed to come to market, I think the Papp process shows the most promise of actually delivering a viable alternative to the ICE.
I totally understand Bobs stance on wishing to capitalize on all the years of hell and heartache he has invested in this, however I cannot help but feel "something" will pop up and this entire approach will be blocked from ever seeing the light of day. That is why i am so impressed with the efforts of all of you to open source this and help out anyone that feels they have the skillset required to replicate the device. I feel that Without independent experimenters like all of you shining light on it for all to see, this technology will never be available as an "off the shelf" device. As paranoid as that sounds, history has proven that the established "powers that be" have an incredible desire for self preservation. Any practical device that comes to market utilizing this technology will undoubtably be seen as "revolutionary" and will not be embraced with open arm by governments or big oil, regardless of all the positive bennifits associated with a cheap and easy, totally green, energy system. It would completely render all the current infrastructure useless, and destroy billions of dollars of anual revenue. The initial damage to the economy alone would almost guarantee that whoever tries to bring this to market will be either quietly bought out or otherwise "discredited" as a fraud... Regardless of the validity of the science.
I am an experienced machinist, with access to all kinds of toys to fabricate all the metal bits, but have a serious lack of skills when it comes to whipping up the electronics end of things. I will eventually correct that shortcoming, as I really have a strong desire to build something practical for my own personal use that capitalizes on the unique expansion and collapes phenomena of the noble gas/ plasma reaction. While I would love to be the first to engineer a sellable, practical device, I am realistic enough to understand that there are others far more qualified to do it than I am. I would settle for being able to run down to Home Depot and buy one. No discredit to Bob, but I just do not ever see that happening in my lifetime.
I believe he has succesfully shown that whatever Joe Papp stumbled upon is viable and real, and regardless of whether or not it is ever classed as "overunity", his machine creates a very efficient way to capitalize on recycling a pressure differential and creating usable work. I would love to have a very small, multi cylinder version of it quietly chugging away under the hood of my Nisan leaf 24/7... When I plug it in at night, it would quietly give back to the grid, and keep my beer cold. :)
Anyway, thanks for all your effort Russ. This is an extremely talented and varied group of individuals that have all been united by a common vision and gathered together to cheer you on.... Bring it out of the dark and hand it to the world to do with what it will.
~Winger~
To Russ and all builders in the group,
I used 42 volts as my capacitor was only rated at 40 Volts DC. I used the igniter method of setting off the spark. My next experiment is to try Hydrogen gas. I wish I could monitor the temperature through the time period of 3.5 seconds. If i can find a fast enough probe I will monitor it on my storage oscilloscope. I hope this helps. Keep up the good work Russ, Bob Rohner and all others.
Willard
The air or any gas can expand due to heat or it can expand by another procses and be heated by the new pressure that it is under. When the force that caused this new pressure goes away (after the 3.5 seconds) the contracting of the gas exactly removes the heat caused by the pressure. My theory is that the Papp process is entirely electrostatic! The nobel gasses are very good Insulators electrically. Therefor a static charge is deposited on the molecules of the gasses and causes them to repel each other. This repelling causes the increase in pressure and as the static charge leakes back into the electrodes or surrounding metal to zero charge the pressure slowly reduces to equal atmospheric pressure again. I will assume that it is a negative charge caused by the high concentration of current at the positive electrode. This high concentration causes each electron received by the anode to knock two or three or more others off of the tungsten electrode. This is similar to Photo multipliers used in image enhancers where each electron knocks off several electrons that are all attracted to the next stage for further multiplication till after the last stage the signal is approximately 1 Volt P to P. This is also used in Image Orthicones used in TV cameras of the 1960's age. As the problem seems to be the long delay in return to atmospheric pressure, if this theory is correct all that needs to be done is to add some conductive material or gas to the mixture of nobel gasses so that the charge will leak off quicker. Then the RPM could be increased to a much higher value. I hope that this helps. The world needs this technology, so I will do whatever I can to further its development.
Willard
can some one explain why bob only runs his popper for 30 min MAX???