Russ - the new flat capacitors do seem to be lower ESR and will likely give you more of a pop for lower input energy. In order to actually achieve the faster rise-time these caps can give, you'd need to shorten the wiring as much as possible and put the cap as close to the cylinder as possible. They look as if they are made of multiple cylinders, and the wires coming out are pretty skinny. It's possible that if you take the top of the case off you'll get access to the capacitor terminals and be able to attach some thicker wires and reduce the resistance further.

It's very noticeable that your wires jump during the pulse - there's a lot of EMP there. I suspect that might be dangerous to you over the longer term, but can't prove that. One thing those large EMP loops will do, though, is provide inductance that will slow both the start and stop of the current. Note that Papp had a very short route from the capacitor to the electrodes, as the capacitor was in fact wound around the cylinder. From the patent, the cap was wired across the buckets and the 40kV spark on the other two electrodes fired it like a Trigatron.

For what it's worth, therefore, I'd suggest wiring in just one of those flat caps as close as possible with as skinny a loop as you can achieve, and running it around the 1kV mark. Measure the height the piston achieves for the much lower energy input. It could be surprising. I could be wrong, too....

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on August 22nd, 2013, 02:25 AM

Update 24:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwwz8ofIWrw

finally here... leave your feed back!!!!

[list=1]

• I have no idea what you mean by "fast discharge".  The charge/discharge rate is determined by the capacitance curve.  Small -- Fast;  Big -- Slow

• Data acquisition -- Before there was a Labview, I wrote my own DAC systems in C language on a Compaq Portable II 286 machine.  The new stuff is very user friendly and will grab a lot of samples in a short amount of time.  When you are dealing with the unknown, the more samples the better.  That's the easy part, then comes the data reduction and analysis.  You cannot tell squat from the raw data; it must be properly post-processed.  Also, you must do very consistent calibrations and ALWAYS get baseline before and after the test run so that you can adjust out sensor drift.  How do I know this stuff?  I did it for the US EPA, so if you're not sure about something, ask.  Basically, if you cannot exactly show the steps from raw data to final report, it's all garbage, start over.

• 500 milliseconds is also only 1/2 second.

[/list]

Executive Summary
Good stuff Russ, but do understand, people spend their entire lifetimes doing data acquisition.  Other folks do the same with data reduction, so don't get yourself mired down in either part of it.  I would expect to see some really squirrely data with the plasma emissions so consider mega shielding and possibly driving all the low voltage instrumentation from battery power to eliminate any possibility of ground loops.

Don't know what else to say other than I support you all the way Russ and hope a clue falls out of the data someplace that takes it to the next level.

Quote from FaradayEZ on August 22nd, 2013, 07:23 PM

And to Jabowery i want to point out the following video of Bob Rohner and a duration test in which he talks and shows some residue, blue (and white when perfect?) in colour.

That residue is almost certainly an oxide of Tungsten:

"The colour varies between deep dark blue to blue, faint blue and green blue."

http://www.itia.info/tungsten-oxides-acid.html

Faraday shield at WalMart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Magnolia-Brush-Pre-Galvanized-Trash-Cans-20-gallon-galvanized-trash-can-with-lid/22189190

Enjoy,

kcd

Quote from k c dias on August 26th, 2013, 10:59 AM

Faraday shield at WalMart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Magnolia-Brush-Pre-Galvanized-Trash-Cans-20-gallon-galvanized-trash-can-with-lid/22189190

Enjoy,

kcd

LOL I just sold 2 of those on a garage sale.:P

Quote from k c dias on August 26th, 2013, 10:59 AM

Faraday shield at WalMart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Magnolia-Brush-Pre-Galvanized-Trash-Cans-20-gallon-galvanized-trash-can-with-lid/22189190

Enjoy,

kcd

HaHa !!!

Good one KC!

Quote from Dog-One on August 26th, 2013, 11:55 AM

Quote from k c dias on August 26th, 2013, 10:59 AM

Faraday shield at WalMart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Magnolia-Brush-Pre-Galvanized-Trash-Cans-20-gallon-galvanized-trash-can-with-lid/22189190

Enjoy,

kcd

HaHa !!!

Good one KC!

If someone see's a trash can jumping around the streets, don't be surprised to find that it contains Russ's Ppap machine :P

Quote

Russ:
Where can we download the 2 programs?

i thought i had the PLC program with my right now but i dont... i will upload both for viewing shortly.

Quote

I feel the most important things to focus in terms of data in order of priority is

1. Safety - Measuring radiation and back voltage spikes (then we can say for certain what measures have to be taken in order to operate it safely as well as what to do with the back voltage in terms of how much there is which will also be an important piece of information when it comes to energy input/output calculations) This will also allow us to work out if the back voltage spike can be used to further drive the system i.e charging a capacitor bank etc

2. Energy consumed in terms of joules (or jolts Tongue) vs energy output in terms of force. This will allow us then to do a simple unit conversion of total energy consumed vs total energy output.

3. Replication parameters: In other words what was done to obtain those results including things like frequency, duty cycles and voltage of the firing mechanism. What gas'es where used and at what pressure/vacuum with the above and most importantly which where more successful. This will allow us to further optimize the device as well as get a fairly accurate picture of what is actually happening.

the only other thing I would consider measuring is the difference between running the coils and not. Is there a difference?

1. yes unfortunately i dont have much to tell me if this thing is radioactive. i can see if there is a rise in retoactave stuff VIA the geiger counter. and once im comfortable with the results i will get the neutron detectors.

2. (jolts) hahaha that's funny. :) thank for the laugh! haha yes this will be one of the main factors.

3. yes. there is a description box where i can details like that. and the data will also show what is going on.

and yes. with and with out thew could and at different times...

i should also add a place to put put schematics and diagrams to attach with the data on the " report"

Quote

Also I noticed in one of the papp updates..cant recall which one. But when you filled the chamber with gas the piston remained in it's position. In the video with Bob he actually fills the chamber with gas until the piston raises all the way to the top then he pushes the piston back down until he has roughly atmospheric pressure. Im not sure if this makes a difference in terms of making sure the entire cylinder is filled? Either way great work keep it coming :-)

i have seen him fill it up all the way but i think that's not necessary. i do overfill it slightly some times and push some out.

Quote

Couldn't find the liveshow on your utube channel dow.

www.youtube.com/user/RWGresearchLive

Quote

I know your a volunteer etc. and your only doing what ye can, but i thought there where more here who have a popper device and when it gets quiet around here or when someone like Jabowery has a testworthy idea to maybe find a breakthrough...it itches me to howler at the blue sky. Smile

yes i know,. me too...

Quote

In the vid you also say you have to do a lot of preps for the Global BEM. I understand that it will be nice to concur with other people in this field. But further on it is also like preaching for the converted. If info from BEM would go mainstream etc. then it would be really something...not to piss on the parade, but just to relativice any too nice dreamed off outcome from it. (or spend too much time on preps for it) But already some new help and contacts can be worth it all.

i think it will help get people looking at the " little guys" doing good stuff. and hope to see some results from it.
most of the prep is for my speech... key points ect.

Quote

I think you need to make some pilots-check-list when experimenting.

i can agree. lets make a list of theses and i will incorporate them.

Quote

(almost) Every test should have the input/output graph

Note which capacitors you use per test
Note the electrode spacing
Note the gassort
Note the amount of voltage and current and durations

good stuff. will note it.

noted simon, thanks!

Quote

I have no idea what you mean by "fast discharge". The charge/discharge rate is determined by the capacitance curve. Small -- Fast; Big -- Slow

we are looking for a 10ns pulse or less... so those big lower voltage caps cant discharge as much power as the HV caps in the same given time. lets just say 10ns

Quote

Data acquisition -- Before there was a Labview, I wrote my own DAC systems in C language on a Compaq Portable II 286 machine. The new stuff is very user friendly and will grab a lot of samples in a short amount of time. When you are dealing with the unknown, the more samples the better. That's the easy part, then comes the data reduction and analysis. You cannot tell squat from the raw data; it must be properly post-processed. Also, you must do very consistent calibrations and ALWAYS get baseline before and after the test run so that you can adjust out sensor drift. How do I know this stuff? I did it for the US EPA, so if you're not sure about something, ask. Basically, if you cannot exactly show the steps from raw data to final report, it's all garbage, start over.

so every time i start a new test i should set it all up, do some adjustments, test again. ect.

also the PLC will trigger the data recorder so we only get the data we want... or i can record all the time...

Quote

500 milliseconds is also only 1/2 second.

umm yes. what? did i say something wrong in my video?

Quote

Executive Summary
Good stuff Russ, but do understand, people spend their entire lifetimes doing data acquisition. Other folks do the same with data reduction, so don't get yourself mired down in either part of it. I would expect to see some really squirrely data with the plasma emissions so consider mega shielding and possibly driving all the low voltage instrumentation from battery power to eliminate any possibility of ground loops.

Don't know what else to say other than I support you all the way Russ and hope a clue falls out of the data someplace that takes it to the next level.

thanks! i will not put 100% effort in to the DAQ. but this will help us in the small changes... and that's the goal.

:)

Quote

Faraday shield at WalMart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Magnolia-Brush...d/22189190

Enjoy,

kcd

lol nice!! :)

~Russ

Hey guys,

Also just on a new point/theory and bit off topic as to why the Ppap machine actually creates the pressure it does, because something definitely doesn't compute.

I was watching a video with Bob Lazar and I know it's bizarre and some people may find it unbelievable but either way he supposedly was an employee at area 51 and was one of the physicists that examined extraterrestrial craft.

He talks about the craft generating a gravity wave as a result of protons being fired at a piece of element termed "element 115" which man has only synthesized in small quantities.

What supposedly happens is protons are fired at this element and the element goes to 116 and immediately decays causing an antimatter reaction releasing enormous amounts of energy used to propel the craft. As a "side effect" it also creates a gravity wave that is then guided up a long tube to the top of the craft.

Could it be a type of gravity wave that creates the pressure inside the Ppap chamber when the electrodes are fired in a similar manner?

What I found interesting was the fact that scientists where trying to find a substitute for this element and came up with Thorium. Now the electrodes that Russ use happen to have exactly that element in the shape of a Thoriated tungsten electrode. Russ could test this idea by removing the piston and using the tube as a wave guide and seeing if there is any weight loss taking place.

My question then... and this is highly speculative, is it possible that the Ppap engine makes use of a hitherto unknown gravity wave?

Full documentary here

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



 

How to build a anti-gravity drive.

Reference:

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-magnetic-crystals-imaged-artificial-ice.html

Magnetic charge crystals imaged in artificial spin ice

Spin ice is caused when nano-material is configured to force electrons to travel in a vortex current.

The curvature of the nano matter supplies an electromagnetic force which drives the electrons to travel in a circle.

If the electron had its druthers, it would travel in a straight line. But the nano matter applies a force to block that straight path and causes the election to travel so that it is following its tail.

Since the LENR reactor has shown that a large magnetic field can be produced from nano vortex currents, there is a good chance that all the electrons are spinning in sync like a billion merry-go-rounds whose horses are all in lock step around the circle.

The acceleration vector that keeps the election in it circular orbit is always pointed toward the center of the circular electron path.

If you swing a bucket of water on a string, the force on the string is always pointed toward your hand in the center of the bucket’s circular orbit.

Centripetal force is a force that makes a body follow a curved path: its direction is always orthogonal to the velocity of the body, toward the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path. Centripetal force is generally the cause of circular motion.

In simple terms, centripetal force is defined as a force which keeps a body moving with a uniform speed along a circular path and is directed along the radius towards the center. The mathematical description was derived in 1659 by Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens. Isaac Newton's description was: "A centripetal force is that by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or in any way tend, towards a point as to a center."




In a LENR reactor, there exists an entangled centripetal force or acceleration vector that keeps all the members of the orbiting elections following a circular path.


In the prime assumption of general relativity, unless the state of motion of an object is known, it is totally impossible to distinguish whether an observer force is due to gravity or to acceleration—gravity and inertial acceleration have identical effects. Albert Einstein called this the principle of equivalence, and said that only observers who feel no force at all—including the force of gravity—are justified in concluding that they are not accelerating.





If the LENR Ni/H reactor is configured on a disk that is free to rotate so that the coordinated entangled centripetal acceleration vector always opposes the direction of gravity, the disk will produce a force that resists gravity.

The centripetal vector would be pointed at the center of the large disk. So the disk would be spinning head on toward the direction of gravity.

The speed of rotation of the disk would need to be very fast to equal some multiple of the angular speed of the entangled electrons orbit.

For example, if the disk spun at an angular velocity of exactly ½ that of the electron, the entangled centripetal acceleration vector would be only ½ of the total centripetal force available to oppose gravity.


If the Ni/H reactor is configured to produce a huge entangled centripetal acceleration vector, the disk would not need to spin very fast.

This is how those aliens have been driving their saucers around our skies for all these years.


cross posted on vortex

Quote from zaneaussie on August 28th, 2013, 03:07 AM

Hey guys,

Also just on a new point/theory and bit off topic as to why the Ppap machine actually creates the pressure it does, because something definitely doesn't compute.

I was watching a video with Bob Lazar and I know it's bizarre and some people may find it unbelievable but either way he supposedly was an employee at area 51 and was one of the physicists that examined extraterrestrial craft.

He talks about the craft generating a gravity wave as a result of protons being fired at a piece of element termed "element 115" which man has only synthesized in small quantities.

What supposedly happens is protons are fired at this element and the element goes to 116 and immediately decays causing an antimatter reaction releasing enormous amounts of energy used to propel the craft. As a "side effect" it also creates a gravity wave that is then guided up a long tube to the top of the craft.

Could it be a type of gravity wave that creates the pressure inside the Ppap chamber when the electrodes are fired in a similar manner?

What I found interesting was the fact that scientists where trying to find a substitute for this element and came up with Thorium. Now the electrodes that Russ use happen to have exactly that element in the shape of a Thoriated tungsten electrode. Russ could test this idea by removing the piston and using the tube as a wave guide and seeing if there is any weight loss taking place.

My question then... and this is highly speculative, is it possible that the Ppap engine makes use of a hitherto unknown gravity wave?

Full documentary here

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

intreating thought. at the moment if there was a change i would need to set up a scail and see.. i have some but dont know if they will blowup that close to the popper... lol

~Russ  

Papp revisited.

Though it has been a while thinking about the Papp engine it still seems a mystery how he seemed to get a lot more power then resent attempts by others.

It seems to me that one problem with a single cylinder popper is reproducing what may be going on with a two cylinder in the following way.

In Papp’s two cylinder engine both cylinders should be vacuumed and refilled with the gasses at the same time. This would result with both pistons being halfway between TDC and BDC. So with both cylinders at the halfway point and then allowing the gasses to enter to zero pressure would in fact cause a higher compression factor when the engine is turned over with a starter.

In Bob’s two-cylinder test it can be seen that both cylinders do rest about halfway between TDC and BDC and he has to manually force the pistons to reach TDC and BDC respectfully. In face he has a problem with the stroke being to short causing a braking effect (to much power).

So when running, one cylinder is under higher compression the other cylinder is under an increased vacuum.

I’m thinking the key to getting more power is not with just the electricity input but playing around with the gas pressures. I’m thinking if Russ wants to get some real power out of his popper he needs to have the return spring installed or a heavy weight and then start injecting the gasses to higher pressures.

Start low and then move up in pressure and see the results. Instead of the one inch piston travel maybe he can get it up to 4 or 5 inch piston travel.

What do others think ?

element 119

Quote from element 119 on September 15th, 2013, 08:29 PM

Papp revisited.

Start low and then move up in pressure and see the results. Instead of the one inch piston travel maybe he can get it up to 4 or 5 inch piston travel.

What do others think ?

element 119

I hoped that Russ could get more travel with a tri-spark.

You're right that with the setup like now there is little movement to make a stroke.

I also wonder what happens if one increases the pressure at top dead center. Doesn't that conflict with the Pashe curves, so that we need more juice?
(Lets test, increase in pressure is easy testable)

These latest days i saw the scarecrow and the Brillioun interview. I wonder if we, when understanding what they do, could take a look at using Nickel and also get H to become He in the end. Only thing is, we don't want all the heat, we want the electron side and pressure side.

Hi my name is Robin.
 I am a 17 year old boy from Belgium. As you may have noticed I send you a mail on skype and to your mail. If not I will explain it again here. So, in Belgium you have to do a few thing to finish secondary school. First of all you have to do exams like any other year. You also make a GIP. The GIP is a large project that has to do with your studies. I study technical science and doing my project about plasma. But on the internet I only find too basic thing (e.g. a candle in the microwave) or too hard to understand things (e.g. the courses of MIT). After lots of searching and more searching I find your videos on youtube about PAPP and learn a lot out of them. But I still have lots of questions, so I hoped I could skype with you to ask them.



Thank You for reading this

On the pappNGE fangroup seems to be some new interesting info from the gasprocessing side

From group: Papp NGE fangroup
https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/y3/r/0PnClccPFXs.png


It is likely a safe bet to state that anyone who reads this has read the gas processor description in the Papp patent US4428193. After setting forth to read that information with the full intention to gleam some insight into the preparation of the vital working fluid of the amazing engine we have all seen videos of, we walk away confused and bewildered at best. Upon further reflection, the confusion and bewilderment turns into a feeling of betrayal and disgust. Welcome to the world of Papp, you have arrived! You now posses the knowledge about the process that Papp intended for you to receive – NOTHING!

Both the Papp engine and the gas processing are real. Papp desperately wanted patent protection AND secrecy. I believe Papp devised a plan (at least in his mind) to achieve both.

Within a patent specification, it is better to over describe a process than to under describe it. I once read of a chemical process requiring various ingredients to be boiled in a pot, all the quantities of ingredients, temperatures and durations were meticulously described. Those ‘skilled in the art’ tried unsuccessfully to duplicate the process. It was later determined that a crucial detail was omitted from the original description: the ingredients were boiled in an IRON pot, the iron acted as a catalyst to create the desired reaction and end product.

In order to hide his process in plain sight, Papp exploited the idea of building in and describing erroneous elements within the gas processor. I am not suggesting that this strategy is acceptable within US patent law, just that Papp thought it was acceptable.

There are two main chunks of hardware included: the engine and the gas preparation apparatus. Papp could not, and did not, build the engine, Bob and Tom did that for him. There was no place to add any extraneous and unnecessary components to the engine. But the gas preparation apparatus was a different story. Perhaps, at the component level, Papp did farm out various items to be made for him, but the final assembly was entirely by his hand. So the task at hand was to thoroughly describe an apparatus that had both functional and erroneous non-functional components. This apparatus, if operated properly, would still yield the desired results, the erroneous components simply having no effect at all. Such a successful outcome by someone skilled in the art was unacceptable to Papp.

So an additional layer of deception was needed. Misdescribe the operation of each component, and misdescribe the overall function. He even went to the extreme of describing functions so absurd, that anyone who attempts to make any sense of the thing is repulsed and thus declares the thing as total ‘malarkey’, to use Bob’s description. My personal favorite is:

”…the grid of gauge 255 is subjected to 100% ionization energy and is heated to approximately 165° F. This temperature, 165° F. is related to xenon's boiling point of -165° F. in magnitude but is opposite in sign. Xenon is the heaviest of the five inert gases in the mixture. As the gas mixture flows through ionization gauge 255, the gas atoms that are in excess of their prescribed percentages are burned out of the mixture…”

I believe that, buried within the drawing for the gas processor, there are components (and very few of them) that are actually functional IF operated correctly. I further believe that clues to find these functional components may correspond to the components that have the most vague physical descriptions and mode of operation.

I further believe that the initial direction given to use the apparatus is intentionally misleading and misdirected. For example, once the system is evacuated and flushed with helium (I suspect an argon flush would be better), helium is then admitted to the system and takes a circuitous route through several devices such as ionization head 219, glass tubing coil 259 (adjacent to, but outside of magnetic coils 297 and 299), branch B45 to ionization head 275, branch B28, to ionization head 229, non-directed cathode ray tube 227, high-frequency discharger 225, branch B26 and then to high-frequency discharger 285, directed cathode ray tube 265, focused x-ray tube 263, branch B21, ionization head 221, branch B23, twin parallel magnetic coil 266, and branch B25 into mixing chamber 261. I have left the functional description of each component out to save the reader the misery of reading such material again. All of the above is done while looking for “A spectroscopic flash” to occur….

I suspect, if the apparatus actually has another function other that simply mixing the gases, then starting with helium, and the circuitous route stated, is a total red herring. I suspect starting with the heaviest gas, xenon, would be the proper first step, especially in light of Papp’s obvious misdirection.

I won’t get into what I believe the apparatus actually does, but when viewed with such alternative function, some parts of the apparatus actually jump out as necessary and functional. I am in communication with Bob by email to explore such possibilities.

Thanks for reading.

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

Jerry Ryberg I don't know you JB, but reading this, I'm glad you're on it.
4 hours ago · Edited · 1


Mark Hugo John: The mixing of the gasses to achieve a "spectroscopic flash". Do you know what that is about? I'll let you think about it, and then I'll tell you WHAT IT IS ABOUT, what it is FOR and what it refers too. 15 years ago I was reading the "gas nonsense" to a friend of mine, Phd in Physics. When we got to the "spectroscopic flash", he said: "HOLD ON..." And then he told me what PAPP was doing with this. It's one of the REAL things in the patent!
about an hour ago


Jerry Ryberg edu.photonics.com says this: "The light flash, produced in flash photolysis, that is triggered within a second discharge tube by the third electrode. It is to be differentiated from the photolysis flash which is triggered within the first discharge tube and is incident on the photocell." Mark, can you simplify this?
about an hour ago


Mark Hugo Yes, look up "Penning Mixture". (For He and Ne). Then stretch the concept to all the Noble gasses, except Radon.
about an hour ago


Mark Hugo PS: John Penning mixture is the answer. Without it the voltage to run a "Neon light" would be 80,000 volts, not 5000 volts. (I.e., Xray generator). 1 to 2% He in Ne lowers the ionization potential to a resonable level. Papp's description is that of iterating to the LOWEST IONIZATION LEVEL POSSIBLE for the mix of gasses.
about an hour ago


Jerry Ryberg Hmm. Mark, do you think the steps needed to make the gases useable for a successful engine are... does this all make for a practical engine? I guess if Papp did it, with what he knew and the materials and technology available, "we" should be able to do it better, correct?
about an hour ago

friend of mine, Phd in Physics. When we got to the "spectroscopic flash", he said: "HOLD ON..." And then he told me what PAPP was doing with this. It's one of the REAL things in the patent!
about an hour ago


Jerry Ryberg edu.photonics.com says this: "The light flash, produced in flash photolysis, that is triggered within a second discharge tube by the third electrode. It is to be differentiated from the photolysis flash which is triggered within the first discharge tube and is incident on the photocell." Mark, can you simplify this?
about an hour ago


Mark Hugo Yes, look up "Penning Mixture". (For He and Ne). Then stretch the concept to all the Noble gasses, except Radon.
about an hour ago

Not too much here to go on, but it may be a clue someone can zero in on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfhGtwr0C58

Step to 14:46

It's the water stupid.  Got me for sure if this guy is right; maybe got us all.

Wouldn't that be something if it turns out all these various flavors of technology are centered around water being the active component.

Quote from robin20102010 on September 30th, 2013, 11:36 AM

Hi my name is Robin.
 I am a 17 year old boy from Belgium. As you may have noticed I send you a mail on skype and to your mail. If not I will explain it again here. So, in Belgium you have to do a few thing to finish secondary school. First of all you have to do exams like any other year. You also make a GIP. The GIP is a large project that has to do with your studies. I study technical science and doing my project about plasma. But on the internet I only find too basic thing (e.g. a candle in the microwave) or too hard to understand things (e.g. the courses of MIT). After lots of searching and more searching I find your videos on youtube about PAPP and learn a lot out of them. But I still have lots of questions, so I hoped I could skype with you to ask them.



Thank You for reading this

Welcome Robin,
Have you had luck to get your questions answered? If not, you could still make a thread of your project about plasma and get input from the members here on it.
Maybe in open source projects?


 

Just thought of something....

The canon test in the dessert...

Inside the canon there was a powerful mix..we would like to know what that mix was.

The mix was excited, by a glow thread i think to remember?

So my question is: if that is true..then the normal explosion in the popper should also be able to come about by using a glow thread?
(i think it won't)

And so we can make this statement: If a normal popper mix won't explode by headed thread, then we should conclude that the canon mix was different from the normal popper mix we know! (The one Papp gave us.)

And if so, we need to search for an extra element that will react to a glow thread.

Such we should test in the popper and hope it will give us the desired power.

---------------------(edit 6.30 23 okt 2013)
Question is then: which element?

I know Papp had some book on chemistry that he used as his bible or so...let us check that again and pick out the possible candidates...
(Like Boron?)

-----------------------
Another consideration: When did Papp, for the first time, came with his gasmixing apparatus?
I think it was already after he had an explosive mix. So his gasmixer is not needed to get an explosive mix. And we are searching for that explosive mix. If we find later on, we need a gasmixer to extend the length of operating, working the engine, then that's fine. But for now we should first find the explosive mixture, and thus not invest yet in the gasmixer.
 

Robin,

See Chan, page 88, this thread.

c0p

Understanding the Papp patent leads to the insight that the Papp engine produces more electrons than goes to drive it. This violates the conservation of charge rule in physics.

There are theories of the vacuum that might support this.

This stuff interests me greatly:

A new theory of electromagnetism is in the works.

String-net liquid
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String-net_liquid
 
In this theory, electrons are breaks in strings of light.
 
Fractional charge of the electron is explained.


Check out
 
http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/cmp/2013/198710/
 
Topological Order: From Long-Range Entangled Quantum Matter to a Unified Origin of Light and Electrons

If you really want to understand why these outlier systems work the way that do, learn string theory.

Quote from Axil on October 26th, 2013, 08:31 PM

Understanding the Papp patent leads to the insight that the Papp engine produces more electrons than goes to drive it. This violates the conservation of charge rule in physics.

There are theories of the vacuum that might support this.

This stuff interests me greatly:
A new theory of electromagnetism is in the works.
String-net liquid  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String-net_liquid
 
In this theory, electrons are breaks in strings of light.
Fractional charge of the electron is explained.

Check out
http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/cmp/2013/198710/
 
Topological Order: From Long-Range Entangled Quantum Matter to a Unified Origin of Light and Electrons

If you really want to understand why these outlier systems work the way that do, learn string theory.

This is some heavy stuff Axil.  I still haven't fully wrapped my head around Tetryonics and string-net liquids takes things to a whole new level.

Any chance you can distill out the functional parts of this theory to more basic levels we can work with?  In the meantime, I'll read through this a couple more times and try to grasp what I can from it.

Quote from Matt Watts on October 27th, 2013, 09:35 AM

Quote from Axil on October 26th, 2013, 08:31 PM

Understanding the Papp patent leads to the insight that the Papp engine produces more electrons than goes to drive it. This violates the conservation of charge rule in physics.

There are theories of the vacuum that might support this.

This stuff interests me greatly:
A new theory of electromagnetism is in the works.
String-net liquid  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String-net_liquid
 
In this theory, electrons are breaks in strings of light.
Fractional charge of the electron is explained.

Check out
http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/cmp/2013/198710/
 
Topological Order: From Long-Range Entangled Quantum Matter to a Unified Origin of Light and Electrons

If you really want to understand why these outlier systems work the way that do, learn string theory.

This is some heavy stuff Axil.  I still haven't fully wrapped my head around Tetryonics and string-net liquids takes things to a whole new level.

Any chance you can distill out the functional parts of this theory to more basic levels we can work with?  In the meantime, I'll read through this a couple more times and try to grasp what I can from it.

Matt,

There is good evidence that the vacuum is a string-net liquid. This clue comes from strange and incomprehensible revelations that are emerging from the nickel hydrogen LENR reactors.

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-1.pdf

When a bit of the proper type of nano-dust is heated to the proper temperature, huge magnetic fields are produced more powerful than those that come from superconductive MRI machines with elephant trunk sized electric feed lines.

In the simplest terms it all comes down to nanostructures and light. The Papp engine must be forming nanoparticles, and exposing those particles to light.

This subject sails on very deep waters and is very hard to keep one’s head above these storm tossed waves. We will just have to climb each new level as we stubble onto them until all of them have been well mastered. The key is to keep on swimming.

Quote from Axil on October 27th, 2013, 02:19 PM

There is good evidence that the vacuum is a string-net liquid. This clue comes from strange and incomprehensible revelations that are emerging from the nickel hydrogen LENR reactors.

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-1.pdf

When a bit of the proper type of nano-dust is heated to the proper temperature, huge magnetic fields are produced more powerful than those that come from superconductive MRI machines with elephant trunk sized electric feed lines.

In the simplest terms it all comes down to nanostructures and light. The Papp engine must be forming nanoparticles, and exposing those particles to light.

This subject sails on very deep waters and is very hard to keep one’s head above these storm tossed waves. We will just have to climb each new level as we stubble onto them until all of them have been well mastered. The key is to keep on swimming.

Axil,

Could you do me a favor and take a look at Mark LeClair's slide deck and presentation near the bottom of this link:
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1329

If you see what I do, he has managed to determine the origin of what he calls a "water crystal".  He also believes this is the driving factor in all LENR research.

If inside the chamber of the Papp engine the conditions were present in such a way to form billions of little cavitation bubbles all shrinking into re-entrant jets that finally collapse into water crystals...  If this happened precisely on-queue, the energy release would be massive.  I do think the interior of the cylinder walls, piston and cylinder head would show signs of rapid degradation though, unless...  The water crystals align themselves against something in the gas mix instead of the surrounding material.

Anyway, please take a look and see if there are interrelated disciplines here that are useful towards our progress.

I checked out LeClair’s story long ago. I found this reference that supports the claims about the formation of water clusters:


https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/28349/1/gupea_2077_28349_1.pdf


THERMAL PROPERTIES OF CLUSTERS AND
MOLECULES


The related sections are chapters 2 and 3.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
The key to all this is the formation of vortex electron currents.


Related to this subject, this request came from Jed Rothwell

Quote

Farzan Amini asks that you have a look at his paper and send him any reaction you might have. I entered the publisher as LENR-CANR.org for now. I think it will be published elsewhere soon.
Amini, F., The Study of Cavitation Bubble-Surface Plasmon Resonance Interaction For LENR and Biochemical processes. 2013, LENR-CANR.org.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/AminiFthestudyof.pdf

This maybe more than you asked for but I responded to Farzan Amini as follows:

Quote

In reaction to your paper:

 The Study of Cavitation Bubble- Surface Plasmon Resonance Interaction For LENR and Biochemical processes


My thinking on LENR has moved into an area that might bear upon your paper as follows:
 

In pursuit of a better understanding of LENR, I wanted to find out what was behind some of the latest ideas about the nucleus for orthodox physics. This includes strong and weak force equivalence called in the physics game “S-duality”.

At first glance, it seems to me that the guy who thought this idea up does not believe in quarks.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9407087.pdf

Electric-Magnetic Duality, Monopole Condensation, And Confinement In N = 2 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory

N. Seiberg
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Rutgers University,

N. Seiberg bases his theories on monopoles and Dyons

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyon

“In physics, a dyon is a hypothetical particle in 4-dimensional theories with both electric and magnetic charges. A dyon with a zero electric charge is usually referred to as a magnetic monopole. Many grand unified theories predict the existence of both magnetic monopoles and dyons.

Dyons were first proposed[1] by Julian Schwinger in 1969 as a phenomenological alternative to quarks. He extended the Dirac quantization condition to the dyon and used the model to predict the existence of a particle with the properties of the J/ψ meson prior to its discovery in 1974.”

Schwinger was a true believer in cold fusion and a Nobel Prize winner who was ostracized for that belief by the scientific community.

After 10 years, these “out of the box” ideas as gaining some traction among the who’s who in physics.

The Higgs theory fits into all this somehow.


IMHO, I think that the roots of LENR and zero point energy lies deep inside this rat’s nest of incomprehensible nuclear concepts and string theory.

One idea that string theory has advanced is equivalence between theories even if the theories all look different mathematically.

Five consistent versions of string theory were developed before it was realized in the mid-1990s that these theories could be obtained as different limits of a conjectured eleven-dimensional theory called M-theory.

In quantum field theory, Seiberg duality, conjectured by Nathan Seiberg, is an S-duality relating two different supersymmetric QCDs. Seiberg was able to put the two theories together into a combined duel theory. The two theories are not identical, but they agree at low energies. More precisely after some math adjustments involving the gauge coupling constant, both theories behave in the same way.

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

This also involves an interchange of the electrically charged particles (quarks) and magnetic monopoles.

 
This comes from the strong-weak duality derived from the generalization of the electro-magnetic symmetry of Maxwell's equations.

============================================================
Reference:

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m632.pdf

Experimental observation and analysis of action of light magnetic monopoles on multilayer surfaces


I am interested in the similarities between the electromagnetic anomalies that have been reported by the Proton-21 experiment with those reported by LeClair in his cavatation experiment.


This “particle” could well be a magnetic vortex current that is mobile well beyond its location of creation. Like a nano-sized ball lightning, this vortex current is attracted to a solid surface where it induces nuclear reactions as a result of its unique electromagnetic nature.


LeClair may have erroneously connected the water crystal that he sees with the action of this magnetic vortex current.

If this current as large enough, this vortex currents may well be capable of passing though solid obstructions such as reactor walls as has been reported by LeClair and with ball lightning.


The referenced paper shows that these vortexes can travel a considerable distance from there points of creation and are very light in mass and may well be massless.


LeClair has presented clear experimental evidence showing the action and mobility of these vortexes and so have STANISLAV V. ADAMENKO  and VLADIMIR I. VYSOTSKII  in the above reference.

There is a LENR strength component that changes the character and the types of nuclear processes and transmutation produces that are manifest in various LENR reactor reactions.

 In the Rossi reactor, the strength level of the reaction is the weakest in this example. The Rossi reaction only affects transmutation of Ni62 and Ni64 in the nickel powder

 There is other transmutations going on but we will keep the discussion about nickel in the Ni/H reactors…

In the DGT reactor, the strength of the LENR reaction is on an intermediate level. The DGT reactor can affect the nuclei of Ni58 and Ni60 as well as Ni62 and Ni64. And the heaviest transmuted element observed is lead.

On the other side of the coin, in the LeClair reactor, the LENR reactor is the strongest reaction observed. This LENR reaction level can affect nuclei with both even and odd number of nucleons. This type of reaction can produce heavy elements well into the transuranic range.

 Interestingly, LeClair reports that both the chlorine stable isotopes Cl35 and Cl37 are transmuted into unstable chlorine nuclei Cl39 from LeClair as follows:

“The radiation emitted by the reactor left nuclear tracks, burned the hole pattern of the core into the clear PVC core enclosure, activated high neutron absorption cross-section 39Cl (56 minute half-life) in the chlorine of the PVC core enclosure….”

The LeClair reactor breaks the even nucleon rules where only even nucleons are affected by the reaction.

I don’t buy the LeClair theory of how cavatation produces transmutation from zero point energy.

Transmutation occurs because of Higgs field monopole disruption as anopole magnetism is sufficiently strong to cause the Higgs dual superconductivity in the nucleus to be disrupted with the formation of anapole magnetic nuclear filaments are generated where quarks are reordered and reconfigured.

Cavatation fits into the general whispering wave resonator polariton theory in this way.
 All these reactors produce anapole magnetic fields of varying strength that affect the stability of nuclei in their close proximity.

There is much randomness in this transmutation process where anopole fields can vary widely in strength. Because of this range in strength, sometimes fusion occurs and sometimes fission occurs as the quarks are rearranged.

 This process has nothing to do with high pressures or temperatures; it all comes down simply to the production of ring currents and magnetic disruption of Higgs superconductivity in the nucleus that this magnetic field produces.

 In the case of the cavatation bubble, the bubble acts as a micro-resonator where polariton vortex ring currents produce a negatively charged plasmoid whose anapole magnetic beam is pointed at the nearby solid surface.

In sonoluminescence, the dark mode cavity confinement of the polariton plasmoid breaks down and energy from the plasmoid escapes to the far field as ultra- violet and deep blue light as the cavatation bubble collapses.

When the dark mode is maintained in the cavatation bubble, the polariton plasmid vortex stays together long enough to affect the atoms on the surface of the solid material being eroded.

 As posted in the thread “Proton-21 and LeClair” Proton-21 reaction is similar to that produced by LeClair and may well be as strong resulting is similar levels of transmutation.

 In closing, please note that both LeClair and Proton-21 observe gamma radiation up to 10 MeV. This indicates that Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) is not required for the production of the LENR reaction. Its role is the thermalization of Gamma radiation.

 However, the intrinsic nature of the LENR reaction does leave the ash produced by the reaction stable without producing radioactive isotopes.

What the physics guys have not yet done is combine the Higgs field with the string-net liquid model of the vacuum.  LERN is turning out to be a very deep subject, but it is dammed interesting.


Reference:

See this post(s) for more explanation

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=6000#p102568

Quote from Axil on October 27th, 2013, 10:53 PM

What the physics guys have not yet done is combine the Higgs field with the string-net liquid model of the vacuum.  LERN is turning out to be a very deep subject, but it is dammed interesting.

Indeed.

Keep us posted on what you learn.  I can't help but to think the source of the LENR reactions is what we need to focus on and understand to a point we can engineer it to behave as we would like.  This knowledge may turn out to be so fundamental that it becomes a requirement for any ZPE device.