Quote from element 119 on August 1st, 2012, 10:38 PM

Hello Bob Rohner

I would like to start by saying sorry for the loss of your brother Tom. It is obvious you two were very close.

John states he currently has at least 7 manufactures ready to go into production and will go public around the end of September in about 2 months. True or not true we should know by October. Can you tell us about how close you are to providing a production engine?

Speaking for myself I do not want to get in the middle of any disputes between you and John. Please note that for us on the outside it is hard to know what is true or not true. I believe most of us just want a way out of the high prices for gasoline and fuel to heat our homes. It would be nice if you two could get together and advance the technology but that is up to you two, and none of my business.

I can see why the one cylinder popper build project might be considered a paint shaker but can you explain why Johns 2 cylinder opposed piston is not a boxer motor? The pistons are 180 degrees opposed.

Russ has some mad building skills just go and watch some of his videos. So when Russ builds the kit we will see if the noble gas engine requires more then just the noble gasses and the electronics.

Please don’t take anything I say the wrong way we are just looking for the answer to question.  

element 119

Gentlemen

Thank you for your kind words about my brother, he was a hell of a man. Regarding Dr. Dr. John. Beyond a few cautions I certainly do not want you involved in our dispute. I much prefer talking technology

I have the video up on my website www.rohnermachine.com of my TeslaTec presentation which was mostly about what you are doing. It's a little choppy since they were unable to play my power-point.  I think you will also find it interesting that one of the top new energy physicist from SRI find it real and unreal at the same time. His talk comes very near the end. I will also be posting a fun-time
welcoming video that should have been part of my presentation. Perhaps this will give you some more ideas. It goes fast and wastes no time

Regarding Dr. Dr. John engine. It is not a boxer engine because it is not an opposed piston engine. It is called a paint shaker because both pistons move together one way then the other. A design which was discarded many, many years ago. On an opposed engine both pistons move out at the same time because the rods connect at 180 degree apart on the crankshaft. On this pain-shaker both rods are connected to the same pin and move in unison. It should be obvious why it is called a pain-shaker. the entire moving mass of the engine is thrown one way and then another. A close look a some of his stills will prove this is correct.

Actually, since we believe in the crossover energy theory, our system will not run as a two cylinder boxer since both fire at the same time. However, a four cylinder boxer would be ideal for passing the current back and forth.

Remind me to tell you where and what kind of syringes and needles to buy and the easy and cheap way to make your septums. It took me several tries to get this simple loading procedure down right and needles are expensive.

Here's a couple of 'revolutionary' engine design concepts:

New Split Cycle Engine Concept: The Doyle Rotary Engine

RBR - Radial Bi Rotary Balanced Piston Combustion Engine

All the best

ethos Pete...

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." - Yogi Berra

Quote from bjrohner on August 2nd, 2012, 09:46 AM

Gentlemen

Thank you for your kind words about my brother, he was a hell of a man. Regarding Dr. Dr. John. Beyond a few cautions I certainly do not want you involved in our dispute. I much prefer talking technology

I have the video up on my website www.rohnermachine.com of my TeslaTec presentation which was mostly about what you are doing. It's a little choppy since they were unable to play my power-point.  I think you will also find it interesting that one of the top new energy physicist from SRI find it real and unreal at the same time. His talk comes very near the end. I will also be posting a fun-time
welcoming video that should have been part of my presentation. Perhaps this will give you some more ideas. It goes fast and wastes no time

Regarding Dr. Dr. John engine. It is not a boxer engine because it is not an opposed piston engine. It is called a paint shaker because both pistons move together one way then the other. A design which was discarded many, many years ago. On an opposed engine both pistons move out at the same time because the rods connect at 180 degree apart on the crankshaft. On this pain-shaker both rods are connected to the same pin and move in unison. It should be obvious why it is called a pain-shaker. the entire moving mass of the engine is thrown one way and then another. A close look a some of his stills will prove this is correct.

Actually, since we believe in the crossover energy theory, our system will not run as a two cylinder boxer since both fire at the same time. However, a four cylinder boxer would be ideal for passing the current back and forth.

Remind me to tell you where and what kind of syringes and needles to buy and the easy and cheap way to make your septums. It took me several tries to get this simple loading procedure down right and needles are expensive.

Thanks for making your Tesla Tech 2012 video available. That answers a lot of question for instance I didn’t have any idea what you were talking about with the needles and so on. Now I see you used them to insert the gasses into the cylinder.

Would a simpler system like having a small cartridge like those used in paint ball guns or co2 cartridges used in BB guns filled with the gas mix then a shut off valve work?

Also thanks for explaining the Boxer motor that was a mistake on my part for calling it a Boxer motor. But it should be easy for engine manufactures to over come that design problem with a more standard engine design.

Please don’t take this the wrong way it may be just ignorance on my part but it looks like the big difference between your and Johns design are the electronics and maybe piston/cylinder head shape. If I understand correctly what John is saying he is using CB radio AM mode channel 12 = 27.105 MHz to excite the gasses and you are using thorium and rubidium instead of the RF. Does that sound correct?

At this point the only working system I have seen is yours so that is a big plus in your favor. At least we now know the basic system is valid.

Thanks for all your input it is much appreciated.

Randy

Quote from bjrohner on August 2nd, 2012, 09:46 AM

I much prefer talking technology

agreed! :) lets not worrie about people here too much. its past times ( i hope) and we support you bob. there are a lot of fine folks here willing to help. lets focus on the tech at hand.

Quote

Remind me to tell you where and what kind of syringes and needles to buy and the easy and cheap way to make your septums. It took me several tries to get this simple loading procedure down right and needles are expensive.

yes please do. any and all guidance will be a huge help!

also, i see in your video these bottles of gasses:

[attachment=2035]

what size cylinders are these? and through your testing, how Manny times have you had then refilled?  

also, how do you make the mix or whats your method if i may ask?

valves and gauges and such for each tank or do you weigh the gasses? do you use one type of Gage or do you have a Gage for each gas for that gas molecule size?

any help in this area would be wonderful!  

we know by your Tesla talk that you do not process the gases? so if we mix them directly with no extra stuff, we should be able to see results?

if so what is this used for? :

[attachment=2036]

so the electrodes are polarity sensitive?  
here is your schematic:
[attachment=2041]

i can see from this that your using the cap C1 and the 58vdc to " jump" the gap when you apply the high voltage AC Via the auto coil and spark gaps. this will allow you to apply the low voltage DC (high current) to the electrodes VIA the high voltage spark? Whats the purpose of the " wood coil"  

any way. i will be having a really big go at this ans will show others, it will help valuate what your doing. not looking to make money on any of this, just trying to show others that this is real and your doing quite the job on that! congrats! dont let the skeptics bother you... keep up the good work!

i am only 26 years old, so with that i'm here trying to "carry the torch" so to speak. anything you teach us is a big deal as we want to carry on this work not take it from you. Team work!  

Blessings

~Russ

Hey Russ, I put a little chart together of the noble gas mix in the Papp engine and a quick compare to a simple model of "air". The gas mixture's atomic weight is about 2.40 times greater than air.

http://screencast.com/t/AW0LbTFX

Hi All

My first post :)

Russ I found your site from your youtube video about building the popper. I too was thinking about building it. I see Bob has made some comments and it causes me concern.

If you go to the plasmerg site, there is a link to a video called "proof a quantum effect" or some such. All I can say is the video is a load of it. if that's their proof then they are in serious trouble.

I started looking into the Papp engine after seeing the telsa video by Bob. (thanks DSM) but I am concerned about the mode of operation of the device.

To me it looks like a large solenoid. the 'plasma' may just be a light show. I asked bob in a private communication to try the motor with a range of different gasses the idea being to rule out the electromagnetic coil effect. and to see if one gas was the actual cause of the effect. he declined to contemplate the request.

So I cannot rule out the solenoid effect.

I also noted in the video you posted was an extra connection which was not discussed.  There are two electrodes, two 'buckets and a fifth connection at the back which may have been a ground to the casing but I cannot be sure.

All in all too many questions.

I'll be watching with interest.

CC

Quote from CuriousChris on August 7th, 2012, 06:48 AM

Hi All

My first post :)

Russ I found your site from your youtube video about building the popper. I too was thinking about building it. I see Bob has made some comments and it causes me concern.

If you go to the plasmerg site, there is a link to a video called "proof a quantum effect" or some such. All I can say is the video is a load of it. if that's their proof then they are in serious trouble.

I started looking into the Papp engine after seeing the telsa video by Bob. (thanks DSM) but I am concerned about the mode of operation of the device.

To me it looks like a large solenoid. the 'plasma' may just be a light show. I asked bob in a private communication to try the motor with a range of different gasses the idea being to rule out the electromagnetic coil effect. and to see if one gas was the actual cause of the effect. he declined to contemplate the request.

So I cannot rule out the solenoid effect.

I also noted in the video you posted was an extra connection which was not discussed.  There are two electrodes, two 'buckets and a fifth connection at the back which may have been a ground to the casing but I cannot be sure.

All in all too many questions.

I'll be watching with interest.



------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen
I came here to help you with the mechanics of you experiment. I did not offer in any way to show you how we do it.

 Only an idiot would make statements such as this Chris guy just made. The coil is twenty four volts - the steel shaft extends entirely through the coil, the piston is aluminum, so even a few thousand amps would cause no movement let alone lift 50 pound+ weights. I have heard many explanation of how this thing works but this is by far the dumbest. No research, just pie in the sky.

This Chris guy is also full of crap. His comment on testing the individual inert gasses is entirely false. The following statements were made by email: Be sure to note anywhere I decline to contemplate anything. Pure BS

Chris:
Do all of your normal procedures to the letter.
Instead of using the noble gas mix, fill it to the same specs with just normal air.
then try each of the different noble gases.
Bob:
When you change gasses, it is necessary to run through the whole scenario of pressures, gaps, voltages, ect. for each change. To understand why, google Pashen Curves. Here you will discover that each individual gas has it's own optium pressures and gaps per voltage input. It is important to remember that we are discussing forming the plasma. Once the plasma is formed much more must be done during the cycle. This I am sorry I cannot discuss.
Chris:
Record the strength of the pulse in each instance and determine if any of the gases give a stronger result than any other gas and then chart that against the normal mixture. I would expect each gas to give some output even normal air.
The spark and following current must create a thermodynamic response. That loud bang heard when you fired the device in plain air is of course the rapid expansion of the air caused by the heating from the arc.
Bob:
The object of the entire presentation was to prove that the power generated is not thermodynamic. For instance we ran the cylinder with a 360 pound load for 500 cycle during a twenty minute period. You must remember that the cylinder is closed and no venting is possible. Now it takes about 400 joules to cook a hamburger, an amount of energy going in to the cylinder ever few strokes and yet the cylinder showed no appreciable heat gain (although it should have been red hot.)  Another way to look at it is that if this closed cylinder was thermodynamic it would fire out and sit there for hours as the heat energy was slowly transferred through the wall of the cylinder. As you can see it returns immediately without a moment of hesitation.
end of mail.

I was just trying to be friendly. It was apparently a mistake. I don't know if this ass is one of Dr. Dr. Johns stooges or not but I am out of here.

Quote from bjrohner on August 7th, 2012, 08:25 AM

I was just trying to be friendly. It was apparently a mistake. I don't know if this ***** is one of Dr. Dr. Johns stooges or not but I am out of here.

Bummer! If this guy WAS from Dr.Dr. John, then, as evidenced by your leaving us, he apparently succeeded in (one of) his intent(s). Judging by your videos Mr. Rohner (may I call you Bob?), you would have been one heck of a guy to know. You will be sorely missed! :(

John Rohner responds to Bob's Presentation at the Tesla Tech 2012 show.

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

And also talks about the hazards of the exotic materials.

I’m kind of hearing the going public announcement may be set back a little while. Disappointing! :(

element 119

Dear Bob

I do not appreciate being called a liar. But I did make an error. when you  responded to my last email I did not see your full response.

My computer is currently being rebuilt hence I am using a webmail client to view my emails. I did not realise it but because you responded by adding quotes into my original questions the webmail client actually collapsed the response and hid it

The only thing I thought I got from you was the Nolan cert I didn't think you even bothered to reply to my text.

So I sincerely apologise for this basic mistake on my behalf.

Attached is a screenshot so you can see what I saw when I opened the email.
[attachment=2059]

How you extrapolate that to calling me a liar and a stooge for your brother baffles me, and is a huge insult. Your swearing also tends to confirm your nature.

With respect to the solenoid, It is obvious Mr Rohner you do not understand magnetic fields. Because the piston is aluminium it is perfect to use in a high current solenoid. particularly of the type you have copied/designed.

When you apply a changing magnetic field to ANY METAL a current is induced into that metal. this current creates a magnetic field (flux) that OPPOSES the original magnetic field.

In the case of the Papp engine this would indeed cause the piston to 'fire' the resulting heat generated due to eddy current losses would be minimal. the force of the repulsion would be a factor of the speed of change of the flux. One way to get a very high speed of change is to use a spark gap. Just ask Tesla he used that all the time. A car prior to electronic ignition used a set of points to achieve the same result. An electronic switch (transistor) correctly protected will also do the job but protecting it from the high voltages is more difficult.

Now if you don't believe me about the aluminium check this link out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5B3t8zqJPM
Its an excellent example of how aluminium reacts on a strong magnetic field. By charging your high voltage capacitors you are providing exactly the environment I would expect to see this result.

From there I suggest you start to research magnetism.

Now that I better understand Bob Rohners lack of understanding about magnets I can say the "popper" as displayed by Bob Rohner is probably a solenoid. the flux is a sideshow. the magicians slight of hand. but even the magician is not aware he is doing it.

Now I was going to mention this in another post. but here we are so I shall now and it relates to the above.

The excellent video posted featuring Dannel Roberts misses a major point. its something Either Dannel Roberts doesn't understand or chose to leave out.

His lovely spinning top demonstration was very effective. but he failed to draw your attention to the power source. He provided the energy to the spinning top by spinning it. when it collided with the cup or the other top later in the video it was that energy that was expended and made the top explode away. Where else did the energy come from?

So where does the energy come from to raise the noble gasses to the plasma state? He states that quite clearly. The energy comes from the particles colliding with the cold neon particle. The alpha particle in turn gets its energy from the electrical force provided by the high voltage current interacting with the thorium. at that point he says he doesn't know how that's done. But that's Ok the important point is the energy comes from somewhere. That somewhere is the energy input by the electrics.

So given this we have two choices to make
1/ The system gets all its energy from the electricity and therefore is less than overunity
2/ The system is triggered by the electrical energy and gets its energy from somewhere else.

For point 2 we only realistically have 2 options
2a/ the process turns the gas mix into a volatile mix and therefore expends chemical energy.
2b/ The system causes a fusion event.

Personally if I was to choose id go for option 1.
but say we go for option 2
2a is a thermodynamic event. the system should heat up and quickly use up all the fuel.
2b is umm a thermodynamic event the system should heat up and give everyone radiation poisoning. but the fuel will last a long time.

Option 2c is of course ZPE but only the faithful and fools will go down that path.

The reason I asked you to try the device with just atmosphere was I didnt care about the gasses I wanted to rule out the solenoid effect. it only takes a few minutes to do that test and yet you chose to try and baffle me with Pashen Curves to excuse yourself from doing it.

So here goes. Try it without the noble gasses. follow the setup precisely and instead of injecting the gasses just inject air. If my solenoid theory is wrong (and it is only a theory) then the device should not move. Another test is replace the piston with a purely plastic one. it only needs to last a few shots and as you say the temp barely raises so it should be fine. But I am guessing that you wont even try it and if you do then you wont admit it. Many inventors when faced with the total failure of years of work go into denial.

By the way have you tested the device for x-rays? did you know if you create a high voltage spark you are also most likely creating x-rays? I'd be very careful about showing people the lovely open air spark you can make.

And Bob what causes the really loud 'bang' when you show the spark in normal atmosphere? Why its rapid expansion of the gasses. that's what a bang is. so we know it is a thermodynamic reaction, at least in part.

My original comment was that Bobs comments made me concerned that the Plasmerg Popper was fake. Now Bobs comments make me concerned about Bob himself. He doesn't understand some of the basics. While I am sure he is a master of his chosen field of engineering. The Papp engine is an entirely different thing

It was also 'invented' by a guy who previously committed a very serious attempt at fraud. claiming to invent a jet submarine engine and crossed the Atlantic in 13 hours. Everyone even Bob publicly recognises this guy has no knowledge of physics

Would you trust someone like that?

I am pretty sure I wouldn't.

And Bob I too was trying to be friendly. But I wanted to know more. That's why I call myself CuriousChris and not GullibleChris

CC

Quote from bjrohner on August 7th, 2012, 08:25 AM

Quote from CuriousChris on August 7th, 2012, 06:48 AM

Hi All

My first post :)

Russ I found your site from your youtube video about building the popper. I too was thinking about building it. I see Bob has made some comments and it causes me concern.
...

------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen
I came here to help you with the mechanics of you experiment. I did not offer in any way to show you how we do it.

 Only an idiot would make statements such as this Chris guy just made. The coil is twenty four volts - the steel shaft extends entirely through the coil, the piston is aluminum, so even a few thousand amps would cause no movement let alone lift 50 pound+ weights. I have heard many explanation of how this thing works but this is by far the dumbest. No research, just pie in the sky.

...

I was just trying to be friendly. It was apparently a mistake. I don't know if this ***** is one of Dr. Dr. Johns stooges or not but I am out of here.

To anyone else in this forum I am sorry if I have caused offense. it was never my intention. but it is also not my intention to blindly accept the word of someone who makes extraordinary claims

As they say Extraordinary claims requires Extraordinary proof. actually just ordinary proof is fine by me.

Oh Cool, this is the link I really wanted to find ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=iABmUEH5s0k

CC

Quote from CuriousChris on August 7th, 2012, 09:08 PM

Dear Bob

I do not appreciate being called a liar. But I did make an error. when you  responded to my last email I did not see your full response.

My computer is currently being rebuilt hence I am using a webmail client to view my emails. I did not realise it but because you responded by adding quotes into my original questions the webmail client actually collapsed the response and hid it

The only thing I thought I got from you was the Nolan cert I didn't think you even bothered to reply to my text.

So I sincerely apologise for this basic mistake on my behalf.

Attached is a screenshot so you can see what I saw when I opened the email.


How you extrapolate that to calling me a liar and a stooge for your brother baffles me, and is a huge insult. Your swearing also tends to confirm your nature.

With respect to the solenoid, It is obvious Mr Rohner you do not understand magnetic fields. Because the piston is aluminium it is perfect to use in a high current solenoid. particularly of the type you have copied/designed.

When you apply a changing magnetic field to ANY METAL a current is induced into that metal. this current creates a magnetic field (flux) that OPPOSES the original magnetic field.

In the case of the Papp engine this would indeed cause the piston to 'fire' the resulting heat generated due to eddy current losses would be minimal. the force of the repulsion would be a factor of the speed of change of the flux. One way to get a very high speed of change is to use a spark gap. Just ask Tesla he used that all the time. A car prior to electronic ignition used a set of points to achieve the same result. An electronic switch (transistor) correctly protected will also do the job but protecting it from the high voltages is more difficult.

Now if you don't believe me about the aluminium check this link out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5B3t8zqJPM
Its an excellent example of how aluminium reacts on a strong magnetic field. By charging your high voltage capacitors you are providing exactly the environment I would expect to see this result.

From there I suggest you start to research magnetism.

Now that I better understand Bob Rohners lack of understanding about magnets I can say the "popper" as displayed by Bob Rohner is probably a solenoid. the flux is a sideshow. the magicians slight of hand. but even the magician is not aware he is doing it.

Now I was going to mention this in another post. but here we are so I shall now and it relates to the above.

The excellent video posted featuring Dannel Roberts misses a major point. its something Either Dannel Roberts doesn't understand or chose to leave out.

His lovely spinning top demonstration was very effective. but he failed to draw your attention to the power source. He provided the energy to the spinning top by spinning it. when it collided with the cup or the other top later in the video it was that energy that was expended and made the top explode away. Where else did the energy come from?

So where does the energy come from to raise the noble gasses to the plasma state? He states that quite clearly. The energy comes from the particles colliding with the cold neon particle. The alpha particle in turn gets its energy from the electrical force provided by the high voltage current interacting with the thorium. at that point he says he doesn't know how that's done. But that's Ok the important point is the energy comes from somewhere. That somewhere is the energy input by the electrics.

So given this we have two choices to make
1/ The system gets all its energy from the electricity and therefore is less than overunity
2/ The system is triggered by the electrical energy and gets its energy from somewhere else.

For point 2 we only realistically have 2 options
2a/ the process turns the gas mix into a volatile mix and therefore expends chemical energy.
2b/ The system causes a fusion event.

Personally if I was to choose id go for option 1.
but say we go for option 2
2a is a thermodynamic event. the system should heat up and quickly use up all the fuel.
2b is umm a thermodynamic event the system should heat up and give everyone radiation poisoning. but the fuel will last a long time.

Option 2c is of course ZPE but only the faithful and fools will go down that path.

The reason I asked you to try the device with just atmosphere was I didnt care about the gasses I wanted to rule out the solenoid effect. it only takes a few minutes to do that test and yet you chose to try and baffle me with Pashen Curves to excuse yourself from doing it.

So here goes. Try it without the noble gasses. follow the setup precisely and instead of injecting the gasses just inject air. If my solenoid theory is wrong (and it is only a theory) then the device should not move. Another test is replace the piston with a purely plastic one. it only needs to last a few shots and as you say the temp barely raises so it should be fine. But I am guessing that you wont even try it and if you do then you wont admit it. Many inventors when faced with the total failure of years of work go into denial.

By the way have you tested the device for x-rays? did you know if you create a high voltage spark you are also most likely creating x-rays? I'd be very careful about showing people the lovely open air spark you can make.

And Bob what causes the really loud 'bang' when you show the spark in normal atmosphere? Why its rapid expansion of the gasses. that's what a bang is. so we know it is a thermodynamic reaction, at least in part.

My original comment was that Bobs comments made me concerned that the Plasmerg Popper was fake. Now Bobs comments make me concerned about Bob himself. He doesn't understand some of the basics. While I am sure he is a master of his chosen field of engineering. The Papp engine is an entirely different thing

It was also 'invented' by a guy who previously committed a very serious attempt at fraud. claiming to invent a jet submarine engine and crossed the Atlantic in 13 hours. Everyone even Bob publicly recognises this guy has no knowledge of physics

Would you trust someone like that?

I am pretty sure I wouldn't.

And Bob I too was trying to be friendly. But I wanted to know more. That's why I call myself CuriousChris and not GullibleChris

CC

Quote from bjrohner on August 7th, 2012, 08:25 AM

Quote from CuriousChris on August 7th, 2012, 06:48 AM

Hi All

My first post :)

Russ I found your site from your youtube video about building the popper. I too was thinking about building it. I see Bob has made some comments and it causes me concern.
...

------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen
I came here to help you with the mechanics of you experiment. I did not offer in any way to show you how we do it.

 Only an idiot would make statements such as this Chris guy just made. The coil is twenty four volts - the steel shaft extends entirely through the coil, the piston is aluminum, so even a few thousand amps would cause no movement let alone lift 50 pound+ weights. I have heard many explanation of how this thing works but this is by far the dumbest. No research, just pie in the sky.

...

I was just trying to be friendly. It was apparently a mistake. I don't know if this ***** is one of Dr. Dr. Johns stooges or not but I am out of here.

To anyone else in this forum I am sorry if I have caused offense. it was never my intention. but it is also not my intention to blindly accept the word of someone who makes extraordinary claims

As they say Extraordinary claims requires Extraordinary proof. actually just ordinary proof is fine by me.

Oh Cool, this is the link I really wanted to find ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=iABmUEH5s0k

CC

Hi Chris, I have just been sitting back reading all the rhetoric and I have to agree with you. I need proof of concept and completion of what Bob say's and what you have suggested he try with his engine. To, not wanting to step on anyone's toes, but Bob posting for the first time, came on a little strong in my opinion, so clearly he has issues with his brother and others. I had emailed him early on trying to get some clarification of the tech and himself, he did not even bother to respond. Yes he more than likely is excellent in his field of training but he should not get upset when someone asks for proof of concept , some of the original patents have expired as well, this in itself should release him to talk about "some" of the tech. I have issues using thorium and causing x ray emissions also. Any and all tech released to the public, should be safe to use. So as I have always stated, we need to prove or disprove a theory or concept as Russ will be doing with the kit he receives and builds, we don't have to take someones word for it.:cool::D:P

Thanks Jeff for your support.

I often find in forums exploring fringe science if you dare to question someones claims. Everyone in the forum comes down on you as if you blasphemed.

I do find it interesting that when people respond they include the full text of the original post. it makes it difficult to follow. perhaps if you defaulted the forum to a reply not including the original?

Because you mentioned it I can add another thing. With respect to the patents, Bob told me in the original email response to me (in which I might add he was very kind) that he is following Papps design to the T. I read that to say what he is doing is not covered by a patent application.

I think the level of distrust is so high in that family that everyone is the enemy. Which is sad. I too do not speak to my brother. But I do not wish him any ill will. we make choices and must live with them.

Back to the Papp engine. the ONLY reason I gave it another look was because of McKubre. Now I have reason to call into doubt McKubre's tacit support of the Papp engine.

Thanks Chris, the forum has both forms of posting so shouldn't be a problem, you can post either way. The engine, we will just have to wait and see. There is so much more going on here at this forum and others to bring in free energy it's mind blowing, example:
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=564
so we do have to watch what is truth and what is not, thanks, Jeff.:cool::D:P

well then, that went well...

This thread just turned up side down...

kinda disappointing...

ah well i guess it is what it is. anyone care if i move some of these posts some where else? we kinda lost its motivation on this thread...

hope no one takes offense to this post... just stating my thought as a forum owner.

we invite all to post our thoughts, but when some one unintentionally run's some one off the forums, all the hard work to bring us all to one place fails.

this just a disappointing thing for me..

healthy discussion is always a good thing. but when it runs others off... kinda sucks...

blessings all.

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on August 9th, 2012, 04:50 PM

well then, that went well...

This thread just turned up side down...

kinda disappointing...

ah well i guess it is what it is. anyone care if i move some of these posts some where else? we kinda lost its motivation on this thread...

hope no one takes offense to this post... just stating my thought as a forum owner.

we invite all to post our thoughts, but when some one unintentionally run's some one off the forums, all the hard work to bring us all to one place fails.

this just a disappointing thing for me..

healthy discussion is always a good thing. but when it runs others off... kinda sucks...

blessings all.

~Russ

T'is sad to say the least, Russ.

MAX / Racing   420 / 212 (amps) the X80 model....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHsAYKO1nLM

http://www.aquapulser.com/performance_ignition/ignition_systems/high_performance_ignition_systems.html

I dunno... closest thing I could see

undefined

The video you planned to make is here: /watch?v=-y25oj6CpE8

Hey! Russ!
Very excited for you to get the popper project started.
 I’ve seen some people doubting whether this thing is real and if it can produce power. Lets look at what the energy source is and how it functions.
1: Noble Gases and 2: RF wave energy i.e.: electricity and 3: Heat.
With these three things can we make a piston in a cylinder move?
I believe everyone would answer yes! to that question. The Real issue is how efficiently can it be done and also how much power can we produce.

Plasma has already been proven as an energy source. Heat a no brainier!
RF wave energy? Used to create the plasma! Electricity used to create the RF Wave! Sparks????? Does an Electrical Sparking Increase the energy of a soweto plasma? Ionization happens in different ways! So the answer is yes!
So! What do we see happing? I see some one using RF wave energy to bring the gas up to a higher level of excitement than using a electrical spark to cause a plasma burst with reactive elements to enhance that burst and then letting the whole process collapse.
There is no doubt in my mind that this process is real and not nuclear. Plasma is a function of electromagnetic force/Radio Frequency. Turn on your Neon Sign.
Is the Satallite plasma engine a Neuclear Reaction.
Take a look: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bba_1264267430
The VASIMR (VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket) works by using radio waves to ionize a propellant into a plasma and then a magnetic field to accelerate the plasma out of the back of the rocket engine to generate thrust.//

So! What’s the Difference? The Rocket Engine expels the gas. The PPAP engine does not! The Rocket Engine completely converts all the gas to plasma and then accelerates even further. The PPAP Engine does not. The Rocket engine gets HOT!
The PPAP Engine does not! Why! Isn’t there something wrong here! NO!!!
The PPAP Engine does have a thermal component! This Component is both positive and negative. So the net thermal left over is from the Coil heating!


Last But not least. This is exactly how Stanley Myers Electrical generator works.

Ok -well i must say that this (like Russ said)went all wrong.
First i find it very interesting that CC just so happens to turn up on this very post -for the very first time on this forum,right after Bob dose???
CC-you should look at the system a bit closer befor giveing your expert opion on how something some one else has built-works.
Yes,magnetic fields will react to any metal-if strong enough.
First wrong asumption-the electromagnetic field is what is lifting the ali pistion.
In this case no-you are wrong.
The ali pistion is between the center and bottom of the electro magnet-so any force would have been downward,not up.
Second-the electro magnet is on befor the high amp pulse is sent to the cylender,and the pistion dose not move prior to the high amp pulse being sent to the cylender.This high amp pulse is delivered through two apposing electrode's,and no linear magnetic fields produced by that pulse.
Then to get your knickers in a twist because he wouldnt carry out your test requests is nothing more than childish.
What you have succeeded in doing is getting rid of a very inportant part of this reserch ,and a valuble member of this forum.
Did you CC heed to your own advice and build a replication to proove your theroy?.If so,post the vidio so we can all see your experiments
On IAEC we value everyone's input,and we do not try in any way to discredit any one's work-especially when we cant proove it to be wrong.
This is something maybe Russ and other members should concider implimenting into the ruels of this forum
I do appologise to all for my strong post,but some times things just shouldnt take a direction like this did.

Quote from TinMan on August 11th, 2012, 05:29 AM

Ok -well i must say that this (like Russ said)went all wrong.
First i find it very interesting that CC just so happens to turn up on this very post -for the very first time on this forum,right after Bob dose???
CC-you should look at the system a bit closer befor giveing your expert opion on how something some one else has built-works.
Yes,magnetic fields will react to any metal-if strong enough.
First wrong asumption-the electromagnetic field is what is lifting the ali pistion.
In this case no-you are wrong.
The ali pistion is between the center and bottom of the electro magnet-so any force would have been downward,not up.
Second-the electro magnet is on befor the high amp pulse is sent to the cylender,and the pistion dose not move prior to the high amp pulse being sent to the cylender.This high amp pulse is delivered through two apposing electrode's,and no linear magnetic fields produced by that pulse.
Then to get your knickers in a twist because he wouldnt carry out your test requests is nothing more than childish.
What you have succeeded in doing is getting rid of a very inportant part of this reserch ,and a valuble member of this forum.
Did you CC heed to your own advice and build a replication to proove your theroy?.If so,post the vidio so we can all see your experiments
On IAEC we value everyone's input,and we do not try in any way to discredit any one's work-especially when we cant proove it to be wrong.
This is something maybe Russ and other members should concider implimenting into the ruels of this forum
I do appologise to all for my strong post,but some times things just shouldnt take a direction like this did.

I have to second this Tinman, because of the natural effects of lightening, the HV pulses will move an object, no question.:D

Hey Russ

After watching Bob’s Tesla video I noticed he said he was using standard air actuators he got for about $50.00 bucks. I found some that looks like they might work out – not sure !

http://www.thefind.com/hardware/info-double-acting-pneumatic-actuator#page=1&filter[sortby]=price_asc&local=0

I watched your video with your idea for the double magnet piston and that is a great idea because it’s completely sealed. My only concern would be the cylinders have wire coils used to enhance the plasma effect and to have magnets inside those coils may effect how they work.

But if you used an actuator setup like those in Bob’s video then you could attach magnets to the ends of the actuator shafts (where he had the weights attached) that would be outside the area where the operation coils are. And enclose the magnets in the sealed chambers along with the aluminum actuators.

Also I could be wrong but I think I heard John say something about a minimum volume size for the chamber, where the effect may not work if the piston chamber is to small !!!  

Just wanted to pass along some things to think about. Hope it helps!

element 119

Hi Jeff
Spot on with the lightning.This is why we hear the thunder,the plasma displacement from the high voltage and current.And this is just with the air we breath,so how amplified would it be with the right mix of gas?
I feel very strongly that this will work.And we have the right guy at the helm,being Russ.

Hey Russ, going to try to finish the piston today. I'll try to get some pics posted.
rawbush

Just wanted to update everyone.

http://inteligentry.com/

“NOTICE ----- IMPORTANT !!  "PUBIC announcement and Showing of OUR ENGINE"

   “ WE are going to make our big public debut of Our Plasmic Transition Process(tm) engine,
starting December 11, 2012 at the PowerGen conference in Orlando, Florida --
one of the largest energy conferences in the world. “