Quote from FaradayEZ on September 22nd, 2012, 12:43 PM

Timing: like say test this week? And don't u make video's?

We're a spoiled audience...

Lol, nice work!

EZ,

Thanks!  I still have to mount and connect it to the starter motor, then wired to the controller.  So, maybe something this coming week.  I was just going to take some still photos of the thing running.  You think I should get a video camera?:dodgy:

kcd

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 22nd, 2012, 09:01 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 22nd, 2012, 07:36 AM

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 22nd, 2012, 05:43 AM

Well Russ, glad you finally received the popper kit from Inteligentry. Don't see it being worth $350.00 though. I wonder if it will produce the needed current flow to pop the popper at a greater degree, I think Chris could be right about more current flow being needed. A member we have "Terry Dixon" is an expert on gas manipulation, and I know would be able to help on this project, here:
 http://open-source-energy.org/?action=profile;u=9359
He should be able to explain what is needed in detail. Look up his earlier posts and you will see what I mean, thanks.:cool::D:P

Hmm, i myself mistrust the way of only increasing power as the answer. That's the way of old science and medicine...just increase the doses...
More power, more force..to force the way into success?
Why not ask Bob Rohner how much capacitens he uses?

Like the science of Kesh.. he has discovered marvelous things that flow out of a little understanding and following the way nature made it you don't go on with forcing.. the system provides..you make room for it to function
Its about surrounding conditions and understanding.
The more power on a one way street will even come to the point that the pop costs more then the powerstroke ever will return?

All particles heave their own frequencies, a microwaveoven uses the frequency of water to excite the molecules and thus heat the food.
So that's the corner i would explore

A lot of this info including the capacitance I all ready coverd in my videos...

Including some of Chris's qustions...

You guys not paying attention? Lol
~Russ

Ps, more power is not the answer to the solution. If it gives us good results just a test a theory than that's okay. ( thays what i was trying) But overall it's going to be the magnetic coil the radioactive materials or the RF or a combination of all of them to make this system work efficiently that's the whole point of testing..

30,000uf 72v 77J

He stated this in the tesla tech demo video...98% of the info is out there. You just got to sorce it... ;)

Just an observation Russ, you say quote "You guys not paying attention?" :huh:  I am trying to be humble here. :D I saw no current measurements or calculations of any kind in your video, yes more current might not be the answer. But, if you don't know what current you had in your testing, how can you rule this out as an option?

Russ ..  Good move on building the popper kit.. I think you will learn a lot from it . maybe some key facts that will help you in the development of your own popper ?
or you may learn that it doesn't work and it sure as hell aint worth the 350 bucks !
What ever the outcome you can draw a line under it and move on....
Oh..and please be safe on this project :)

Ok I am back again for another tongue lashing.

Quote

A lot of this info including the capacitance I all ready coverd in my videos...

Including some of Chris's qustions...

You guys not paying attention? Lol

I am not sure what videos you are speaking of Russ but in the first pop one I acknowledged you said more capacitance. I was only confirming that.

More capacitance will give you more USABLE JOULES (pronounced jewels not jolts)

Now if you'll indulge me I haven't got around to the math yet and I am writing this as I rush out the door.

Quote

But overall it's going to be the magnetic coil the radioactive materials or the RF or a combination of all of them to make this system work efficiently that's the whole point of testing..

But first things first. If you can't repeat the popper display by Bob Rohner without the coils. how in Hades do you think you can replicate it with the coils? One step at a time please!

Things you should be paying attention to if you haven't already.

Spark Gap. adjust it to the best possible spark in open air. you'll know you are getting the best possible spark when it sounds the loudest.  Use bobs videos as an example. his open air spark was very loud! you are using different voltages and currents so the gaps will be different from Bobs. but you should get the same sound.

Are the capacitors discharging fast enough? Big capacitors have a lot of internal resistance and inductance it means they take time to discharge. you need caps that discharge quickly to dump all the charge they have into the spark as quick as possible otherwise the spark may cease before they have fully discharged. are the wires you use thick enough. they add extra resistance and at the current densities you are attempting it makes a big difference. Even the length or placement of the wires will make a difference.

Are the capacitors discharging at all? try your popper in the open air without the caps. is the pop as loud (rough as guts testing)?

ALWAYS test your apparatus in a dry run. that means before testing it with noble gas mix, test it with just air. You can use that to more quickly refine it, then when you are happy you are getting the best without the noble gasses you need to use the noble gas and then refine the spark gaps again.

I think its very important to work out the voltages actually achieved and the currents that actually flow. But because of the high voltages involved you are going to need to either expensive test equipment or jury rigged tools. A storage cro would really help here.

Write everything you do down!

The above is very very rough. The tests are very subjective but I think they will help you narrow down whats happening and what will achieve a better result.

But again I would like to impress upon you. If you cannot get the power out of the popper without the coils. As demonstrated repeatedly by Bob.  Adding the coils will only result in failure. It adds unnecessary complication. The coils are more about getting a two piston unit to run repeatedly they do not make the popper work, Bob has already impressed that upon us.

CC

thanks for the feed back every one,

EZ, did not mean be so rude,... :)

I'm going to blame it on the lack of sleep...

also i gave you -5 reputation points for being so negative (remember?), then ( i guess you called it a failure) so if you get the points back your still at 0 :) lol
 
Yeah i did not do calculation on on the first test video.  the calculations was on a different update video...

Chris / ALL:

the "first test" video was to see the results of that circuit i was using and to see what happens with no RF or radioactive stuff...

There is so much more work and tests to do... so we got to start some where... now we have some ideas of what it looks like with just the gas and caps...

i did some tests yesterday with just over 30,000uf... with my circuit currently i had to get up to about 100V or more of the discharge it would not fire correctly. This may be due to my circuit and how it works. its different than bobs... so cant compare that Part...

also chris, in my video i show what the full power looks like in air. with the top off, it was so loud that every piece of metal ( that could make nose) rang like a bell. i did this servail times. the mic on my cap relly dampers the noise but you can here after the POP stuff "ringing" for a second or two.

yes. the system should work with out the coil or RF, but dont forget... bob has the radioactive stuff in the chamber... so we can not compare my tests with bobs...  please keep in mined that i do not have the same set up as bob yet as the lack of radioactive stuff... so the coil or other input is needed at this time for mine to work...

again,  i had to start some where...

also a note to all,

i feel like the only movment is from the small plasma from the caps discharging and that is it... i feel that i did not get any or very little plasma from the inert gas's... so the effects you see are tinny. nothing like bob's, this is to be expected... im trying to get this to work with minimal parts and input energy... obviously with bob or john's setup's we need more than one source of ionising energy... that is what i " proved" by my first test run...

~Russ

PS... i have a hard time "writing it down" but instead i make video logs... video is worth 10,000 more words than a photos and 1000 more than "writing it down"

although i know...  it would be smart... some times video is best for me... not really for you... sorry.... im only one man... lol

Russ,

Don't get disheartened by the feedback.  I am sure everyone is sending it with good intentions to see you succeed.

From your point of view it is probably a bit demotivating to go through all that effort for everyone - and we DO appreciate it is a heck of a lot of effort on your part - to then receive great amounts of critical feedback.  Keep your chin up, people are this open with their comments because they care about your success and trust in your skills.

They want to see you succeed and in some cases (like mine) see you do the things that I could never dream of doing to test out things that are very important to the future of the world.  That is a valuable mission right there.  KEEP GOING! it is a marathon not a sprint.

Everyone else,

Spare a thought for the tone of your responses - I sometimes read through things on here and think "if that was me - I wouldn't bother with it any more".  I for one want to keep Russ motivated to succeed for all of us!

That's my two pennies worth (yes yes, I know the exchange rate works out to be slightly more than two cents - but don't think I value my opinion above anyone else's!)

Cheers,

Sy

Russ,

Do not be distracted by opinionated followers trying to direct your brilliant
work. They mean well but can not cite their own personal experimental
attempts because they value their judgmentalism over experience.
References: Sermon on the Mount and http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Va3objv1cIE/SeCVwj_HVwI/AAAAAAAAAYs/FYmv70j8LbM/s400/elephant.gif

Allow me and my fellow followers to witness your journey with the
admiration it deserves. We also respect the inspirational contributions of
TinMan and k c dias, true nobel gas disciples who actually cast their nets into
the sea of knowledge.

God Bless,

Cnan

Quote from k c dias on September 22nd, 2012, 01:34 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 22nd, 2012, 12:43 PM

Timing: like say test this week? And don't u make video's?

We're a spoiled audience...

Lol, nice work!

EZ,

Thanks!  I still have to mount and connect it to the starter motor, then wired to the controller.  So, maybe something this coming week.  I was just going to take some still photos of the thing running.  You think I should get a video camera?:dodgy:

kcd

Starter motor? I wouldn't put that on it yet... I would try to spark the first POP a couple of time's first...not?

And yes, can't you find someone with a small camera? Maybe not only for us that you upload the test, but also for ye self to have proof of it running. Cause that would be a surprising outcome!! Getting Papp to run is no small matter, agree?

O, and after ye fail don't forget the audience here will be all over ye with suggestions...lol

The price of fame...

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 23rd, 2012, 12:48 AM

also i gave you -5 reputation points for being so negative (remember?), then ( i guess you called it a failure) so if you get the points back your still at 0  lol

Owwww...grummble..i never get what i deserve..darnn!


thanks for the feed back every one,

<< you'r welcome.. its nice to think along with what you're doing..but you're right its also taking a lot out of us ;) Its really hard work to type the right manipulations so that you will do the things we and i think are necessary so i can then be the one that got it to succeed..lol >>

obviously with bob or john's setup's we need more than one source of ionizing energy... that is what i " proved" by my first test run...


Right, and that's why i linked the video where they got some irregular POPs by only using a constant sparking.

But its all good i think between us Russ.. you understand my humor and vice versa

Truck on.. :)

Quote from Chan on September 23rd, 2012, 01:12 AM

Russ,

Do not be distracted by opinionated followers trying to direct your brilliant
work. They mean well but can not cite their own personal experimental
attempts because they value their judgmentalism over experience.
References: Sermon on the Mount and http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Va3objv1cIE/SeCVwj_HVwI/AAAAAAAAAYs/FYmv70j8LbM/s400/elephant.gif

Allow me and my fellow followers to witness your journey with the
admiration it deserves. We also respect the inspirational contributions of
TinMan and k c dias, true nobel gas disciples who actually cast their nets into
the sea of knowledge.

God Bless,

Cnan

Its an elephant!!

See, one should listen to me..lol

Quote from CuriousChris on September 22nd, 2012, 06:13 PM

Ok I am back again for another tongue lashing.

CC

And i strapped myself in my chair so no worries this time..;)

Hi Russ

Sorry I assumed you had the same stuff in your buckets as Bob, your comments make more sense now. But needless to say if its highly radioactive its dangerous. Bob uses no precautions in handling it. In the Tesla* video he even got some on his fingers. I do hope he washed before eating lunch!
The alpha particles from the thorium will not penetrate the bucket it struggles to get through paper. So nestled inside the buckets its effectively out of range and could not effect the plasma. The red phosphorus and rubidium do not appear to have any function. rubidium is even less radioactive than thorium. Red Phosphorous will burn at 260c but again as its in the bucket its safely tucked away and probably can be ignored.

The sound you got while impressive, does not appear to be in the same order as Bobs. Bobs was impressive a much more 'solid' bang. Hearing as you may recall is logarithmic which means a little louder actually requires a LOT more energy. Logarithmic hearing is why we can hear a mouse squeak, and not go deaf during a thunderstorm.

You are definitely getting a plasma discharge. Without it no current would flow, so you must be getting some. We see it every time you discharge your circuit. As far as I am aware and correct me if I am wrong. Bobs design does not use the chamber as the anode. Therefore the only plasma developed is directly between the the two high voltage spark gaps. the rest of the gas (99%) will never become ionised and therefore will never reach a plasma state. To increase the amount of plasma will probably require a central cathode and using the chamber walls as an anode.  This applies to your device as much as Bobs. John on the other hand I believe uses radio frequency excitement to get the gases into a plasma state. This has the potential of ionising all the gas in the chamber.

Here is an interesting link
http://www.angelfire.com/80s/sixmhz/rfplasmasource.html

When I said write it down I meant voltage, spark gaps, etc.. unless you orate them they will not be logged on the videos. Sitting down afterwards looking at the table of figures can often provide useful information on what to try next. A spreadsheet and same graphs would come in ultra handy.

You know as do most people here that I do not think Bobs device is the real thing. So I am keen to help you replicate it to show you that its little more than a simple thermodynamic device.  Personally I think the buckets of 'radioactive' material are nothing more than the equivalent of eye of newt in a witches broth. Bob has kindly ruled out magnetic induction and stored pneumatic pressure so that only leaves a thermodynamic process.

BUT if its not a thermodynamic process and Papp discovered a hitherto unknown nuclear reaction involving noble gasses in a plasma state then you are playing with very very dangerous material. But I am confident that is not the case, many billions has been spent understanding plasma in the last 30 or so years. It is integral to nuclear fusion and I doubt plasma physicists are that dumb to miss a little thing like a nuclear reaction in the plasma state at low energy levels, especially considering they regularly take it up to many millions of degrees C.  nonetheless plasma is an interesting subject with much more to be learnt, of which I know almost none.

Quote

(Yesterday 07:13 PM)CuriousChris Wrote:  Ok I am back again for another tongue lashing.
    CC

And i strapped myself in my chair so no worries this time..Wink
Greetingsss....

Ahhh I meant to get another tongue lashing, not to give one. You'll know when I give one ;)

Quote

Do not be distracted by opinionated followers trying to direct your brilliant
work.

As this is just Chan's opinion I guess we should ignore it. Or should we ignore only the opinions we don't happen to agree with, Hmmm?

CC


*I do hate how so many people use Tesla as some sort of validation for their crank science.

Quote

Ahhh I meant to get another tongue lashing, not to give one. You'll know when I give one ;)

You kinky masochist...Lol :P

Quote

CC:
You know as do most people here that I do not think Bobs device is the real thing. So I am keen to help you replicate it to show you that its little more than a simple thermodynamic device.

But where is the heat then?

Quote

CC:
BUT if its not a thermodynamic process and Papp discovered a hitherto unknown nuclear reaction involving noble gasses in a plasma state then you are playing with very very dangerous material.

No radiation was measured at the engine's

So a hitherto unknown nuclear reaction....i say yes... compare it with the unknown nuclear reaction in cold fusion...(heat but no radiation)

And how much is still unknown in science?   Isn't here the answer a whole lot appropriate?

And sure they have researched plasma and put millions of volts through it... that's why i don't trust the old science way to be effective...not meaning the writing down and evaluating side of it.

Quote from k c dias on September 22nd, 2012, 11:58 AM

Great job Russ!!  On the last test with every cap in the house used, you started to get your wires to jump from the current.  Go back and look at Bob's wires jump.  Not much to go on, just an observation.

More photos of my BS.  Oh, wait, that's B&S.:D

And also a preliminary timing chart...  Any comments on timing??

kcd

Wires jump from the magnetic field of the current pulse.  This field slows the rise time of the pulse.  As I mentioned in my first post a few days ago, wires should be twisted together to reduce inductance and increase rise time if that will affect plasma response (unknown to me).  This is most likely only needed on the low voltage since the HV is just used to trigger the arc.

Of course so many other things need to be worked out, this may not be an issue.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 23rd, 2012, 10:35 AM

So a hitherto unknown nuclear reaction....i say yes... compare it with the unknown nuclear reaction in cold fusion...(heat but no radiation)

And how much is still unknown in science?   Isn't here the answer a whole lot appropriate?

And sure they have researched plasma and put millions of volts through it... that's why i don't trust the old science way to be effective...not meaning the writing down and evaluating side of it.

Strange that you don't trust "old science". it gets you to work in the morning allows you to communicate with loved ones, talk in forums and fly across the world.

None of this would be possible without "old science" and what has what you call new science produced?

Name one device that you can use on a daily basis. One new theory that has been proven. one new energy source that produces power?

No anecdotes please. only verifiable claims.

Quote from CuriousChris on September 23rd, 2012, 04:24 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 23rd, 2012, 10:35 AM

So a hitherto unknown nuclear reaction....i say yes... compare it with the unknown nuclear reaction in cold fusion...(heat but no radiation)

And how much is still unknown in science?   Isn't here the answer a whole lot appropriate?

And sure they have researched plasma and put millions of volts through it... that's why i don't trust the old science way to be effective...not meaning the writing down and evaluating side of it.

Strange that you don't trust "old science". it gets you to work in the morning allows you to communicate with loved ones, talk in forums and fly across the world.

None of this would be possible without "old science" and what has what you call new science produced?

Name one device that you can use on a daily basis. One new theory that has been proven. one new energy source that produces power?

No anecdotes please. only verifiable claims.

No one is to blame except the powers that be and the money hungry greeder's for that, like I have said, we live in the "Dark Ages" technologically speaking.  Just because it has been kept quiet and secret, doesn't mean it's not out there.:D

Congratulations Russ and all here that are helping and trying to discover if this technology is real. I am following with interest your posts and your work is amazing, once you need to understand multiple areas to have success.

Quote

No one is to blame except the powers that be and the money hungry greeder's for that, like I have said, we live in the "Dark Ages" technologically speaking. Just because it has been kept quiet and secret, doesn't mean it's not out there.

Who said anything about blame? Your logic is missing a beat or two "Just because it has been kept quiet and secret, doesn't mean it's not out there." It doesn't mean it is out there either.

These claims of mass coverups by all governments of the world acting in concert is just fundamentally crazy.

None of this talk helps Russ get the popper working. He will get it working, its not magic and Russ is very capable. But if we assume its magic then why even bother trying. Bob is not going to divulge the pixie dust involved. Otherwise he couldn't get investors to fund his little enterprise. Lets try and help get it working and worry about other claims later.

To that end I suggest Russ increases the power (joules) to the device
tests it with air only
tests it with air and radioactive elements
tests it with noble (not 'nobel') gasses
Test it with noble gasses and radioactive elements

Once that is all working and its proven Bobs popper only works with the Noble gasses and radioactive elements, or at least operates at a much lower power input. Then move on to increasing the output power by adding the coils.

But at this point the goal must be to replicate what we have seen to date.

Quote from CuriousChris on September 23rd, 2012, 04:24 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 23rd, 2012, 10:35 AM

So a hitherto unknown nuclear reaction....i say yes... compare it with the unknown nuclear reaction in cold fusion...(heat but no radiation)

And how much is still unknown in science?   Isn't here the answer a whole lot appropriate?

And sure they have researched plasma and put millions of volts through it... that's why i don't trust the old science way to be effective...not meaning the writing down and evaluating side of it.

Strange that you don't trust "old science". it gets you to work in the morning allows you to communicate with loved ones, talk in forums and fly across the world.

None of this would be possible without "old science" and what has what you call new science produced?

Name one device that you can use on a daily basis. One new theory that has been proven. one new energy source that produces power?

No anecdotes please. only verifiable claims.

What i mean with old science is the attitude to just increase the power to find out stuff..like the way they work at hotfusion or the way they work at the particle excellerators.

Its not an hollistic approach. Sure i use my car and trust it to function and stay in one piece... but looking further then my nose is long...we find a lot of bad side effects of science the old way.. the planet is not in a good state. And sure there where good scientist in any timeframe...but with the established powers a whole lot was kept from production.

So with old science i mean this here above..its my interpretation..and its often science that doesn't take durabillity as its startingpoint.

And may i ask you the question if there are any new technologies in the free energy section you have faith in?

And don't forget that this is a forum for people that have some affinity with new energy stuff... that are glad that they are among people that share those insights a bit so they don't have to go back to adam and eve discussions in every thread.

So maybe this discussion should take place in another thread?

Quote

What i mean with old science is the attitude to just increase the power to find out stuff..like the way they work at hotfusion or the way they work at the particle excellerators.

I agree with you but I will hazard to point out there is often no other way. Thermodynamic (in)efficiencies rule the day.

But as far as trying to get more from less. To that end I have been looking at solar powered Stirling engines. I must admit the thought of using plasmas is a current topic I wish to explore. Will using a plasma as the working gas introduce efficiencies or inefficiencies? That's one of the reasons I look so jealously upon Russ. I wish I had the resources and energy to put some of my ideas into practice.

Creating green energy is not the biggest problem though. storing it is the biggest issue. its complicated inefficient and expensive.

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 21st, 2012, 04:33 PM

I started this adventure to test... so test i will do... with the help of others of corse.. cant to it alone!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kugCCqo5FBE

Helllo Russ ,
 
                                 are you going to try plasma popper electronics kit on your air cylinder popper you have built.


                                                                                   Joe.

Quote from CuriousChris on September 23rd, 2012, 10:22 PM

Quote

No one is to blame except the powers that be and the money hungry greeder's for that, like I have said, we live in the "Dark Ages" technologically speaking. Just because it has been kept quiet and secret, doesn't mean it's not out there.

Who said anything about blame? Your logic is missing a beat or two "Just because it has been kept quiet and secret, doesn't mean it's not out there." It doesn't mean it is out there either.

These claims of mass coverups by all governments of the world acting in concert is just fundamentally crazy.

None of this talk helps Russ get the popper working.


 
So you are in fact saying I and everyone who agree's with me are crazy. I for one have had enough of your personal attacks of individuals on this forum, because they might not agree with you, there is no need to do this. You are in fact the one hindering Russ's progress. You also might have some credibility if you were a builder yourself "of something", but there is nothing you have done to show this, just words that don't mean much. We don't need your personal attacks or your sarcasm. So as it stands, I am giving you fair warning, you will play nice or you will not be allowed to play here. The good that you say, is canceled out by the personal attacks and sarcasm. And I don't expect a rebuttal to this because it will just be another personal attack, be humble enough to accept this , if you do you will gain respect, if you don't, that will be the end of it. :angel:

Weeellll then lol
Looks like things are getting hot over here-think i might toodle back on over to IAEC where its cool and calm lol-just kiding.

First up-old science is what it is---old.
If we take a look at the internal combustion engin,which at best is still only 32% efficient-then we see some old science that should have been thrown in the bin a long time ago.
They have the technology to control robots on mar's,and try to tell us that the I.C.E is the best we have--bolocks.
The only old science that was good science(eg tesla) got left behind,and only the rubbish survives today.

In reguard's to Russ's first popper test-well i think i detected some dissapointment there by Russ.
I must say,i was waiting for a bob bang lol,but only a little pop happened.

Now i know some may disagree with curiouscris-but i think that the test should be done with plain air aswell.
I have been doing some reserch on a situation called flash heat.This is where a high voltage electrical discharge can cause a gas temp to rise in an instant,and then return to almost the original temp--almost.
There are also cases where the temp can drop below what it was to start with-after an electrical discharge.

Anyway-just a thought.
Im sure Russ will get it sorted.Just to explain my post above.
I'm not saying that it dosnt work by asking that Russ do a test just with normal abient air.This is just to eliminate any doubt that some may have with the system-is it the gasses causing the reaction,or somthing else?

The best support a man can have is through the honusty of his friend's.If we dont throw our thoughts Russ's way,then what support dose he have?.
And then it come's to a point as to wether Russ decide's to listen to and try what we say-or continue on doing what he feel's to be right.

It's a careful combination of listening to other's ,and trying thing's your own way that get's the job done.

What i saw in the very first test was movement.To me that is a success.
Now to find out for sure that it was the gas combination that caused that movement.

Quote from TinMan on September 24th, 2012, 07:21 AM

Weeellll then lol
Looks like things are getting hot over here-think i might toodle back on over to IAEC where its cool and calm lol-just kiding.

First up-old science is what it is---old.
If we take a look at the internal combustion engin,which at best is still only 32% efficient-then we see some old science that should have been thrown in the bin a long time ago.
They have the technology to control robots on mar's,and try to tell us that the I.C.E is the best we have--bolocks.
The only old science that was good science(eg tesla) got left behind,and only the rubbish survives today.

In reguard's to Russ's first popper test-well i think i detected some dissapointment there by Russ.
I must say,i was waiting for a bob bang lol,but only a little pop happened.

Now i know some may disagree with curiouscris-but i think that the test should be done with plain air aswell.
I have been doing some reserch on a situation called flash heat.This is where a high voltage electrical discharge can cause a gas temp to rise in an instant,and then return to almost the original temp--almost.
There are also cases where the temp can drop below what it was to start with-after an electrical discharge.

Anyway-just a thought.
Im sure Russ will get it sorted.
Just to explain my post above.
I'm not saying that it dosnt work by asking that Russ do a test just with normal abient air.This is just to eliminate any doubt that some may have with the system-is it the gasses causing the reaction,or somthing else?

The best support a man can have is through the honusty of his friend's.If we dont throw our thoughts Russ's way,then what support dose he have?.
And then it come's to a point as to wether Russ decide's to listen to and try what we say-or continue on doing what he feel's to be right.

It's a careful combination of listening to other's ,and trying thing's your own way that get's the job done.

What i saw in the very first test was movement.To me that is a success.
Now to find out for sure that it was the gas combination that caused that movement.

I thoroughly agree with this Tinman, see there is a tactful way to say things and still get ones point across.:cool::D:P

Hey Russ nice work! It works, just a little but it works! You should get some microwave capacitors and see what they do!

Quote from HHO4Life on September 24th, 2012, 09:38 AM

Hey Russ nice work! It works, just a little but it works! You should get some microwave capacitors and see what they do!

Hmmm.  I was wondering also if there may be a half dozen or so microwave caps tucked away in that box on Bob's table, lol!!

kcd

It is possible that the popper that Bob Rohner developed is fundamentally different from the popper that J Rohner is selling.

They could be two different animals altogether.

Bob Rohner uses a high current low voltage spark. The gas mix he uses is matched to that type of spark.

Bob Rohner has shown at the end of his last video: at 14:50 of "Plasma Cycle is Not Air Driven".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-coQ84XU

This video segment shows that the gas mix is different between Bob’s system and that of John’s

In the rant about John’s accusation regarding Bob’s gas color in bob’s system, Bob explains that the color is different between his system and that of his brother John’s.

I suspect that Russ is using John’s gas mix which is matched to a high voltage low current spark.

Bob’s gas mix uses a higher percentage of helium than does John’s system and Bob’s gas mix is matched to a high current / low voltage spark.

Russ could have a mismatch between his spark(Low voltage/high current) and his gas mix(J Rohenr’s mix which needs high voltage and low current).

This gas mix/spark mismatch could be the reason for Russ’s relativly poor popper performance in his first test.

On another point, I suspect that John is providing in his popper kit a solid state Tesla like coil in this popper package to get a high voltage low current spark.

As an experiment, anyone who has a tesla coil lying around might try that spark source to see how that high voltage/ low current spark source matches up with John’s gas mix.

I like John's high voltage spark approach over Bob's because it is more elegant than the brute force spark that Bob is using.

And Russ has doubled down on Bob's current level with a truly huge ear ringing spark.

I think at this point it could be any of the three Axil, or a combination of voltage, current and the gas mix. Lets too remember, Russ has an instruction booklet with the kit he just received from Inteligentry, could furnish some clues as to Russ's next step and this being the first test of many.:D