Quote from Axil on September 24th, 2012, 11:20 AM

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.

Axil,

You bring up a very good point, but the color is also dependent upon current density and electric field.
See the paragraph about Discharge Color near the bottom of this page:

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

The two brothers may argue that the other is doing something wrong because of the color of the discharge, but they are not doing the comparison using the same discharge conditions.  So they will likely continue to disagree on this issue.

kcd

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.

LENR (aka Cold Fusion) is producing excess power and is new (yes, it has be verified).  There is a lot of new science going on, just look at Zeitnews.com.  I'm not say it all replaces the established science but it certainly adds and alters our understanding.  Much of it goes from theory to potential application with better understanding and I would label that new science.

What I would not label as science in any regard is a belief in a god so I wish people would not bring that into discussions (or even signatures).  BTW, Science and Engineering are different.  Science is discovery of new knowledge while engineering is the application of that knowledge to useful products.  

Quote from k c dias on September 24th, 2012, 10:29 AM

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

Nahhh.. he's an old Dutchman and kicks the table every POP with his wooden shoos ;)

Quote from Babble on September 24th, 2012, 12:55 PM

What I would not label as science in any regard is a belief in a god so I wish people would not bring that into discussions (or even signatures).  BTW, Science and Engineering are different.  Science is discovery of new knowledge while engineering is the application of that knowledge to useful products.

I would have hoped that the bridge between science and religion did not have to be thorn down always. As new science is more holistic and harmonic with nature, then let us find grounds also in religion. If new science doesn't want to exclude a thing it is wise to also let religion be and have a place of consideration.
Better ask yourself how come i feel allergic to it? But this also is not the thread for a discussion like this.  

Quote from Axil on September 24th, 2012, 11:20 AM

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

>>Hi Axel, you make some sharp deductions.. (you´ll get a point for that)

>> I Saw the video and had to laugh when he popped it... and still had the hose of the aircompressor on it...! now he can do the video all over again?
And if he must..then let him do a run with normal air also, so we can see if we then get the Russ-puppy in stead of the BobPOP..lol

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

>>And don´t forget the clue that Bob himself gave here (he also pronounced it to be a clue) about the gases and the sparkgap and voltage... the Pashens Curve's to be googled on or another search engine that won´t fu.. your privacy.

What is considered successful?  Is there any information in the kit detailing a linear force result of X pounds over Y inches within Z seconds from a pulse of N joules?

The $350 question stands.

Quote from CuriousChris on September 23rd, 2012, 04:17 AM

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.

The energy expended to make the loud pop during the discharge could also be responsible for raising the piston in this experiment (thunder doesn't occur with energy release).  I don't believe that the noble gas mixture is contributing much or anything at this point in the test.  

Displacement and replacement of air is what makes the loud thunder from the lightening bolt.:D

I have been applying Dalton's law of partial pressures (the total pressure exerted by the mixture of gases is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of individual gases) to Paschen curves, trying to possibly retrace some of Papp's thinking on the gas mixtures.


Gas__percentage__% of 760 Torr
He______35.6________270.6
Ne______26.3________199.9
Ar______16.9________128.4
Kr______12.7_________96.5
Xe_______8.5_________64.6


So, if the partial pressures (in Torr) are plotted on the chart of Paschen curves, where do they hit the curves?  I have made a new plot for He, Ne, and Ar, with grid lines, and zoomed in on the area of interest.  Have a look at how things line up for about 3580 volts.  (Not that 3580 volts is of any extremely notable value, just note the alignment at that height in the chart)

Just thought it was interesting.  I wonder if the Kr and Xe line up with the last two points??

kcd

Babble
 While I agree with you re science and religion this is Russ's site and he is religious. so are many of the posters, It has a lot to do with why this site exists. So we must respect that.

I am following cold fusion quite closely. I am not sure if you meant to say it has *been* verified or meant to say it has *to* be verified.
I can tell you its a long way from being verified. If just one of the proponents would actually put legitimate verifiable data on the table then perhaps we could all rejoice. but rather than that we get a long list of excuses and delays.

Also please don't repost an entire article to make a one sentence statement

KC Dias
The colour is different due to the different gas mixture, Bob is using Papps mix, John claims to be far ahead of Papp. so he may be using a different mix

Axil
try https://startpage.com/

Thunder is the result of the thermodynamic action of lightening. Lightening itself is the result of the ionisation of a thin thread(s) of atmosphere due to high voltages, the high voltages are caused by a few different actions. from electron stripping by high winds,clouds, updrafts and to the action of cosmic rays, but no one currently knows the full story.
The thunder clap we hear is the rapid expansion and collapse of the plasma caused by heating due to current flow. This is exactly the same source of sound we see in any electric arc like what occurs in the popper. It is also what causes the piston to move.

no heat
One question is why no heat? apart from this being a "Bob Says" there is solid science as to why there may not be much heat. Changing from gas to a plasma is a 'phase change' during phase change, input energy is used breaking chemical bonds. This is why water never gets above ~100c at sea level. It certainly does not explain everything but it would explain a certain amount of the lack of reported heat. in steam production this non thermalising energy is called "the heat of vapourisation"
 

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 24th, 2012, 04:39 PM

Displacement and replacement of air is what makes the loud thunder from the lightening bolt.:D

This comment by Jeff give's a situation where as my theroy on flash heating can be shown by nature itself.
Thunder is caused by a rapid temperature increase of the surrounding gasses.This in turn creates an instant preasure around the high voltage discharge which radiates outward-just like throwing a stone into a pond.
In nature,this shock wave will rattle the windows on your house,and cause vibration in the ground.
But with the popper setup,this force is contained-and only has one path for its escape-and that is by forcing the piston upward.
 I think you would get the same reaction with normal abient air???

That comment should give reason for Russ to try  it out lol.I see the religion/science argument has poped it's head up in this thread aswell.
Some may like this,and some may not-but when are you all going to see that they are one in the same???
It's always an argument between the two-But why ?
What we see is this-the bible says that god created the earth so many thousands of years ago,and science says that the earth is billions of years old.
The bible says god created Adam and Eve-science says man evolved.
Science ask's-if god only created Adam and Eve-then we are all interbred's.And then science ask-why all the diferent skin color's?
Religion ask's-if we evolved from ape's,then where is your missing link?

It go's on and on.
But lets look at it like this insted.
Everything contain's atom's,and atoms contain electrical energy.
Our bodies are just like robot's,in that we require electrical energy to live.
Our muscle's work by being supplied electrical impulses-including your heart.
So without this electricity-we are kactus.

Now here is where the two(science and religion)become one in the same.
Religion says that when you die-your spirit lives on.
Science says-energy can be neither created or distroyed,only transformed from one form to another.
So as we all contain energy-when we die our spirit or energy live's on in a diferent form-it is never destroyed.

So it dosnt matter wether you believe in religion or science-both say you will live on after you die---and that's a FACT.

Only when the two can come together,will we see the advancments we seek.

Russ

Here is why I think you have a smaller pop then Bob’s.

Bob’s popper has a spring on it pushing down on the piston so when he pumps gas up to 1 psi then he is pushing against that spring. A gas can be compressed but liquids can not..

You have no spring so your fill is less pressure then Bob’s.

Junkyard you may find an old spring loaded shock from a motorcycle or a car rear shock or you could just add a weight to the piston shaft.

Or maybe just strap a bungy cord across the shaft end. :D

element 119

Quote from TinMan on September 24th, 2012, 05:41 PM

That comment should give reason for Russ to try  it out lol.
I see the religion/science argument has poped it's head up in this thread aswell.
Some may like this,and some may not-but when are you all going to see that they are one in the same???
It's always an argument between the two-But why ?
What we see is this-the bible says that god created the earth so many thousands of years ago,and science says that the earth is billions of years old.
The bible says god created Adam and Eve-science says man evolved.
Science ask's-if god only created Adam and Eve-then we are all interbred's.And then science ask-why all the diferent skin color's?
Religion ask's-if we evolved from ape's,then where is your missing link?

It go's on and on.
But lets look at it like this insted.
Everything contain's atom's,and atoms contain electrical energy.
Our bodies are just like robot's,in that we require electrical energy to live.
Our muscle's work by being supplied electrical impulses-including your heart.
So without this electricity-we are kactus.

Now here is where the two(science and religion)become one in the same.
Religion says that when you die-your spirit lives on.
Science says-energy can be neither created or distroyed,only transformed from one form to another.
So as we all contain energy-when we die our spirit or energy live's on in a diferent form-it is never destroyed.

So it dosnt matter wether you believe in religion or science-both say you will live on after you die---and that's a FACT.

Only when the two can come together,will we see the advancments we seek.

nice post tinman, now we can be focused on the popper and not all the rest... not much of an argument there. some will see it differently in there own ways but that was a good post!

TinMan:

Quote

Only when the two can come together,will we see the advancments we seek.

Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."
(The Gospel of Thomas)

Russ:
Fire that piston with just air inside imo. Just for check.
Spark is wery loud, so there is some presure. Will pop be the same as with noble gases inside?
(sorry for my english if i make some mistakes, im from Poland)

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 24th, 2012, 06:00 AM

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:

Chris, FYI,

please understand what jeff is saying here.

basically every ones input is good to here. but you need to try to stay on subject and also see what i or others have done before spending a day or two trying to tell me what needs to be done to verify what are trying to do. when i already stated it or did it in a video or else where. if my comments are not making scene like the one where it took you a day or two to relise i was not using radioactive elements when i stated it in the video ( if you watched it all and did not skip aroung and payed atention to deatail. ) you would have know this. ( i know there ling but i try me best to give every detail so i dont have questions)

i know you have apologized for some stuff,  so just keep these thoughts in mined in the future. some time i feel like i'm arguing with a woman ( no offense to the lady's, there just so different in there own way)  trying to make a point and your not open mined enough to see whats possible.

if your looking for hard science your looking in the wrong place... we are all open mined people here but also we are also logical... not" NUTS"

we are not main stream science. so try to open that box, your still stuck in side...

any way. just trying to show you what Jeff is saying here. it is not helping for me to try to tell you something if you already have made up your mined... its a waist of time for me. I'm glad to help but talking to a wall dont help me get any where.

keep thinking... just out side the box some... ( not to far they will call you a nut! )

~Russ

ALL:

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=659&pid=7750#pid7750

already posted my test thoughts ( not a video) of the test in air. ( seetest on post above) wait for my next video where i talk about it.

thanks guys!

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on September 24th, 2012, 11:27 PM

some times i feel like i'm arguing with a woman ( no offense to the ladies, they're just so different in their own way)
~Russ

LOL Russ! You crack me up sometimes!

Update 10:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTF7UgZPdMU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Need RF help... How to... See video for the qustion at hand.

Thanks, ~Russ

Nice video Russ.
So you went ahead and used normal air,and got a bigger reaction--interesting.
But this come's at a cost of burning up the electrode's,but what bad gasses can it create?.And if it did-why would it matter, as it is in a seal'd unit.
Maybe we dont need these special gas mixes-maybe just one gas that expand's the greatest in a situation like this???.

I was hopeing to be wrong about normal air giveing the same effect,but a bigger effect with normal air was defently what i didnt want to hear.
But thanks for trying it,and letting us know.

So in finding this out,is it concievable that once again nature has a better answer than the people that claim to have magic gasses?
Like i said befor-lightning causes a force that is big enough to shake the house,and rattle the ground.

In reguard's to the rf,coil's and all that fancy stuff-why not try to get the effect that bob gets first?
We must learn to walk befor we run.

Here looks like some good info on the CB radio antenna.

http://www.offroaders.com/tech/CB-radio-antenna.htm

Here are some SWR meters form e-bay.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Meters-/48701/i.html?_nkw=swr+meter

Not an expert on CB antennas so this just my opinion from reading.

You will transmit on channel 12 = 27.105 MHZ so.

984 / 27.105 = 36.3 ft long antenna for full wave.

36.3 / 4 = 9.075 ft long antenna for ¼ wave

36.3 / 8 = 4.5375 ft long antenna for 1/8 wave.

I’m sure you would not want the central wire to touch any part of the grounded body of popper that would be a direct short. But you would need the shielded part of coax to ground the body just like you have it in video.

From here on please don’t take this as fact it is just my opinion and may be wrong. ;)

Also if you do get a SWR meter you should have the 100 W kicker hooked up when testing.

Since you have little room inside the popper cavity I think you could take the unshielded center wire (about 4.5375 feet long) of the coax and say wrap it around a ½ pvc pipe leaving just enough to go inside the popper. By coiling the wire the RF would not radiate out into space and could be adjusted to match the SWR.

By getting a longer unshielded section of your coax you should not need the resistors you have hooked up.

Take your time we can wait for the testing results Rome wasn’t built in a day.

element 119

Quote from TinMan on September 25th, 2012, 03:06 AM

Nice video Russ.
So you went ahead and used normal air,and got a bigger reaction--interesting.
But this come's at a cost of burning up the electrode's,but what bad gasses can it create?.And if it did-why would it matter, as it is in a seal'd unit.
Maybe we dont need these special gas mixes-maybe just one gas that expand's the greatest in a situation like this???.

what happens with the noble gasses is that we do not get a chemical reaction. every time we fire it with just air we get some odds going on.

the noble gasses do play i real roal, read the patents, you will see.

Quote

I was hopeing to be wrong about normal air giveing the same effect,but a bigger effect with normal air was defently what i didnt want to hear.
But thanks for trying it,and letting us know.

i'm creating " lightning" with just air. so its that same effect that moves the piston. but the energy required to do so it crazy... that is the uneffishent way and will never be practical.

Quote

So in finding this out,is it concievable that once again nature has a better answer than the people that claim to have magic gasses?
Like i said befor-lightning causes a force that is big enough to shake the house,and rattle the ground.

read the patent

Quote

In reguard's to the rf,coil's and all that fancy stuff-why not try to get the effect that bob gets first?
We must learn to walk befor we run.

as of now... any one have any rubidium lying around? lol it is out of the question...

the thorium i will try to get from some old gas lanterns.

most dont know what the red phosphors was for...  well my understanding is that it helps emit photon energy. like the phosphors on your TV screen. ( soft ex-rays is also a key and plays a roll in my opinion.)

all of these things play a roll. can we get it done in more than one way... but still understand, try it the way it works... then go backwards and make it better...

so much more to understand... there is more work to do... more to understand... we will get there. i know it works. we have all seen it, i feel bob is 100% real so no doughs in my mined. we just got to keep " playing the game"

~Russ

Quote from element 119 on September 25th, 2012, 03:15 AM

Take your time we can wait for the testing results Rome wasn’t built in a day.

:) no it was not! lol

on of the people i work with was a navy radio guy and has stuff all the time he is playing with... as i understand it from him. the way i have it is correct... but i feel im not putting the power i need in to it as i think i am...

~Russ

Russ, I think you need this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_tuner

Hey Russ,

John here (iceman1979). just my opinion here but I wouldn't put the dummy load on the antenna. I would run coax all the way to the device and connect to your antenna there.

Just like element 119 said you could coil up some of the antenna at the base and feed the rest into the chamber but you definately need to tune the antenna to that frequency so you can get a low SWR. I would check the SWR at the antenna and at the radio.

I have this MFJ-209 antenna analyzer I could let you borrow if you like. I used it to build a couple 2 meter antennas for my HAM stuff and it has served me well. It's burried in on of the boxes from the move but if you need it I'll dig it out. I would also think about getting a little frequency counter, something like this one on ebay would do the trick.

Thanks
John

I can do another smart funny post...but on the subject of how to scintillate  the gas i still think from the same corner as when we started.
Resonance

Gas has atoms, particles..surrounding them with electrons

Electrons have certain orbits witch they can switch

Its like kids on a swing... push at the right time and they swing higher...sure you can use bold power and snap a rocket on the swing chair....but that's not a sustainable way

So i repeat myself and say that we must find out at what frequencies the used gas will go and scintillate  

And for that we need to go to some professor who knows about ownfrequency and resonating frequencies, oscillations.

If we don't get this knowledge we will keep ourselves in the dark and will not likely find the answer to this problem.

And to keep it simple we can first focus on Helium.

Regarding your RF question. I am sorry I have not been following along with  the "Popper" project, so it's not clear to me what the aim is.

In any case regarding loading your RF transmission line, clearly you are not going to get much power out of it with your current setup.

Firstly, forget using loading resistors to load your transmission line. For RF you use capacitors and coils to load the line.

For load capacitors, you're looking for capacitors along these lines: http://www.rfparts.com/caps_antennaload.html Coils along these lines: http://www.vk2zay.net/article/file/763

I am assuming that the objective is to energize the gasses?

I'm not sure what you are hoping to gain by "shorting" the tip of the "antenna". Don't you want to RF energy to energize gasses? In my opinion, by shorting the "antenna" tip, all you are going to accomplish it to warm the gasses very inefficiently.

Your biggest problem as I see it, is that you have a severely mismatched transmission line, so clearly you are not going to get much power out of the "antenna".

The antenna is much too short for your transmission frequency. You need to make it appear longer by making a loading coil in series with the transmission line, near the antenna end. If you make a loading coil with "taps" on it, that you can dial it in with a jumper to the various tap points. If you need help "roughing in" the coil, number of turns, etc.. I can probably help you to get it into the ball park.

So that's my suggestion for starters, make a loading coil so you at least get your transmission line dialed in and get your RF energy emitting out of the antenna-end where you want it.

A decent SWR (Standing Wave Ratio) meter would be an invaluable tool for getting this  dialed in. Perhaps your CB has an SWR meter built in? Some do, however they are sometimes pretty small and difficult to interpret with much precision.

--Mike

Quote from 8bitgeek on September 25th, 2012, 07:50 AM

Your biggest problem as I see it, is that you have a severely mismatched transmission line, so clearly you are not going to get much power out of the "antenna".

The antenna is much too short for your transmission frequency. You need to make it appear longer by making a loading coil in series with the transmission line, near the antenna end. If you make a loading coil with "taps" on it, that you can dial it in with a jumper to the various tap points. If you need help "roughing in" the coil, number of turns, etc.. I can probably help you to get it into the ball park.

Hi Mike, nice you want to help.

And here again i (and you) see how important it is to adjust what you do with the right length of wire to get to the point where the used frequencies will resonate and jump out much better....(as also the length of a pendulum wire determines the
frequency, not the weight of the pendulum)

Also this was seen at the way Stan Meyer adjusted the length of his electrode rods
to the input frequency of the electricity or firstly to the own frequency of the (inner and outer) rods to each other in sound.