(Found this interesting... about INERT GASES, from an unrelated topic.)

---------------------------------

"The first one we shall present harnesses the white-hole repulsive properties of the centre of atoms. Let us now give three appropriate examples utilising these principles, starting with the latter, the antimatter reactor. For this example, any of the inert gases would be more effective than other elements. The inert gas does not react chemically with any other element. It has a stable structure of completed electron shells due to a powerful nodal force within the nucleus.

If we subject the inert gas to high pressure and temperature we can strip away the (negative) electrons surrounding the positively charged nucleus. The atoms thus become highly ionised.

If we now apply a powerful magnetic field, the nucleus of the inert atoms, consisting of protons and neutrons, is disturbed. Remember the fractal principle we have discussed in other articles in which true wholeness exists in its own right at different natural entity levels of the universe, for example, a planet, solar system, or an atom, or even its nucleus. Thus by disturbing or even removing any protons or neutrons does not remove the inner white-hole property of the nucleus. Under these conditions these centres or nodes of atoms are exposed--powerful energy is coming into our 3D. This is quite compatible with quantum physics that tells us everything is under continuous creation--this creative energy is coming into our reality to create it, through natural entities, such as atoms. This is also the source of the power of the atomic bomb--a neutron splits the nucleus, exposing the nodes of the fissile material releasing huge quantities of 'white-hole' energy. However, the magnetic field does not disturb the nucleus of the inert gases to create this dangerous mode.

This outflow of energy from the central nodes of these exposed atomic nuclei would push against any matter, giving rise to repulsion. Thus this is a potential method for creating a localised antigravitational field. This system has apparently been achieved secretly, and since we haven't heard about it publicly we can only assume it is the work of the secret government. But they have more advanced systems than this now."

Quote from AstralProjectee on October 9th, 2012, 12:20 AM

Simple question from a newbie here to this forum. When is John's popper expected to be done roughly?

Thanks.

don't know at this time... probably after the dec 11 show... lets see if he shows anything... its a slow process on that one so far...

~Russ

Quote from Axil on October 6th, 2012, 02:35 PM

The cheapest way to test for neutrons is to use the plastic CR39.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CR39

This plastic is the stuff that plastic eyeglass lenses are made from.

I believe that a cheap source of CR39 is had in welder lenses covers.

Cold fusion researchers use CR39 to test for neutrons.

You need to develop CR39 like photographic film to expose the pits in the plastic that the neutrons have made.

This detection of neutrons is best done after gamma radiation is found. This gamma radiation tells us that the nuclei of atoms are being split and/or fused and the CR39 tells what is happening in detail by the energy of the neutrons that are being produced.

Here is an example of a cold fusion experiment that uses CR39.

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html

I will use this info to come up with a “how to use CR39” if Gamma rays are found in the popper and there is interest in pinning down what is going on inside the nucleus.

Axil,

ok, so i was informed of this by a man named Mark hugo, he was talking about Dr Oriani and his experiments...

i guess this is what they use to detect radon in the home... ???

so. if i got some. and tried it how could i see it? will i need to send it out for testing???

thanks again Axil, good stuff! ~Russ

Quote from Babble on October 6th, 2012, 01:47 PM

Quote from GordonFreeman on October 6th, 2012, 10:09 AM

What size breaker are you kicking? 2 pole 30 feeding the powersupply?
831 joules. So thats 831 watts per second. At 10 cents a kw does that mean it costs $00.0831 each time you fire it or is that what it would cost if it ran for an hour straight?
Great job!!!

Hi Gordon,  just to add a little clarity, the electricity cost is 10 to 15 cents/ KWH so it would take an hour's use at 1000 watts to cost that.  The energy Russ is using is far less.  I don't know what the capacitor rating or even the voltage was as he changed it but if he was discharging 700 joules and then recharging it at one second intervals that would be 700 watts.  One hour of use would be 700/1000 watts x 10 cents = 7 cents.  For faster or slower rates of charge/discharge, divide the joules by the time.  For 0.5 seconds, it is 700/0.5 = 1400 watts.  

One problem is that the joules expended is based on V^2 so as you raise the voltage and keep the same discharge rate, the wattage goes up by the square.  I believe I made a mistake on a previous post  in using discharge time of the caps to calculate watts.  The total joules used (no matter how fast the discharge) per second is the wattage.

with the same rate... how much would it cost to run a 1hp motor for the same amount of time?

Quote from Axil on October 7th, 2012, 05:52 PM

A request to perform a simple experiment follows:
One way to distinguish if the force that moves the piston after the spark has fired is due to increasing gas pressure or is under the influence of some sort of varying electromagnetic force is as follows:

Connect a temporary pressure equalization pipe between the upper and lower gas inlet/outlet ports. During the air removal process when air is vacuumed from the cylinder, the vacuum pumping should be done from the pressure equalization pipe so that air is removed from both the top and bottom cylinder volumes simultaneously.

The gas to be tested should then the introduced into this same gas port that was used to the vacuum out the air. The gas will then fill both the bottom and top volumes of the cylinder to a equalize pressure.

After installing the pressure equalization pipe, if the piston moves after the spark is fired then the piston must be reacting to a varying electromagnetic force and not to an increase in the gas pressure in the bottom cylinder volume since the pressure in the top and bottom volumes are both the same at all times.

this is a good idea, only prob i can see is that is the tube is smaller than the chamber than the test is in our pressure in the chamber if moving at " the light of speed" or supper fast then can not transfer through the small tube fast enough and there still will be some pressure in one side over the other side...

just something to think about when doing that test.

~Russ

Quote from Babble on October 7th, 2012, 08:29 PM

If you want to increase the discharge speed of the large caps you can get low ESR caps.  Chemicon and Nichicon both make these but ESR increases with voltage so the higher the voltage the higher the ESR.  Here is one rated 350VDC, 680uF with a ripple current rating of 1.7A at 105 deg. C.
http://www.chemi-con.com/index.php?option=com_lcatalog&controller=search&task=details&product=5202  You might need less capacitance using these.  Chemicon cap catalog: http://www.chemi-con.co.jp/e/catalog/aluminum.html#d

If your still interested in the EMP, you can make a sniffer probe by winding 100 turns of small gauge wire (28 to 30) on a ferrite core and solder the ends to the leads of a 1K ohm resistor (use non inductive 1/4 or 1/2 watt).  You had scope pictures so I assume you have a digital scope of some type.  Connect the scope probe to the resistor leads. and place it close to the popper.  The core should be open not a closed core used in transformers.  You could just use an air core coil but it will be less sensitive.  A bobbin with one half of a core set should work too.

thanks for the tips.

so what kind of signal is good and what kind is not for testing for a EMP with your test sniffer probe idea???

yes. got a good scope now. thanks to the donations.

~Russ

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 09:44 AM

Quote from element 119 on October 7th, 2012, 09:35 PM

Remove top half of popper.
Seal a zip lock bag to bottom chamber with tape.
Evacuate chamber with bag attached.
Fill just enough helium to inflate bag.
Then fire away to see if expansion takes place.

No magnetism will be involved with this experiment just gas expansion.

This is a very interesting idea for a test, assuming not much heat is generated.  I would use a balloon instead of a plastic bag.  It will seal better and expands instead of bursting.   If it expands and contracts too rapidly you might set a small coin on top as an indicator.

my newest glass testing may help us understand this. but i will also try a bag or something good idea!

~Russ

Quote from element 119 on October 8th, 2012, 09:37 PM

Quote from firepinto on October 8th, 2012, 02:32 PM

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 09:44 AM

Quote from element 119 on October 7th, 2012, 09:35 PM

Remove top half of popper.
Seal a zip lock bag to bottom chamber with tape.
Evacuate chamber with bag attached.
Fill just enough helium to inflate bag.
Then fire away to see if expansion takes place.

No magnetism will be involved with this experiment just gas expansion.

This is a very interesting idea for a test, assuming not much heat is generated.  I would use a balloon instead of a plastic bag.  It will seal better and expands instead of bursting.   If it expands and contracts too rapidly you might set a small coin on top as an indicator.

Maybe even a latex glove, it would fit a little better.

I couldn’t think of a readily available balloon big enough to fit over that 4-inch base.

But the idea of a latex glove would be an excellent choice.

The idea a giant hand waving and giving us a big thumbs up would be very funny. :D

lol you guys are good! to funny! hahah ~Russ

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 8th, 2012, 07:54 PM

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 03:00 PM

Quote from askmehhow on October 8th, 2012, 02:43 PM

Ya, then if you modified the glove just right, it might give you the "thumbs up" when it works!

i do like the idea of this test.
Robert

Thanks for making me laugh! funny

Hmmmm.. what should be the next things that Russ can do with the popper?
What should be investigated and why?
Is there a list of things we can make up, like a checklist we all agree on?

Let me put up a couple of examples i'd like to see done..

-*-input output calculations
-*-collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

hmm that's enough for me for now

good idea. ummm, not sure how to set up a list but... just keep track and every time one comes up you (FaradayEZ or some one that will dedicate them self's for this) post it with the past testes that need to be done... and i will work them it... now this is team work. i'm glad each and every one of you are here. thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!! its the only way.

i do have a hard time keeping up. so the dedicate one please keep a look out for these ideas... just make a growing list and i will see what i can do. please make bullets next to each test with each user's input on how a test may be done better or different things to try during test. please note these are suggestions and i may or may not get to all of them or agree with every to do it... lol

Quote

TEST 1 input output calculations

working on this... still need some testing equipment...

Quote

TEST 2.collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

will work this after more testing is done... need to work on the buckets and how there connected/insulated.

and one to add...

TEST 3. use glove/balloon to test for magmatic / thermal / plasma expansion and not something else.

TEST 4. RF in the 27.105 MHz AM range.



i have a personnel list but ill work on those separately...

ok so who is the "Test keeper"???

when we finally agree on a test to take place just make note and tell the " test keeper"...

till then lest all talk about it like we did with the thumbs up glove test... good stuff guys! you give me some real help and i thank yo all for that!

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 03:04 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 8th, 2012, 07:54 PM

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 03:00 PM

Quote from askmehhow on October 8th, 2012, 02:43 PM

Ya, then if you modified the glove just right, it might give you the "thumbs up" when it works!

i do like the idea of this test.
Robert

Thanks for making me laugh! funny

Hmmmm.. what should be the next things that Russ can do with the popper?
What should be investigated and why?
Is there a list of things we can make up, like a checklist we all agree on?

Let me put up a couple of examples i'd like to see done..

-*-input output calculations
-*-collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

hmm that's enough for me for now

good idea. ummm, not sure how to set up a list but... just keep track and every time one comes up you (FaradayEZ or some one that will dedicate them self's for this) post it with the past testes that need to be done... and i will work them it... now this is team work. i'm glad each and every one of you are here. thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!! its the only way.

i do have a hard time keeping up. so the dedicate one please keep a look out for these ideas... just make a growing list and i will see what i can do. please make bullets next to each test with each user's input on how a test may be done better or different things to try during test. please note these are suggestions and i may or may not get to all of them or agree with every to do it... lol

Quote

TEST 1 input output calculations

working on this... still need some testing equipment...

Quote

TEST 2.collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

will work this after more testing is done... need to work on the buckets and how there connected/insulated.

and one to add...

TEST 3. use glove/balloon to test for magmatic / thermal / plasma expansion and not something else.

TEST 4. RF in the 27.105 MHz AM range.



i have a personnel list but ill work on those separately...

ok so who is the "Test keeper"???

when we finally agree on a test to take place just make note and tell the " test keeper"...

till then lest all talk about it like we did with the thumbs up glove test... good stuff guys! you give me some real help and i thank yo all for that!

~Russ

Ok, i'll bite.

I think its best to keep an open document in some directory here and that we can edit that. I'll do the intro in the document and place the first examples for test. Like how to do them, which data to obtain. Then beneath that there will be room for Russ to put in his outcomes. Those can be raw.. we will find the ways to put them into a graph or in a formula.

If someone has questions (like about the pureness of obtaining the data) then they can copy paste a quote and take it to the popper thread and discuss it.
Also new test can be suggested and if the feel is that they should be done..or do we vote?.. then the suggester can place those behind the last one in the document

If some test can be better done at the same time etc. then the order of things may change.

Something like this?

In this directory i placed the popper test sheets document

http://open-source-energy.org/rwg42985/popper/

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 9th, 2012, 05:06 AM

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 03:04 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 8th, 2012, 07:54 PM

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 03:00 PM

Quote from askmehhow on October 8th, 2012, 02:43 PM

Ya, then if you modified the glove just right, it might give you the "thumbs up" when it works!

i do like the idea of this test.
Robert

Thanks for making me laugh! funny

Hmmmm.. what should be the next things that Russ can do with the popper?
What should be investigated and why?
Is there a list of things we can make up, like a checklist we all agree on?

Let me put up a couple of examples i'd like to see done..

-*-input output calculations
-*-collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

hmm that's enough for me for now

good idea. ummm, not sure how to set up a list but... just keep track and every time one comes up you (FaradayEZ or some one that will dedicate them self's for this) post it with the past testes that need to be done... and i will work them it... now this is team work. i'm glad each and every one of you are here. thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!! its the only way.

i do have a hard time keeping up. so the dedicate one please keep a look out for these ideas... just make a growing list and i will see what i can do. please make bullets next to each test with each user's input on how a test may be done better or different things to try during test. please note these are suggestions and i may or may not get to all of them or agree with every to do it... lol

Quote

TEST 1 input output calculations

working on this... still need some testing equipment...

Quote

TEST 2.collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

will work this after more testing is done... need to work on the buckets and how there connected/insulated.

and one to add...

TEST 3. use glove/balloon to test for magmatic / thermal / plasma expansion and not something else.

TEST 4. RF in the 27.105 MHz AM range.



i have a personnel list but ill work on those separately...

ok so who is the "Test keeper"???

when we finally agree on a test to take place just make note and tell the " test keeper"...

till then lest all talk about it like we did with the thumbs up glove test... good stuff guys! you give me some real help and i thank yo all for that!

~Russ

Ok, i'll bite.

I think its best to keep an open document in some directory here and that we can edit that. I'll do the intro in the document and place the first examples for test. Like how to do them, which data to obtain. Then beneath that there will be room for Russ to put in his outcomes. Those can be raw.. we will find the ways to put them into a graph or in a formula.

If someone has questions (like about the pureness of obtaining the data) then they can copy paste a quote and take it to the popper thread and discuss it.
Also new test can be suggested and if the feel is that they should be done..or do we vote?.. then the suggester can place those behind the last one in the document

If some test can be better done at the same time etc. then the order of things may change.

Something like this?

Yes. Let me set something up for this... For now every one keep posting on the thred normally...

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 06:34 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 9th, 2012, 05:06 AM

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 03:04 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 8th, 2012, 07:54 PM

Quote from Babble on October 8th, 2012, 03:00 PM

Thanks for making me laugh! funny

Hmmmm.. what should be the next things that Russ can do with the popper?
What should be investigated and why?
Is there a list of things we can make up, like a checklist we all agree on?

Let me put up a couple of examples i'd like to see done..

-*-input output calculations
-*-collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

hmm that's enough for me for now

good idea. ummm, not sure how to set up a list but... just keep track and every time one comes up you (FaradayEZ or some one that will dedicate them self's for this) post it with the past testes that need to be done... and i will work them it... now this is team work. i'm glad each and every one of you are here. thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!! its the only way.

i do have a hard time keeping up. so the dedicate one please keep a look out for these ideas... just make a growing list and i will see what i can do. please make bullets next to each test with each user's input on how a test may be done better or different things to try during test. please note these are suggestions and i may or may not get to all of them or agree with every to do it... lol

Quote

TEST 1 input output calculations

working on this... still need some testing equipment...

Quote

TEST 2.collecting (and identifying) the feedback current famous for the papp engine

will work this after more testing is done... need to work on the buckets and how there connected/insulated.

and one to add...

TEST 3. use glove/balloon to test for magmatic / thermal / plasma expansion and not something else.

TEST 4. RF in the 27.105 MHz AM range.



i have a personnel list but ill work on those separately...

ok so who is the "Test keeper"???

when we finally agree on a test to take place just make note and tell the " test keeper"...

till then lest all talk about it like we did with the thumbs up glove test... good stuff guys! you give me some real help and i thank yo all for that!

~Russ

Ok, i'll bite.

I think its best to keep an open document in some directory here and that we can edit that. I'll do the intro in the document and place the first examples for test. Like how to do them, which data to obtain. Then beneath that there will be room for Russ to put in his outcomes. Those can be raw.. we will find the ways to put them into a graph or in a formula.

If someone has questions (like about the pureness of obtaining the data) then they can copy paste a quote and take it to the popper thread and discuss it.
Also new test can be suggested and if the feel is that they should be done..or do we vote?.. then the suggester can place those behind the last one in the document

If some test can be better done at the same time etc. then the order of things may change.

Something like this?

Yes. Let me set something up for this... For now every one keep posting on the thred normally...

~Russ

oopss..uploaded already a doc at

http://open-source-energy.org/rwg42985/popper/

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 02:15 AM

Quote from Babble on October 6th, 2012, 01:47 PM

Quote from GordonFreeman on October 6th, 2012, 10:09 AM

What size breaker are you kicking? 2 pole 30 feeding the powersupply?
831 joules. So thats 831 watts per second. At 10 cents a kw does that mean it costs $00.0831 each time you fire it or is that what it would cost if it ran for an hour straight?
Great job!!!

Hi Gordon,  just to add a little clarity, the electricity cost is 10 to 15 cents/ KWH so it would take an hour's use at 1000 watts to cost that.  The energy Russ is using is far less.  I don't know what the capacitor rating or even the voltage was as he changed it but if he was discharging 700 joules and then recharging it at one second intervals that would be 700 watts.  One hour of use would be 700/1000 watts x 10 cents = 7 cents.  For faster or slower rates of charge/discharge, divide the joules by the time.  For 0.5 seconds, it is 700/0.5 = 1400 watts.  

One problem is that the joules expended is based on V^2 so as you raise the voltage and keep the same discharge rate, the wattage goes up by the square.  I believe I made a mistake on a previous post  in using discharge time of the caps to calculate watts.  The total joules used (no matter how fast the discharge) per second is the wattage.

with the same rate... how much would it cost to run a 1hp motor for the same amount of time?

One HP is about 745 joules/sec or watts.  So it would cost 0.745 x 10 cents/KWH to run one HP motor assuming 100% efficiency.  Most electric motors are about 90% or better.  What the popper needs is a lot more output power and/or less input at some point.

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 01:58 AM

Quote from Axil on October 6th, 2012, 02:35 PM

The cheapest way to test for neutrons is to use the plastic CR39.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CR39

This plastic is the stuff that plastic eyeglass lenses are made from.

I believe that a cheap source of CR39 is had in welder lenses covers.

Cold fusion researchers use CR39 to test for neutrons.

You need to develop CR39 like photographic film to expose the pits in the plastic that the neutrons have made.

This detection of neutrons is best done after gamma radiation is found. This gamma radiation tells us that the nuclei of atoms are being split and/or fused and the CR39 tells what is happening in detail by the energy of the neutrons that are being produced.

Here is an example of a cold fusion experiment that uses CR39.

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html

I will use this info to come up with a “how to use CR39” if Gamma rays are found in the popper and there is interest in pinning down what is going on inside the nucleus.

Axil,

ok, so i was informed of this by a man named Mark hugo, he was talking about Dr Oriani and his experiments...

i guess this is what they use to detect radon in the home... ???

so. if i got some. and tried it how could i see it? will i need to send it out for testing???

thanks again Axil, good stuff! ~Russ

I thought i read on wikipedia that there will be cracklike stripes visible in the glas after being hit by neutrons.



Russ popper has a baby..congratz!!..soww quett

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 01:58 AM

Axil,

ok, so i was informed of this by a man named Mark hugo, he was talking about Dr Oriani and his experiments...

i guess this is what they use to detect radon in the home... ???

so. if i got some. and tried it how could i see it? will i need to send it out for testing???

thanks again Axil, good stuff! ~Russ

Russ,

Also watch out for the black residue inside your popper contraption.  If you are using thorated tungsten electrodes, then the residue is from the eroded tips of your electrodes.  I don't have a clue how to handle, clean, and dispose of that.  Possibly use disposable gloves, wipe up wet, maybe use WD-40, (water will dry out, leaving the material to disperse again).  Just some thoughts...

kcd

Quote from k c dias on October 9th, 2012, 11:28 AM

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 01:58 AM

Axil,

ok, so i was informed of this by a man named Mark hugo, he was talking about Dr Oriani and his experiments...

i guess this is what they use to detect radon in the home... ???

so. if i got some. and tried it how could i see it? will i need to send it out for testing???

thanks again Axil, good stuff! ~Russ

Russ,

Also watch out for the black residue inside your popper contraption.  If you are using thorated tungsten electrodes, then the residue is from the eroded tips of your electrodes.  I don't have a clue how to handle, clean, and dispose of that.  Possibly use disposable gloves, wipe up wet, maybe use WD-40, (water will dry out, leaving the material to disperse again).  Just some thoughts...

kcd

How are you getting along KC?
What do you need to get the first POP! ?

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 9th, 2012, 12:41 PM

How are you getting along KC?
What do you need to get the first POP! ?

EZ,

Thanks for asking!  I got some of the jobs that were loading me down all done and pushed out the door :)  Updated the controller to output signals to switch the RF and top cylinder coil.  Building a 100 VDC or so power supply and the switching electronics now, should be able to test something today or tomorrow....

Until then,

kcd

Quote from k c dias on October 9th, 2012, 01:23 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 9th, 2012, 12:41 PM

How are you getting along KC?
What do you need to get the first POP! ?

EZ,

Thanks for asking!  I got some of the jobs that were loading me down all done and pushed out the door :)  Updated the controller to output signals to switch the RF and top cylinder coil.  Building a 100 VDC or so power supply and the switching electronics now, should be able to test something today or tomorrow....

Until then,

kcd

Okay, sounds good, do you also use the method that Russ uses? In that your high voltage makes the path between the arcgap so that you then can push the capacitors yuice over it?

Quote from jabowery on October 8th, 2012, 12:03 PM

Plasma pressure is different from gas pressure in that it involves magnetic pressure.  This magnetic pressure presents as a plasma pressure which also presents as surrounding gas pressure (shockwave if the increase is rapid).

Therefore the proposed tests involving a non-metallic containment _might_ (if we are lucky and the non-metallic containment doesn't experience force) tell us only if there is direct electromagnetic coupling (lenz's law or some such) to the metallic piston.  It won't distinguish between carnot gas expansion and EHD plasma expansion.  The problem is that if the non-metallic containment shows mechanical force, this does not qualitatively eliminate the presence of direct coupling to the metallic piston.  There may be some portion of the effect that is due to direct magnetic coupling.  

Even so, let's assume that there _is_ something like an image current being induced in the metallic piston:

This does not tell us that the Papp engine is merely an electric motor with a different mechanism of action.  It merely says that there is an aspect to the Papp engine that involves a different mechanism of action from the carnot cycle.

This magnetic side of it can be the thing that produces the backcurrent.

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 9th, 2012, 02:37 AM

Quote from Axil on October 7th, 2012, 05:52 PM

A request to perform a simple experiment follows:
One way to distinguish if the force that moves the piston after the spark has fired is due to increasing gas pressure or is under the influence of some sort of varying electromagnetic force is as follows:

Connect a temporary pressure equalization pipe between the upper and lower gas inlet/outlet ports. During the air removal process when air is vacuumed from the cylinder, the vacuum pumping should be done from the pressure equalization pipe so that air is removed from both the top and bottom cylinder volumes simultaneously.

The gas to be tested should then the introduced into this same gas port that was used to the vacuum out the air. The gas will then fill both the bottom and top volumes of the cylinder to a equalize pressure.

After installing the pressure equalization pipe, if the piston moves after the spark is fired then the piston must be reacting to a varying electromagnetic force and not to an increase in the gas pressure in the bottom cylinder volume since the pressure in the top and bottom volumes are both the same at all times.

this is a good idea, only prob i can see is that is the tube is smaller than the chamber than the test is in our pressure in the chamber if moving at " the light of speed" or supper fast then can not transfer through the small tube fast enough and there still will be some pressure in one side over the other side...

just something to think about when doing that test.

~Russ

The question if gas is the force or magnetics can be easily decided by looking at your pressure meter when you pop the popper....

And because there must be a back current... there we might see the magnetic side of the reaction?

Testing the magnetic theroy is an easy one.
Just take out all the fittings from the bottom of the chamber-all except the two electrode's.
So now we have just air in the chamber,and many holes so as no preasure can build up.
Now pop the thing and see if the pistion still go's up.If so ,you know it's a magnetic reaction.Testing the magnetic theroy is an easy one.
Just take out all the fittings from the bottom of the chamber-all except the two electrode's.
So now we have just air in the chamber,and many holes so as no preasure can build up.
Now pop the thing and see if the pistion still go's up.If so ,you know it's a magnetic reaction.

Quote from TinMan on October 10th, 2012, 06:59 AM

Testing the magnetic theroy is an easy one.
Just take out all the fittings from the bottom of the chamber-all except the two electrode's.
So now we have just air in the chamber,and many holes so as no preasure can build up.
Now pop the thing and see if the pistion still go's up.If so ,you know it's a magnetic reaction.
Testing the magnetic theroy is an easy one.
Just take out all the fittings from the bottom of the chamber-all except the two electrode's.
So now we have just air in the chamber,and many holes so as no preasure can build up.
Now pop the thing and see if the pistion still go's up.If so ,you know it's a magnetic reaction.

Hmm but air didn't gave the plasma type reaction..so i would say it is still simpler to just look at the pressurecauge..?? It should be moving at every POP.

And that there must be some magnetic or electrical side in these reactions is also clear. At every POP BOB gets current back and PaPP did also with every engine..so there is an electrical side to this stuff.
But the work, i think, is done by the gas expansion, not by the magnetic force...

But who knows... maybe we could also use the magnetic side to force the piston even stronger..?

But then we wouldn't have the luxury if the backcurrent streaming into the capacitors for the next POP?


But,but but?


Oww...AXIL, if you're reading, would you help me with the POPPER TEST SHEETS
document.. because i have incorporated a couple of your suggestions. And you may want to specify or check them also yourself a bit further.
go to
http://open-source-energy.org/rwg42985/popper/

use v1.4 and upload the changes as version 1.5 please.. THX :)

(use popper as description in the first questionfield when uploading)
(look at the forum announcements at rwg research parent branche and file browsing/upload)

Quote from TinMan on October 10th, 2012, 06:59 AM

Testing the magnetic theroy is an easy one.
Just take out all the fittings from the bottom of the chamber-all except the two electrode's.
So now we have just air in the chamber,and many holes so as no preasure can build up.
Now pop the thing and see if the pistion still go's up.If so ,you know it's a magnetic reaction.
Testing the magnetic theroy is an easy one.
Just take out all the fittings from the bottom of the chamber-all except the two electrode's.
So now we have just air in the chamber,and many holes so as no preasure can build up.
Now pop the thing and see if the pistion still go's up.If so ,you know it's a magnetic reaction.

This would work if the magnetic filed is solely created by the electrical discharge but I think we want to see if the Helium-plasma is creating a field.  In that case it won't work (no Helium).

Any electrical current will create a magnetic field but it shouldn't be strong enough to affect the piston.  If the piston were affected (Is it aluminum?) it would have to have current flow in it to create an opposing field.  I don't see that happening and I think its easier to show there is a pressure wave from the plasma.

Quote

TEST 12  Magnets at the sparcgap

Jbignes5:
If you want a better pop from the capacitor might I suggest doing it the way Tesla and other had found out is the best way. Simply put two magnets in attraction mode on either side of the electrodes. This will cause the area between the electrodes to become cross polarized and restrict the arc which will cause a better sharper pop across the electrodes. Tesla referred to this as a magnetically quenched spark gap.

Spark Gap Air and Magnetic Quench

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_408292&feature=iv&src_vid=fLUYq0yslRg&v=hwVvHgbJdzA

FaradayEZ

keep going for now on the file upload with updates. you may want others to post on the forums and then you update the file... your call. this will work till i get a better protocol in place.

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on October 11th, 2012, 03:09 AM

FaradayEZ

keep going for now on the file upload with updates. you may want others to post on the forums and then you update the file... your call. this will work till i get a better protocol in place.

Most of the test idea's from this thread (i went from 1 to 35) i have put in.
But this file in a directory way is not easy for editing and saving by multiple users.