Quote from Chan on November 5th, 2012, 01:52 AM

Russ,
Lemons to lemonade.
If your Geiger counter goes wild, Check U.S. patent 4178524'
" Radioisotope photoelectric generator

Abstract

This disclosure is directed to a radioisotope photoelectric generator for producing electrical energy. The construction of the generator is similar to that of a well-known storage battery. The generator is composed of alternate layers of high-Z, (high atomic-number) and low-Z(low atomic number) material which are insulated by vacuum or other insulating material. Low-energy photons from a radioactive source interact predominantly with the high-Z material by the photoelectric process, ejecting photoelectrons whose energy extends up to the incident gamma-ray energy E. By selecting the high-Z material thickness to be less than one electron range (at energy E) and the low-Z material thickness to be more than one electron range, there is a net electron transfer from the high-Z plates to the low-Z plates because electrons are emitted predominantly from the high-Z plates and stop in the low-Z plates. After start-up, a potential difference will build up between the high-Z and low-Z plates. An upper limit for this potential difference in kilovolts is the energy E in keV. The high-Z plates are connected together electrically and the low-Z plates are connected together electrically thus forming a "battery. " The "battery" delivers power to an external electrical load, preferably but not necessarily a resistor, whose value is chosen to maximize the power delivered to the electrical load, to yield the voltage desired, to control the temperature of the plates, or a combination of such considerations. "
God reveals through you and all your contributors to this Forum.
Chan.

that's interesting.
i attached a copy here:

Quote from BobN on November 6th, 2012, 01:36 PM

With all the talk on mixing, I realize from a practical view that a real word solution will be problematic. If the gas is that sensitive to mixing to work properly,
 a person will never turn off the engine once its running. If you turn off the engine for a few minutes, it may not start. Can you imagine a car sitting in front of your house or in the garage, always running. I know I'm way ahead of the issue, we need to make it run, but it is food for thought.

Stop engine, vent to small cylinder. Start engine, shake cylinder, inject gas to cylinder and start ionizing. A small container could be tumbled with a starter, but it seems bizarre.

mixing it up is only needed to transfer it to the engine, from what i understand one will want it to layer in the cylinder. " the argon layer is where the kick back is focused from" not an exact quote.  :)

from what i understand the coils also help keep it layered. ?!?!
~Russ

Quote from heero yueh on November 7th, 2012, 12:28 AM

I truly believe that the popper was an off the cuff ploy to try and one up bob by john at tesla tech. Bob stole the show then john announced his alleged open source kit. If it had been planned they would have had kits at the show. Imagine how many they could have sold after bobs presentation. Instead they had printouts of order forms and still have yet to deliver to many people. I like your idea of an auction cause they are not going to sell again cause they dont work and they know it and I have a feeling they knew that before they sold them. I would be interested if a smaller apparatus would take less voltage ? Is john/plasmerg going to refund you if you return your kit ? But a design of a kit that could be put together for cheap to take advantage of the parts included with the unproven plasmerg popper. The electronics, coils ect just so its not a total loss for the people who already invested (hornswagled) with the insinuation of a working proof of concept......

welcome,

sadly i thing the statement in red is correct. i hate to see it that way but it may just be true...

none the less they will ( or wont)  prove them self's at the DEC 11 show...

only time will tell.

PS yeah bob rocks. but most of what i now came from his videos and not directly from him... none the less, i'm glad he posted the videos he did!! or we all still would be lost... lol truly lost...

~Russ

Quote from Axil on November 7th, 2012, 11:05 PM

I also hope that none of our intrepid experimenters accidently stubble upon the proportions of the explosive gas mix by accident because such a chance occurrence would be exceedingly dangerous.

Mixing the gases in a premix tank could lead to a random gas mixture due to a number of uncontrolled variables.

Such a situation is similar to Russian roulette that is played with a six shooter.

Putting this opinion forward as only tentative, I would like to raise a caution here to suggest that the Popper could be a dangerous explosion hazard if strict scientific discipline in controlling the makeup of the five gas mix is not adhered to in experimentation.

note taken and i agree. Thanks Axil

Quote from simonderricutt on November 8th, 2012, 05:16 AM

Russ - to get a spark of the same length as before you need to have the same peak current going through the coil. Your circuit for keeping a constant duty-cycle is brilliant, but it's not what you need. If you keep the duty-cycle constant as you raise the frequency, you'll have a shorter charge-time for the coils and thus the output energy will be lower and the available spark will be shorter. What you thus need is an astable 555 circuit to give you the frequency (as you have) followed by a one-shot that gives you a set (and adjustable) length of charge-time for the coil - this will keep your spark energy constant as you raise the frequency of sparking, and will avoid the spark failing as you go to higher frequency of sparking.

i looked in to the one shot deal and was also trying to elemanate the extra chip.

Quote

I think it's likely that you won't need to go much above 1KHz in the spark frequency. You will probably also find that you'll only need to put sparks in while there's still enough energy left in your main capacitors to give a pop, so maybe 10 sparks or so will be useful and the rest will do nothing effective.

Use the 'scope to measure the current through the coils and see what on-time is needed to keep the coil just short of saturation - the current/time graph should be almost linear, and if it starts to level off then you've reached saturation point and leaving it switched on longer will not get you a bigger spark. The ballast resistor is only needed for cars since the duty-cycle is constant as the frequency changes, so at low RPM the coil could well be spending a lot of time in saturation. At high RPM the dwell-time is short enough that the resistor is not needed (and in cars is switched out) and just wastes energy.

Your highest available frequency of sparking will be set by the off-time being about equal to the on-time you set, since the coil needs a bit of time to discharge.

I will play with the coils and checking the saturation.

i have notesed that the distance between the electrodes will play a big factor to the adjustment to the arc, i want those nice lightning bolt discharges, if i get it to close it turns in to more a higher current discharge...  none the less. i will play with it more. just got a short time to play with it. :) thanks for the feedback!! ~Russ

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 8th, 2012, 05:56 AM

Wow, cool Russ, this looks like what I did a year and 5 months ago, using an ignition coil.:cool::D:P   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgZK1Ydm_I&feature=plcp

:) nice jeff!

also if i run theses in parallel ( connected in revere) using 24V dc. i can get a huge arc out of them... :) but i still am working on the driver.  2.5-3" worth... lol

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 8th, 2012, 11:10 PM

Quote from Axil on November 8th, 2012, 10:28 PM

Quote

Like force is mass times velocity, both energy amount and mass play in this equation. But how heavy is TNT?

When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low.

On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the plasma expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion.

One could also think that there is a balance. More weight less speed. Less weight more speed. When excepting that the amount of force is constant as the input current is constant. Some practical measuring is needed to measure force difference if there is any.

Also one could argue.. as plasma events border on the edge of strange phenomina, that more resistance will bring more power (as contradictionary it may sound) There are more new inventors that say that often one has to take the opposite of what is the norm when dealing with overunity and these kind of new technologies.
And thinking back off how much the Papp piston had on resitance..no man could get movement on the piston...there seems some validity in this off-thinking.
Anyhow does it point towards the way Papp setup his engine..not much rpm's but a lot of torque. Why? To maximise the force from the mixture, why else?

Also the canon had this resistance problem. Plus that the engine that blew up when Fleishmann disconnected power to the control unit....had the normal gasmixture...and still that mixture had the potention to blow up and fracture the whole engine into pieces!! So one may argue that there has to be no difference between the gasmixture in the canon and the mixture in the 'normal' engine.
And so the difference in resistance becomes related to the difference in force...

Quote from Axil on November 8th, 2012, 10:28 PM

For me, Russ’s experiment is interesting in that it will involve some little know noble gas chemical processes. It will also explore my intuition that the Papp engine is a gas based cavatation system.

If this connection between the Papp reaction and cavitation holds up, many insights from cavatation system dynamics might be applied to improving the Papp reaction.

Cavitation as in liquid making bubbles that implode? Isn't this a more edge-flow occuring issue? Where with the cylinder and piston setup, due to its not having such edge-flow, shouldn't have much sitings of?

guys, on the note of plasma and its movment or speed...

please do some research on "shock tubes" or "plasma shock tubes"

see attachment why this may be extremely relevant. :

PS. i haven't had time to do extensive research on it so post your findings... :)

~Russ

Quote

The ring electrode is connected coaxially to a
parallel-plate transmission line which leads from the driver, via a switch, to
a 40 $, 10 kV fast-discharge capacitor bank.

that's 2KJ fully charged...

Quote

In all the experinents reported here, a voltage of 4-5 kV was used on
the capacitor bank.

so only 500J... that's with in range of my tests... :)

This is a suggestion and a request for feedback regarding testing and development of the Papp engine.

It seems to me that a potential cost effective way to get the Papp piston instrumented to record how it reacts to experimental detonations of various gas mixtures is to use a Single-Axis, High-g, iMEMS Accelerometer that can be mounted on the piston stem.

http://www.analog.com/en/mems-sensors/mems-inertial-sensors/adxl193/products/product.html#product-samples-nav

This type of accelerometer can sustain a maximum acceleration of up to 4000G. They are also cheap with a cost of under $10.

It will not break the bank to upgrade the performance of the accelerometer through chip replacement if the shock performance is too low.

The output of the accelerometer chip can be fed into an oscilloscope or a strip chart recorder to visualize the output data.

This type of detector may be more sensitive than a gas pressure change detector for characterizing the force imparted onto the piston by the blast wave of the spark.

Also, it may be possible to setup a circuit that might measure the speed of the shockwave (time of arrival) traveling through the gas by determining the Delta- time difference from the first application of the current producing the spark discharge to the associated induced piston reaction movement as measured through the output of the accelerometer.

It also may be possible to calculate the force that the piston produces from the output profile of the accelerometer.

Reaction and suggestions to this idea are now solicited.

Quote from Axil on November 10th, 2012, 10:38 AM

This is a suggestion and a request for feedback regarding testing and development of the Papp engine.

It seems to me that a potential cost effective way to get the Papp piston instrumented to record how it reacts to experimental detonations of various gas mixtures is to use a Single-Axis, High-g, iMEMS Accelerometer that can be mounted on the piston stem.

http://www.analog.com/en/mems-sensors/mems-inertial-sensors/adxl193/products/product.html#product-samples-nav

This type of accelerometer can sustain a maximum acceleration of up to 4000G. They are also cheap with a cost of under $10.

It will not break the bank to upgrade the performance of the accelerometer through chip replacement if the shock performance is too low.

The output of the accelerometer chip can be fed into an oscilloscope or a strip chart recorder to visualize the output data.

This type of detector may be more sensitive than a gas pressure change detector for characterizing the force imparted onto the piston by the blast wave of the spark.

Also, it may be possible to setup a circuit that might measure the speed of the shockwave traveling through the gas by determining the Delta- time difference from the first application of the current producing the spark discharge to the associated induced piston reaction movement as measured through the output of the accelerometer.

It also may be possible to calculate the force that the piston produces from the output profile of the accelerometer.

Reaction and suggestions to this idea are now solicited.

Sounds lke a very good idea Axil.:D

Quote from Axil on November 10th, 2012, 10:38 AM

This is a suggestion and a request for feedback regarding testing and development of the Papp engine.

It seems to me that a potential cost effective way to get the Papp piston instrumented to record how it reacts to experimental detonations of various gas mixtures is to use a Single-Axis, High-g, iMEMS Accelerometer that can be mounted on the piston stem.

http://www.analog.com/en/mems-sensors/mems-inertial-sensors/adxl193/products/product.html#product-samples-nav

This type of accelerometer can sustain a maximum acceleration of up to 4000G. They are also cheap with a cost of under $10.

It will not break the bank to upgrade the performance of the accelerometer through chip replacement if the shock performance is too low.

The output of the accelerometer chip can be fed into an oscilloscope or a strip chart recorder to visualize the output data.

This type of detector may be more sensitive than a gas pressure change detector for characterizing the force imparted onto the piston by the blast wave of the spark.

Also, it may be possible to setup a circuit that might measure the speed of the shockwave (time of arrival) traveling through the gas by determining the Delta- time difference from the first application of the current producing the spark discharge to the associated induced piston reaction movement as measured through the output of the accelerometer.

It also may be possible to calculate the force that the piston produces from the output profile of the accelerometer.

Reaction and suggestions to this idea are now solicited.

Affordable at least, but how do these chips hold up in a EMP field?

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 10th, 2012, 12:40 PM

Quote from Axil on November 10th, 2012, 10:38 AM

This is a suggestion and a request for feedback regarding testing and development of the Papp engine.

It seems to me that a potential cost effective way to get the Papp piston instrumented to record how it reacts to experimental detonations of various gas mixtures is to use a Single-Axis, High-g, iMEMS Accelerometer that can be mounted on the piston stem.

http://www.analog.com/en/mems-sensors/mems-inertial-sensors/adxl193/products/product.html#product-samples-nav

This type of accelerometer can sustain a maximum acceleration of up to 4000G. They are also cheap with a cost of under $10.

It will not break the bank to upgrade the performance of the accelerometer through chip replacement if the shock performance is too low.

The output of the accelerometer chip can be fed into an oscilloscope or a strip chart recorder to visualize the output data.

This type of detector may be more sensitive than a gas pressure change detector for characterizing the force imparted onto the piston by the blast wave of the spark.

Also, it may be possible to setup a circuit that might measure the speed of the shockwave (time of arrival) traveling through the gas by determining the Delta- time difference from the first application of the current producing the spark discharge to the associated induced piston reaction movement as measured through the output of the accelerometer.

It also may be possible to calculate the force that the piston produces from the output profile of the accelerometer.

Reaction and suggestions to this idea are now solicited.

Affordable at least, but how do these chips hold up in a EMP field?

cover them in metal foil or screen

Quote from Axil on November 10th, 2012, 10:38 AM

This is a suggestion and a request for feedback regarding testing and development of the Papp engine.

It seems to me that a potential cost effective way to get the Papp piston instrumented to record how it reacts to experimental detonations of various gas mixtures is to use a Single-Axis, High-g, iMEMS Accelerometer that can be mounted on the piston stem.

http://www.analog.com/en/mems-sensors/mems-inertial-sensors/adxl193/products/product.html#product-samples-nav

This type of accelerometer can sustain a maximum acceleration of up to 4000G. They are also cheap with a cost of under $10.

It will not break the bank to upgrade the performance of the accelerometer through chip replacement if the shock performance is too low.

The output of the accelerometer chip can be fed into an oscilloscope or a strip chart recorder to visualize the output data.

This type of detector may be more sensitive than a gas pressure change detector for characterizing the force imparted onto the piston by the blast wave of the spark.

Also, it may be possible to setup a circuit that might measure the speed of the shockwave (time of arrival) traveling through the gas by determining the Delta- time difference from the first application of the current producing the spark discharge to the associated induced piston reaction movement as measured through the output of the accelerometer.

It also may be possible to calculate the force that the piston produces from the output profile of the accelerometer.

Reaction and suggestions to this idea are now solicited.

Axil, I was going to get a load cell, and load it with wights so we get a load feedback, and still allow for distance traveled to be checked. (plan on using a linear potentiometer to mesure destance...)

I think an accelerometer may not be the best choice? I don't know, maybe it will be better...

Thoughts are more than welcome.

Also, how do I interface this device? It's just an IC correct? So I need to mount the chip and Eletronics on the piston ?!?!

Never mined, here is a pree made bord. Analog voltage out for recording...
~Russ
 

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on November 10th, 2012, 02:25 PM

Never mind, here is a pre made board. Analog voltage out for recording...
~Russ

Tometo, tomato, lets test.

Shake that boody cylinder to get the right juice out of it and spark that mixture one more time to see if the pap stuff has it or not...

Impatience can be a virtue

Somewhere i hope ;)

I am interested in the possible association of zero-point-energy/electrostatic based supersonic shockwave acceleration processes that occur as a consequence of ionic crystal formation during cavatation bubble collapse and the closely related plasma reaction in the Papp engine which might occur in the plasmoid formation process in heavy noble gases.


The Plasmoid that is formed by the spark discharge in a noble gas mix might be analogous to what happens in the collapse of a single large cavatation bubble.


The Plasmoid both acts like and might be thought of as a manifestation of a single large collapsing cavitation bubble.


In more detail, what Mark LeClair has observed as positive ionic crystallization formation in water that is catalyzed in the high pressure plasma generation during cavatation in water may also be happening in ionic positively charge  krypton and xenon crystal formation in the Papp reaction.


I believe that this idea is justifiable since cavatation damage also occurs in liquid sodium and molten salt pumps at levels of up to ten times more intense as is happening in water.


Positive ionic crystallization formation can happen in many types of ionic elements and chemical compounds in both liquids and gases.

Here is a recent  YouTube based interview covering cavitation with Mark LeClair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Gqd34R5OQ


In this interview, Mark LeClair believes that LENR happens in cavatation. But a deeper level of abstraction is needed in his thinking.  LENR actually is based on the action of positively charged ionic super-atomic crystals.

The crystal, moving at supersonic and greater speeds, is surrounding by a bow shock like a fighter plane. This supersonic speed is determined by the speed of sound of the material that carries the shockwave. The positively charged crystal is attracted to its own negatively charged bow shock by the Casimir Force and coherently extracts zero point energy on a large scale.

Because electrons are 1800 times lighter than ions at a minimum but up to 1,000,000 times lighter than a complex crystal, the electron shockwave precedes the ion wave. In the Papp reaction, the electron shock wave precedes the ion shockwave and pulls the ions along with it but does not touch it.
 
The crystal then accelerates to what appears to be relativistic speeds in very short distances. We can get an idea about what this distance is from our study of cavatation.

From cavatation, the plasmoid imparts maximum force when the plasmoid is offset by six plasmoid diameters from the substrate wall. This bubble standoff distance results in the maximum shockwave impact damage.

In the Papp engine, the most power will be generated when the piston is offset from the centre of the plasmoid (discharge spark) by six plasmoid diameters.

The plasmoid needs some distance to get rolling. So determining piston offset distance from the spark is an experimental objective.

The electron bow shock does not respond with an equal and opposite force because of a proposed conflict between Newton’s classical First Law of Motion with the quantum theory based Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal.

The Heisenberg Principal states that highly fixed objects must exhibit a proportionally highly degree of random momentum. The high degree of bow shock electron fixedness results in a high degree of random response of those same electrons to all forces, including both body and surface forces.  

The electrons in the shockwave are acting in a unpredictable and random way.

A fixed electron on the bow shock pulled towards the crystal by the Casimir Force responds randomly in momentum magnitude, instead of with a momentum proportional to the attractive Casimir force. The randomized momentum of the bow shock electrons collectively form a randomized momentum Heisenberg Uncertainty Surface (HUS) that wraps around the crystal to form a randomized momentum Heisenberg Uncertainty Volume (HUV).  

Randomized forces exerted on the bow shock electrons of the HUS and the HUV constrained by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal cannot respond in kind as an equal and opposite force and so conflict directly with Newton’s laws of motion. No new science is required, only the realization that Newton’s Laws are the special case, not the general, as they are with relativity.

The following paper has a imbedded video at its bottom that shows what a vortex shaped plasmoid looks like when it hits the substrate (piston), and rebounds.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3175

Here is a list of the ionization potentials given in electron volts

Sorted by 1st Ionization Potential (eV)
           Name   Sym   #
3.83           Francium   Fr   87
3.894   Cesium   Cs   55
4.177   Rubidium   Rb   37
4.341   Potassium   K   19
5.139   Sodium   Na   11
5.17           Actinium   Ac   89
5.212   Barium   Ba   56
5.279   Radium   Ra   88
5.392   Lithium   Li   3
5.4259   Lutetium   Lu   71
5.46           Praseodymium   Pr   59
5.53           Neodymium   Nd   60
5.54           Cerium   Ce   58
5.554   Promethium   Pm   61
5.58           Lanthanum   La   57
5.64           Samarium   Sm   62
5.67           Europium   Eu   63
5.695   Strontium   Sr   38
5.786   Indium   In   49
5.86           Terbium   Tb   65
5.89           Protactinium   Pa   91
5.94           Dysprosium   Dy   66
5.986   Aluminum   Al   13
5.993   Americium   Am   95
5.999   Gallium   Ga   31
6.018   Holmium   Ho   67
6.02           Curium   Cm   96
6.05           Uranium   U   92
6.06           Plutonium   Pu   94
6.08           Thorium   Th   90
6.101   Erbium   Er   68
6.108   Thallium   Tl   81
6.113   Calcium   Ca   20
6.15           Gadolinium   Gd   64
6.184   Thulium   Tm   69
6.19           Neptunium   Np   93
6.23           Berkelium   Bk   97
6.254   Ytterbium   Yb   70
6.3           Californium   Cf   98
6.38           Yttrium   Y   39
6.42           Einsteinium   Es   99
6.5           Fermium   Fm   100
6.54           Scandium   Sc   21
6.58           Mendelevium   Md   101
6.65           Hafnium   Hf   72
6.65           Nobelium   No   102
6.74           Vanadium   V   23
6.766   Chromium   Cr   24
6.82           Titanium   Ti   22
6.84           Zirconium   Zr   40
6.88           Niobium   Nb   41
7.099   Molybdenum   Mo   42
7.28           Technetium   Tc   43
7.289   Bismuth   Bi   83
7.344   Tin   Sn   50
7.37           Ruthenium   Ru   44
7.416   Lead   Pb   82
7.435   Manganese   Mn   25
7.46           Rhodium   Rh   45
7.576   Silver   Ag   47
7.635   Nickel   Ni   28
7.646   Magnesium   Mg   12
7.726   Copper   Cu   29
7.86           Cobalt   Co   27
7.87           Iron   Fe   26
7.88           Rhenium   Re   75
7.89           Tantalum   Ta   73
7.899   Germanium   Ge   32
7.98           Tungsten   W   74
8.151   Silicon   Si   14
8.298   Boron   B   5
8.34           Palladium   Pd   46
8.42           Polonium   Po   84
8.641   Antimony   Sb   51
8.7           Osmium   Os   76
8.993   Cadmium   Cd   48
9           Platinum   Pt   78
9.009   Tellurium   Te   52
9.1           Iridium   Ir   77
9.225   Gold   Au   79
9.322   Beryllium   Be   4
9.394   Zinc   Zn   30
9.65           Astatine   At   85
9.752   Selenium   Se   34
9.81           Arsenic   As   33
10.36   Sulfur   S   16
10.437   Mercury   Hg   80
10.451   Iodine   I   53
10.486   Phosphorus   P   15
10.748   Radon   Rn   86
11.26   Carbon   C   6
11.814   Bromine   Br   35
12.13   Xenon   Xe   54
12.967   Chlorine   Cl   17
13.598   Hydrogen   H   1
13.618   Oxygen   O   8
13.999   Krypton   Kr   36
14.534   Nitrogen   N   7
15.759   Argon   Ar   18
17.422   Fluorine   F   9
21.564   Neon   Ne   10
24.587   Helium   He   2

As you can see your most viable gas for ionization at the lowest energy cost is hydrogen. Hydrogen is a dangerous gas to handle so carbon dioxide is a good alternative. If you notice sodium has one of the lowest energy costs. That's why it's used in high pressure sodium bulbs to create plasma to light up parking lots. Noble gases will work for this device, they just require more energy to ionize.

Don’t get me wrong I think some advanced theoretical testing is good, but!!! I can’t help but think some of this requesting testing (of the theory behind how it works) from Russ is going over the top.

Maybe some requested (theoretical) testing would be better suited for a University lab or such.

I mean for some of us looking for common real world applications of an engine the main the factors would be.

How long will it run on one gas charge.

What is the minimum energy required to make it work.

What is the extra electrical energy value coming out.

Now maybe some of these common questions will be answered after Dec. 11 or when Bob gets his engine to market. But until then it maybe a good idea to answer some of the simpler questions first.  ;)

element 119

Noble gases have engineering advantages that are worth the extra power.

Nobel gases don’t burn up the electrodes and Xenon and Krypton are very heavy. They impart great force when their ions hit the face of the piston.

Quote from element 119 on November 10th, 2012, 10:44 PM

Don’t get me wrong I think some advanced theoretical testing is good, but!!! I can’t help but think some of this requesting testing (of the theory behind how it works) from Russ is going over the top.

Maybe some requested (theoretical) testing would be better suited for a University lab or such.

I mean for some of us looking for common real world applications of an engine the main the factors would be.

How long will it run on one gas charge.

What is the minimum energy required to make it work.

What is the extra electrical energy value coming out.

Now maybe some of these common questions will be answered after Dec. 11 or when Bob gets his engine to market. But until then it maybe a good idea to answer some of the simpler questions first.  ;)

element 119

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”

Richard Feynman
 

One of the ways to get this piston working more efficiently is by placing a conductive sleeve inside the cylinder. Perhaps midway in, although I have a hunch it will be more effective at the base. Use the energy returning from the spark gap to energize the sleeve and it will create a magnetic field that will separate the ionized particles to the top and bottom of the cylinder giving an extra kick on the piston and imparting force for a longer period of time. The sleeve will have to be separated at some point so there is a gap in order to create a path all the way around the sleeve for current to flow. The sleeve will be most efficient when it's cross sectional area is the same as the conductor carrying the current so this will require a very thin sleeve, perhaps as thin as aluminum foil although the conductor needs to remain insulated. It will also have to have a diameter nearly as big as the cylinder's. One special property of this sleeve would have to be that where the conductor is connected to the sleeve it will have to gradually get flat. One way of achieving this is by taking finely stranded wire and connecting each strand at even intervals along the width of the sleeve. You would have to do this for both the positive and negative side to create the maximum magnetic field orthogonally to the flat surface of the sleeve. There are other ways of achieving this that are less hasslesome but will yield less effective results. Such as placing coils on the outside of the cylinder so that their "hole" is orthogonal to the height of the cylinder. This will be less effective because the magnetic field will be more finely focused and the conductive walls of the cylinder will interrupt the magnetic field. Here is a list of gases by the molecular weight and density. You will yield a greater reaction by gases that are more dense because that represents more changes occurring in a smaller volume. As you can see xenon is the most dense of the gases used in testing which accounts for the experimental data showing xenon to be the most efficient gas. I didn't take this into account before so I have to retract my earlier statement that carbon dioxide would be a viable alternative. This list does add a little insight to possible alternative gases though. Look at R-114 (C2Cl2F4) which has a density of 7.23 kg/m^3 (compared to that of xenon which is 5.86 kg/m^3) and contains carbon, fluorine and chlorine which are comparable to xenon in ionization potential. Judging by this data it's clear to me that refrigerants will possibly yield a greater result than any mixture of noble gases. Refrigerants are used in a wide variety of applications so they should be fairly accessibly (although I do understand there are some refrigerants that are restricted due to their use in the production of controlled substances.)

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html

Concerning Reference:

http://open-source-energy.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=2569

Plasma Flow in an Electromagnetic Shock Tube and in a Compression shock Tube

The distant that the shockwave can travel in a shock tube can be very great compared to the distance of travel in a Papp cylinder because the piston in the cylinder is initially positioned very close to the spark.

Because the plasmoid is highly charged, this vortex will be attracted to the closest neutrally charged surface.

In a Papp engine that neutrally charged surface must be the surface of the piston.

This neutral surface will initially induce the shockwave acceleration process toward the neutrally charged surface. But once the shockwave starts in the direction of the piston, the acceleration process will be self-sustaining in that direction.

In a shock tube which can be very long, the shockwave leaves the spark at high Mach numbers but it decelerates as it travels down the tube until it dissipates and breaks up.

There must be some optimum distance to place a neutral surface to optimize the maximum velocity of the shockwave when it hits the surface of the piston.

If the neutral surface (piston) is placed too close to the spark, the vortex may not fully develop. If the piston is placed too far from the spark, the vortex does not feel sufficient electrostatic attraction to begin its movement toward the piston. In this case, the plasmoid will expand and contrast in a spherical bubble centered on the spark discharge.

This is why an accelerometer placed on the stem of the piston is an important experimental tool.

The initial position of the piston could be gradually increased away from the spark to characterize how the plasmoid accelerates toward the piston using a time of flight calculation.

The accelerometer will also characterize the force imparted by the plasmoid as the initial position of the piston is adjusted away from the spark.  

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

Furthermore, the speed of the shockwave goes down as the gas pressure goes up.

The shockwave moves the fastest when the gas pressure is low. As the gas pressure increases, the initial speed of the shockwave is decreased.

But the amount of mass that the shockwave carries is increased with increasing gas pressure.

There is a complex relationship between time of flight and gas pressure which is hard to predict.

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

Also, a confining coil that constraints the shockwave to the center of the cylinder increases the speed of the shockwave by 20%.

It would be interesting to vary the intensity of this axially confining force to see how the acceleration of the shockwave and the associated power delivered to the surface of the piston by the plasmoid varies with confining coil field strength. Here again, the accelerometer is an important tool that can provide important insights into this dynamic process.

Hello Russ and everyone else here at the forum.
I follow your nge updates , great job Russ.
I posted some comments about the coils, should be connected in parallell.
But i see you got alot of comments on that from others so i wont nag about that.
Im also experimenting with replicating the Papp Engine or Plasmergs motor for that matter.
Im a bit concerned about all the energy you are dumping into the cylinder, lets hope the reaction is just not an effect from the "sound barrier" being broken.
the sound travels much faster in a lighter gas so the effect should be greater.
Have you tried the coils yet?
Have you tried the 27MHz yet?
Also, i would love to get my hands on the schematics of your timer Circuit with the Three 555 IC's
Will you post them here?
Best regards from Sweden
/Janne Ström

Quote from woody0068 on November 11th, 2012, 01:11 PM

Hello Russ and everyone else here at the forum.
I follow your nge updates , great job Russ.
I posted some comments about the coils, should be connected in parallell.
But i see you got alot of comments on that from others so i wont nag about that.
Im also experimenting with replicating the Papp Engine or Plasmergs motor for that matter.
Im a bit concerned about all the energy you are dumping into the cylinder, lets hope the reaction is just not an effect from the "sound barrier" being broken.
the sound travels much faster in a lighter gas so the effect should be greater.
Have you tried the coils yet?
Have you tried the 27MHz yet?
Also, i would love to get my hands on the schematics of your timer Circuit with the Three 555 IC's
Will you post them here?
Best regards from Sweden
/Janne Ström

The force isn't coming from sound. That doesn't account for the massive release of light.

Quote from element 119 on November 10th, 2012, 10:44 PM

Don’t get me wrong I think some advanced theoretical testing is good, but!!! I can’t help but think some of this requesting testing (of the theory behind how it works) from Russ is going over the top.

Maybe some requested (theoretical) testing would be better suited for a University lab or such.

I mean for some of us looking for common real world applications of an engine the main the factors would be.

How long will it run on one gas charge.

What is the minimum energy required to make it work.

What is the extra electrical energy value coming out.

Now maybe some of these common questions will be answered after Dec. 11 or when Bob gets his engine to market. But until then it maybe a good idea to answer some of the simpler questions first.  ;)

element 119

Hear hear!

Not stopping the theorizing about this, but there is already a list of to do's on the papp cylinder. And Heisenburg is not the first guest in line. (cause it wasn't sure if he would come..:)..inside joke..)
see document  http://open-source-energy.org/rwg42985/popper/

Bob Rohner stated on a PESN page that he'd asked a couple of Universities to do some investigations, but they declined. I suspect they thought it was not Real Science. As such someone has to prove it is before they will do the research. Cue Russ....

Russ has so far proved the basic premise that you can get work out of the gas, but it's going to take a while to get to the point where he can say whether he's getting more or less energy out than he's putting in. There are a lot of variables to check out, looking for that magic over-unity result. I also agree with element119's basic requirements, since if you can get them covered then there will suddenly be a lot of research going on.

Quote from simonderricutt on November 11th, 2012, 03:46 PM

Bob Rohner stated on a PESN page that he'd asked a couple of Universities to do some investigations, but they declined. I suspect they thought it was not Real Science. As such someone has to prove it is before they will do the research. Cue Russ....

Russ has so far proved the basic premise that you can get work out of the gas, but it's going to take a while to get to the point where he can say whether he's getting more or less energy out than he's putting in. There are a lot of variables to check out, looking for that magic over-unity result. I also agree with element119's basic requirements, since if you can get them covered then there will suddenly be a lot of research going on.

Real science is something they had to do on it. You can't say the popper is not real science..the popper is a thing and it performs in a repeating way...how good the science is that you do on it depends on yourself.
And Russ could already figure out how much energy goes in and out.