Don’t disrespect Werner Karl Heisenberg who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1932 for the creation of quantum mechanics.

Quanum mechanics is what makes the Papp engine pop.

In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h.

This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter springing from the wave nature of the various quantum fields. This leads to the concept of zero-point energy.

When the electrons ride on the shockwave of our spark discharge, their position is constrained to a high degree.

This makes the electrons unpredictable, heavy and fast; and a fast electron is an energetic electron.

By creating a shockwave, you are extracting energy directly out of thin air.

Unless you hear that ear ringing pop from your popper, you are not extracting energy from the void.

So be a little respectful of Heisenberg; he is our main man.

There is growing interest concerning the possibility of tapping zero-point energy and many claims exist of ''over unity devices'' (gadgets yielding a greater output than the required input for operation) driven by zero-point energy. In spite of the sci fi nature of these claims (to date no such device has passed a rigorous, objective test), the concept of converting some amount of zero-point energy to usable energy cannot be ruled out in principle. Zero-point energy is not a thermal reservoir, and therefore does not suffer from the thermodynamic injunction against extracting energy from a lower temperature reservoir.

In his time, I believe that Papp has done enough to show that his engine is an over unity device, and it is up to us to rediscover this technology, prove its nature, and demonstrate that such a sci fi device can be built.

It seems to me that what we will eventually need is a commitment to detail because many LENR devices work a little bit. Only those with all the cases covered will ever get to over unity operation and will transform our world.

I read the Heisenberg quote from FaradayEZ as a simple joke (uncertainty = not sure if he would be attending).  Maybe I missed the insult?

Quote from Axil on November 11th, 2012, 10:29 PM

Don’t disrespect Werner Karl Heisenberg who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1932 for the creation of quantum mechanics.

Quanum mechanics is what makes the Papp engine pop.

In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h.

This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter springing from the wave nature of the various quantum fields. This leads to the concept of zero-point energy.

When the electrons ride on the shockwave of our spark discharge, their position is constrained to a high degree.

This makes the electrons unpredictable, heavy and fast; and a fast electron is an energetic electron.

By creating a shockwave, you are extracting energy directly out of thin air.

Unless you hear that ear ringing pop from your popper, you are not extracting energy from the void.

So be a little respectful of Heisenberg; he is our main man.

There is growing interest concerning the possibility of tapping zero-point energy and many claims exist of ''over unity devices'' (gadgets yielding a greater output than the required input for operation) driven by zero-point energy. In spite of the sci fi nature of these claims (to date no such device has passed a rigorous, objective test), the concept of converting some amount of zero-point energy to usable energy cannot be ruled out in principle. Zero-point energy is not a thermal reservoir, and therefore does not suffer from the thermodynamic injunction against extracting energy from a lower temperature reservoir.

In his time, I believe that Papp has done enough to show that his engine is an over unity device, and it is up to us to rediscover this technology, prove its nature, and demonstrate that such a sci fi device can be built.

It seems to me that what we will eventually need is a commitment to detail because many LENR devices work a little bit. Only those with all the cases covered will ever get to over unity operation and will transform our world.

So heisenberg must be tested earlier? If that's the shared opinion, i'll put priority on it in the poppertestsheet.
What experiment should be done first?

On another note; if you still think there should be done more academic research on the popper, then could you please write an email with Russ to the person that has the labsoftware on measurements as you mentioned before. And maybe also with the contacts of that person to universities suggest to him a working together project on the popper?
I mean you have these nice idea's and intentions but in this practical corner i don't see any follow up.
You came up with that person, you said he needed to be approached in a certain way. I asked Russ at open forum and he is willing to check this out, he wants you to make that approach, that email with him.
And because you came up with this guy you should be the first asked to make such contact. So again i ask you to make contact with Russ and that person.

And thus you may realize that the ball for any academic progress lays in your own corner....

Quote from symanuk on November 12th, 2012, 01:08 AM

I read the Heisenberg quote from FaradayEZ as a simple joke (uncertainty = not sure if he would be attending).  Maybe I missed the insult?

Wasn't meant to be an insult, but we are not all full of laughs..  jawohl, sis is serious matter!

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 12th, 2012, 01:14 AM

Quote from Axil on November 11th, 2012, 10:29 PM

Don’t disrespect Werner Karl Heisenberg who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1932 for the creation of quantum mechanics.

Quanum mechanics is what makes the Papp engine pop.

In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h.

This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter springing from the wave nature of the various quantum fields. This leads to the concept of zero-point energy.

When the electrons ride on the shockwave of our spark discharge, their position is constrained to a high degree.

This makes the electrons unpredictable, heavy and fast; and a fast electron is an energetic electron.

By creating a shockwave, you are extracting energy directly out of thin air.

Unless you hear that ear ringing pop from your popper, you are not extracting energy from the void.

So be a little respectful of Heisenberg; he is our main man.

There is growing interest concerning the possibility of tapping zero-point energy and many claims exist of ''over unity devices'' (gadgets yielding a greater output than the required input for operation) driven by zero-point energy. In spite of the sci fi nature of these claims (to date no such device has passed a rigorous, objective test), the concept of converting some amount of zero-point energy to usable energy cannot be ruled out in principle. Zero-point energy is not a thermal reservoir, and therefore does not suffer from the thermodynamic injunction against extracting energy from a lower temperature reservoir.

In his time, I believe that Papp has done enough to show that his engine is an over unity device, and it is up to us to rediscover this technology, prove its nature, and demonstrate that such a sci fi device can be built.

It seems to me that what we will eventually need is a commitment to detail because many LENR devices work a little bit. Only those with all the cases covered will ever get to over unity operation and will transform our world.

So heisenberg must be tested earlier? If that's the shared opinion, i'll put priority on it in the poppertestsheet.
What experiment should be done first?

On another note; if you still think there should be done more academic research on the popper, then could you please write an email with Russ to the person that has the labsoftware on measurements as you mentioned before. And maybe also with the contacts of that person to universities suggest to him a working together project on the popper?
I mean you have these nice idea's and intentions but in this practical corner i don't see any follow up.
You came up with that person, you said he needed to be approached in a certain way. I asked Russ at open forum and he is willing to check this out, he wants you to make that approach, that email with him.
And because you came up with this guy you should be the first asked to make such contact. So again i ask you to make contact with Russ and that person.

And thus you may realize that the ball for any academic progress lays in your own corner....

Quote from symanuk on November 12th, 2012, 01:08 AM

I read the Heisenberg quote from FaradayEZ as a simple joke (uncertainty = not sure if he would be attending).  Maybe I missed the insult?

Wasn't meant to be an insult, but we are not all full of laughs..  jawohl, sis is serious matter!

Well EZ, again I think you need to back off and show proper forum etiquette. You don't need to push people around and speak for Russ. Axil and other's have some great ideas, Russ can choose what he wants to use from them or not, they have the right to post there ideas just as you do. You call some of you posts as joking, well no one else see's them as jokes. To, you are all over this forum voicing your opinions, which would be fine if you didn't expect everyone to agree with you, you are not a moderator, I am, but I don't post when I don't know about a subject, other than to encourage an individual or group. You are not always right, I and other's think you owe Axil and Symanuk an apology. You do have some good ideas but I think you need to tone it down a little, season with salt.



 Well everyone this has all been resolved, lets all just move on and forget this happened, Jeff.

No apology needed here, I think this is a case of wires crossed in the reading of something.  This forum can lack the nuances of face to face chit chats and something gets lost in the translation.  I am happy that noone here is genuinely hoping to cause any disharmony, smile and lets get on with the topic at hand :)

I object to the particular combination of nearly obsessively verbose and repetitive "contribution" and statement of relatively wild speculation as "fact".

To contrast, I have put forth one speculative explanation for Papp's engine and I did so in exactly one message.  In that message I stated it _as_ speculation and _not_ as fact.  

This is simple etiquette but it is also proper scientific attitude.

Honestly, at some point, individuals who continue to make obnoxious "contributions" should be banned.

Quote from jabowery on November 12th, 2012, 07:42 AM

I object to the particular combination of nearly obsessively verbose and repetitive "contribution" and statement of relatively wild speculation as "fact".

To contrast, I have put forth one speculative explanation for Papp's engine and I did so in exactly one message.  In that message I stated it _as_ speculation and _not_ as fact.  

This is simple etiquette but it is also proper scientific attitude.

Honestly, at some point, individuals who continue to make obnoxious "contributions" should be banned.

Whilst I do see where you're coming from I also respect the other forum members
right to freely express their opinions here.
EZ here do come across as a bit obnoxious at times, I agree, but as Jeff said, when
it comes to moderating it's ultimately down to him and his fellow forum staff
members to handle that part, which includes banning, which btw is not something
that should be done by popular vote or the likes thereof, that's solely down to
forum staff to handle and no one else.
If you do have concerns about something that which you see in the forum, feel
free to contact a member of staff and voice your opinion if you feel that you can't
put it in a thread in the forum.
They're there to help you out or to give you advice.
Trust me, I have done so at many a times, ask Jeff :D

Hi Russ,

- The sensors I mentioned are for O3 measurement.

- Me and a friend, we would like to make similar "popping" capacitor discharges as you do in this experiment. Can you point a block schema describing HV path and capacitor discharge path. It appears the cap discharge is done through the same electrodes which sustaining HV arc.

- I think there is a similarities, may somebody had an experience of blowing incandescent light bulb when it switched on. This is a rare phenomenon when a working, undamaged bulb really explode (with a sound similar a balloon explode when it is pinched).

Furthermore, main fuses get blown too. When the remaining of bulb is examined, one can see all the wire conductors inside the bulb chamber and outside and are gone due very high current which may occur at that instant. The tungsten cannot carry such a current, only plasma can do, IMO.


If somebody had such an experience, probably having 220-240V Main power, please share.

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 12th, 2012, 01:14 AM

Quote from Axil on November 11th, 2012, 10:29 PM

Don’t disrespect Werner Karl Heisenberg who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1932 for the creation of quantum mechanics.

Quanum mechanics is what makes the Papp engine pop.

In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h.

This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter springing from the wave nature of the various quantum fields. This leads to the concept of zero-point energy.

When the electrons ride on the shockwave of our spark discharge, their position is constrained to a high degree.

This makes the electrons unpredictable, heavy and fast; and a fast electron is an energetic electron.

By creating a shockwave, you are extracting energy directly out of thin air.

Unless you hear that ear ringing pop from your popper, you are not extracting energy from the void.

So be a little respectful of Heisenberg; he is our main man.

There is growing interest concerning the possibility of tapping zero-point energy and many claims exist of ''over unity devices'' (gadgets yielding a greater output than the required input for operation) driven by zero-point energy. In spite of the sci fi nature of these claims (to date no such device has passed a rigorous, objective test), the concept of converting some amount of zero-point energy to usable energy cannot be ruled out in principle. Zero-point energy is not a thermal reservoir, and therefore does not suffer from the thermodynamic injunction against extracting energy from a lower temperature reservoir.

In his time, I believe that Papp has done enough to show that his engine is an over unity device, and it is up to us to rediscover this technology, prove its nature, and demonstrate that such a sci fi device can be built.

It seems to me that what we will eventually need is a commitment to detail because many LENR devices work a little bit. Only those with all the cases covered will ever get to over unity operation and will transform our world.

So heisenberg must be tested earlier? If that's the shared opinion, i'll put priority on it in the poppertestsheet.
What experiment should be done first?

On another note; if you still think there should be done more academic research on the popper, then could you please write an email with Russ to the person that has the labsoftware on measurements as you mentioned before. And maybe also with the contacts of that person to universities suggest to him a working together project on the popper?
I mean you have these nice idea's and intentions but in this practical corner i don't see any follow up.
You came up with that person, you said he needed to be approached in a certain way. I asked Russ at open forum and he is willing to check this out, he wants you to make that approach, that email with him.
And because you came up with this guy you should be the first asked to make such contact. So again i ask you to make contact with Russ and that person.

And thus you may realize that the ball for any academic progress lays in your own corner....

Quote from symanuk on November 12th, 2012, 01:08 AM

I read the Heisenberg quote from FaradayEZ as a simple joke (uncertainty = not sure if he would be attending).  Maybe I missed the insult?

Wasn't meant to be an insult, but we are not all full of laughs..  jawohl, sis is serious matter!

Well EZ, again I think you need to back off and show proper forum etiquette. You don't need to push people around and speak for Russ.

Russ agreed that that person should be contacted...it is my politeness that i wait for Axil to give his blessings because he introduced the guy and said he needed to be approached in the propper way...

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

Axil and other's have some great ideas, Russ can choose what he wants to use from them or not, they have the right to post there ideas just as you do.

I even proposed to put a heisenbergtest up higher in the poppertestsheet so how can you uphold that i deny his idea's? What are you talking about Jeff?

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

You call some of you posts as joking, well no one else see's them as jokes.

Firstly... this is a mean thing to say. Secondly Symanuk got the joke.. thirdly look at your own posts. Or did you have done some poll on this? I called it an inside joke and it was one.. i can't imagine that you say it was no joke?? And the side of it being not quest nr.1 i took up in the next respons..so really i don't understand you Jeff. And that's also why i think that axil wasn't responding to me, but more in general to the feeling element 119 put into words. Something i feel also but i like the theorizing also.

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

To, you are all over this forum voicing your opinions, which would be fine if you didn't expect everyone to agree with you, you are not a moderator, I am, but I don't post when I don't know about a subject, other than to encourage an individual or group.

(do you say here that everyone has to agree with a moderator?)(or have i acted as one somewhere???)
Most of people posting here would like it that others agree with them, what is wrong with that? And so now you say that i have to post less and only on issues i know about? Well then we all should stop posting, cause in this field everybody is swimming in the dark...
I quess you and "your others" don't like it that i don't think the EPG could work?
And you jump into this post and clearly didn't know that Russ agreed to the mailmaking, so you contradict your own words.

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

You are not always right, I and other's think you owe Axil and Symanuk an apology. You do have some good ideas but I think you need to tone it down a little, season with salt.

Whitch others think i have to apologize to symanuk, and for what exactly???

Even Axil didn't quote my joke, but responded in general so also to the posts before where element119 questioned his over the top academical approach.
On which i stated that the theorising should go on..so again Jeff, to me it feels more like you have a cruch against me.

Only thing i agree with ye is that i am a bit pushing towards Axil in the sense that i'm frustrated that he come's up with the good idea of contacting a softwaredirector and that when i try to get thoose wheels rolling he doesn't respond. And so again nothing happens. And that i'm so stupid to be extra polite towards him in the way that i think that he should have the first call in saying if he wants to contact that person or if it's ok that others can do that.

So Axil, sorry for my pushing, i want to get some more academic studying done on the popper but i guess that's not to be happening.

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 12th, 2012, 08:52 AM

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 12th, 2012, 01:14 AM

Quote from Axil on November 11th, 2012, 10:29 PM

Don’t disrespect Werner Karl Heisenberg who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1932 for the creation of quantum mechanics.

Quanum mechanics is what makes the Papp engine pop.

In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h.

This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter springing from the wave nature of the various quantum fields. This leads to the concept of zero-point energy.

When the electrons ride on the shockwave of our spark discharge, their position is constrained to a high degree.

This makes the electrons unpredictable, heavy and fast; and a fast electron is an energetic electron.

By creating a shockwave, you are extracting energy directly out of thin air.

Unless you hear that ear ringing pop from your popper, you are not extracting energy from the void.

So be a little respectful of Heisenberg; he is our main man.

There is growing interest concerning the possibility of tapping zero-point energy and many claims exist of ''over unity devices'' (gadgets yielding a greater output than the required input for operation) driven by zero-point energy. In spite of the sci fi nature of these claims (to date no such device has passed a rigorous, objective test), the concept of converting some amount of zero-point energy to usable energy cannot be ruled out in principle. Zero-point energy is not a thermal reservoir, and therefore does not suffer from the thermodynamic injunction against extracting energy from a lower temperature reservoir.

In his time, I believe that Papp has done enough to show that his engine is an over unity device, and it is up to us to rediscover this technology, prove its nature, and demonstrate that such a sci fi device can be built.

It seems to me that what we will eventually need is a commitment to detail because many LENR devices work a little bit. Only those with all the cases covered will ever get to over unity operation and will transform our world.

So heisenberg must be tested earlier? If that's the shared opinion, i'll put priority on it in the poppertestsheet.
What experiment should be done first?

On another note; if you still think there should be done more academic research on the popper, then could you please write an email with Russ to the person that has the labsoftware on measurements as you mentioned before. And maybe also with the contacts of that person to universities suggest to him a working together project on the popper?
I mean you have these nice idea's and intentions but in this practical corner i don't see any follow up.
You came up with that person, you said he needed to be approached in a certain way. I asked Russ at open forum and he is willing to check this out, he wants you to make that approach, that email with him.
And because you came up with this guy you should be the first asked to make such contact. So again i ask you to make contact with Russ and that person.

And thus you may realize that the ball for any academic progress lays in your own corner....

Quote from symanuk on November 12th, 2012, 01:08 AM

I read the Heisenberg quote from FaradayEZ as a simple joke (uncertainty = not sure if he would be attending).  Maybe I missed the insult?

Wasn't meant to be an insult, but we are not all full of laughs..  jawohl, sis is serious matter!

Well EZ, again I think you need to back off and show proper forum etiquette. You don't need to push people around and speak for Russ.

Russ agreed that that person should be contacted...it is my politeness that i wait for Axil to give his blessings because he introduced the guy and said he needed to be approached in the propper way...

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

Axil and other's have some great ideas, Russ can choose what he wants to use from them or not, they have the right to post there ideas just as you do.

I even proposed to put a heisenbergtest up higher in the poppertestsheet so how can you uphold that i deny his idea's? What are you talking about Jeff?

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

You call some of you posts as joking, well no one else see's them as jokes.

Firstly... this is a mean thing to say. Secondly Symanuk got the joke.. thirdly look at your own posts. Or did you have done some poll on this?

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

To, you are all over this forum voicing your opinions, which would be fine if you didn't expect everyone to agree with you, you are not a moderator, I am, but I don't post when I don't know about a subject, other than to encourage an individual or group.

(do you say here that everyone has to agree with a moderator?)
Most of people posting here would like it that others agree with them, what is wrong with that? And so now you say that i have to post less and only on issues i know about? Well then we all should stop posting, cause in this field everybody is swimming in the dark...
I quess you and "your others" don't like it that i don't think the EPG could work?

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 12th, 2012, 06:04 AM

You are not always right, I and other's think you owe Axil and Symanuk an apology. You do have some good ideas but I think you need to tone it down a little, season with salt.

Whitch others think i have to apologize to symanuk, and for what exactly???

Even Axil didn't quote my joke, but responded in general so also to the posts before where element119 questioned his over the top academical approach.
On which i stated that the theorising should go on..so again Jeff, to me it feels more like you have a cruch against me.

Only thing i agree with ye is that i am a bit pushing towards Axil in the sense that i'm frustrated that he come's up with the good idea of contacting a softwaredirector and that when i try to get thoose wheels rolling he doesn't respond. And so again nothing happens. And that i'm so stupid to be extra polite towards him in the way that i think that he should have the first call in saying if he wants to contact that person or if it's ok that others can do that.

So Axil, sorry for my pushing, i want to get something done on the popper but i quess that's too much asked.

everyone,

lets keep moving forward...

i'm glad for each and every one of you here, it starts to stress me out when we all need to be told to "get along"

I don't know who's at fault, and i don't care. figure it out so we can keep going with this group of good people we have. its a blessing we can all get along as good as we do... just remember we are all people , we all have feelings and we all get offended...

BUT! this place is here because i and others had a vision... the the vision was not to try to "sort out " members and tell them what to or not to do. it defeats the reason for this forum.

i mean it when i say im glad each of you are here. so please figure a way out to make it work. please.

blessings to all. ~Russ

Group Hug [_o_]

Quote from symanuk on November 12th, 2012, 09:21 AM

Group Hug [_o_]

i'm in :) [_o_]

Quote from Lynx on November 12th, 2012, 08:04 AM

Quote from jabowery on November 12th, 2012, 07:42 AM

I object to the particular combination of nearly obsessively verbose and repetitive "contribution" and statement of relatively wild speculation as "fact".

To contrast, I have put forth one speculative explanation for Papp's engine and I did so in exactly one message.  In that message I stated it _as_ speculation and _not_ as fact.  

This is simple etiquette but it is also proper scientific attitude.

Honestly, at some point, individuals who continue to make obnoxious "contributions" should be banned.

Whilst I do see where you're coming from I also respect the other forum members
right to freely express their opinions here.
EZ here do come across as a bit obnoxious at times, I agree, but as Jeff said, when
it comes to moderating it's ultimately down to him and his fellow forum staff
members to handle that part, which includes banning, which btw is not something
that should be done by popular vote or the likes thereof, that's solely down to
forum staff to handle and no one else.
If you do have concerns about something that which you see in the forum, feel
free to contact a member of staff and voice your opinion if you feel that you can't
put it in a thread in the forum.
They're there to help you out or to give you advice.
Trust me, I have done so at many a times, ask Jeff :D

"Aanstotelijk" (dutch) means obnoxious, well i guess i can be. I like to move forward, get the practical stuff done, go further etc. And if i smell weak spots in a theory i put my finger in it and give a warning.
But i'd rather be honest and obnoxious then slimy and agreeable. (not saying any here are, but as opposite argue for my site of being)
When i'm on youtube i often listen to the stuff that warns us for coming disasters, so the urgency only grows to get something good done.
But i guess i need to build my own lab somewhere instead of pushing or relying on others.

Oh and a group Hug! [000000]

Quote from jabowery on November 12th, 2012, 07:42 AM

I object to the particular combination of nearly obsessively verbose and repetitive "contribution" and statement of relatively wild speculation as "fact".

To contrast, I have put forth one speculative explanation for Papp's engine and I did so in exactly one message.  In that message I stated it _as_ speculation and _not_ as fact.  

This is simple etiquette but it is also proper scientific attitude.

Honestly, at some point, individuals who continue to make obnoxious "contributions" should be banned.

Uhh do you mean my postings? And do you have an example? Any wild speculation?

Quote

Russ agreed that that person should be contacted...it is my politeness that i wait for Axil to give his blessings because he introduced the guy and said he needed to be approached in the propper way...

Draft letter to Dr, Truchard as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am contacting Dr. James Truchard President, CEO, and Cofounder of National Instruments(NI) as a representative of Russ Gries, an amateur experimentalist who has completed the initial proof of concept stage in the replication of the Papp engine based on information contained in the expired patents of Josef Papp the inventor of this device.

In more detail, the Papp engine is a device which is famous in the LENR(cold fusion) community  for its over unity energy production characteristics.

Unfortunately, the capability  to build this engine was lost when Josef Papp died in April 1989. Russ Gries intends to resurrect this engine technology to assess the validity of Papp’s claims.

After a promising proof of concept stage, Russ Gries has now entered into the data acquisition stage of this project which will eventually lead to an assessment of the over unity energy production claims made about the Papp engine.

This request  for support is inspired by the presentation made at a recent National Instruments conference supporting Low Energy nuclear reactions (LENR).

At about 15:00 into the following presentation Dr. James Truchard President, CEO, and Cofounder of NI offered a free copy of LabView to researchers working in the field of Cold Fusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NxjxFdFEBsw

This inquiry asks if this offer of support and/or product discounts  for Cold Fusion research from Dr, Truchard and NI still stands and further wonders if Dr, James Truchard and/or NI is willing to support Russ Gries in his experimentation.

Please address your reply to Russ Gries directly as follows:

Russ Gries Contact inforation

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible contact site

https://sine.ni.com/apps/utf8/nicc.call_me?p_country=United States&p_lang_id=US&p_form_id=6

Also Dr, Truchard has a FaceBook page and communication might be made through that site.

Quote

Russ agreed that that person should be contacted...it is my politeness that i wait for Axil to give his blessings because he introduced the guy and said he needed to be approached in the propper way...

Draft letter to Dr, Truchard as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am contacting Dr. James Truchard President, CEO, and Cofounder of National Instruments(NI) as a representative of Russ Gries, an amateur experimentalist who has completed the initial proof of concept stage in the replication of the Papp engine based on information contained in the expired patents of Josef Papp the inventor of this device.

In more detail, the Papp engine is a device which is famous in the LENR(cold fusion) community  for its over unity energy production characteristics.

Unfortunately, the capability  to build this engine was lost when Josef Papp died in April 1989. Russ Gries intends to resurrect this engine technology to assess the validity of Papp’s claims.

After a promising proof of concept stage, Russ Gries has now entered into the data acquisition stage of this project which will eventually lead to an assessment of the over unity energy production claims made about the Papp engine.

This request  for support is inspired by the presentation made at a recent National Instruments conference supporting Low Energy nuclear reactions (LENR).
At about 15:00 into the following presentation Dr. James Truchard President, CEO, and Cofounder of NI offered a free copy of LabView to researchers working in the field of Cold Fusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NxjxFdFEBsw

This inquiry asks if this offer of support and/or product discounts  for Cold Fusion research from Dr, Truchard and NI still stands and further wonders if Dr, James Truchard and NI is willing to support Russ Gries in his experimentation.
Please address your reply to Russ Gries directly as follows:

provide Russ Gries Contact inforation

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible contact site as follows:

https://sine.ni.com/apps/utf8/nicc.call_me?p_country=United States&p_lang_id=US&p_form_id=6

Also Dr, Truchard has a FaceBook page and communication might be made through that site.

Bump in order to see the last post from Axil.

Thanks Axil :cool::D:P.

Is there any good reason to pulse the HV a/c on and off?

If the HV has to make a path for the d/c current to pass through then why not just leave the HV on all the time and just pulse the d/c current on and off when you want the piston to move!

This way the pathway for the d/c would be there all the time and should make it faster to pulse the piston.

I’m not an expert in electronics, so these are just question. :blush:

Also I’m wondering if the double popping phenomena may be the result of the HV lingering a little longer then the d/c current pulse and once the gas volume collapses back to original state with extra energy in it then the HV is enough without the d/c to again fire the piston back up?      

If that is the case then the d/c would only be needed once to start the process! Down fall may be a runaway popper that could not be controlled.  :(

Opinions welcome!

element 119

Great Job on the letter Axil!

Sorry i lost a bit of my patience with ye :(

And since i see that i now have a 40% warninglevel i like to know from you personal what (if so) was offensive to you in the mail were Jeff reacted on. Did you percieve it as he obviously did?

But again, i'm glad with the letter and with that hurtle taken i hope that progress will excellerate on doing much more with the popper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Next thing i will push for is that there will be made a linkup with some university ;)

(sure its not the regular kind of humor but its all i have)

Quote from element 119 on November 12th, 2012, 12:07 PM

Is there any good reason to pulse the HV a/c on and off?

If the HV has to make a path for the d/c current to pass through then why not just leave the HV on all the time and just pulse the d/c current on and off when you want the piston to move!

This way the pathway for the d/c would be there all the time and should make it faster to pulse the piston.

I’m not an expert in electronics, so these are just question. :blush:

Also I’m wondering if the double popping phenomena may be the result of the HV lingering a little longer then the d/c current pulse and once the gas volume collapses back to original state with extra energy in it then the HV is enough without the d/c to again fire the piston back up?      

If that is the case then the d/c would only be needed once to start the process! Down fall may be a runaway popper that could not be controlled.  :(

Opinions welcome!

element 119

I was under the impression that you charge the caps to a certain voltage and then
you apply the HV to sort of get the plasma action going and discharge the caps in
the process, the higher the charge the longer the plasma thing......?
If so, then it wouldn't serve much purpose constantly applying the HV as the charge
of the caps would immediately go to waste as soon as you try to charge the caps.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 12th, 2012, 12:16 PM

And since i see that i now have a 40% warninglevel i like to know from you personal what (if so) was offensive to you in the mail were Jeff reacted on. Did you percieve it as he obviously did?

Couldn't you please keep this to personal messages as opposed to openly here in
the popper thread?
I understand your concerns and all, but I think that the thread could do without
this, no offence.

Couldn't you please keep this to personal messages as opposed to openly here in
the popper thread?
I understand your concerns and all, but I think that the thread could do without
this, no offence.[/quote]Yes I agree.

Quote from element 119 on November 12th, 2012, 12:07 PM

Is there any good reason to pulse the HV a/c on and off?

If the HV has to make a path for the d/c current to pass through then why not just leave the HV on all the time and just pulse the d/c current on and off when you want the piston to move!

This way the pathway for the d/c would be there all the time and should make it faster to pulse the piston.

I’m not an expert in electronics, so these are just question. :blush:

Also I’m wondering if the double popping phenomena may be the result of the HV lingering a little longer then the d/c current pulse and once the gas volume collapses back to original state with extra energy in it then the HV is enough without the d/c to again fire the piston back up?      

If that is the case then the d/c would only be needed once to start the process! Down fall may be a runaway popper that could not be controlled.  :(

Opinions welcome!

element 119

I think this is something to test, its easy to test and would give insight in the workings.

Quote

Lynx :
keep this to personal messages

Agreed, i wasn't clear thinking

Quote from element 119 on November 12th, 2012, 12:07 PM

Is there any good reason to pulse the HV a/c on and off?

If the HV has to make a path for the d/c current to pass through then why not just leave the HV on all the time and just pulse the d/c current on and off when you want the piston to move!

This way the pathway for the d/c would be there all the time and should make it faster to pulse the piston.

I’m not an expert in electronics, so these are just question. :blush:

Also I’m wondering if the double popping phenomena may be the result of the HV lingering a little longer then the d/c current pulse and once the gas volume collapses back to original state with extra energy in it then the HV is enough without the d/c to again fire the piston back up?      

If that is the case then the d/c would only be needed once to start the process! Down fall may be a runaway popper that could not be controlled.  :(

Opinions welcome!

element 119

While I have asked about the purpose of using high frequency pulsing of the HV (based on Russ's 555 pulse circuit) the HV is used as a trigger for the high power LV (350V DC) pulse.  It is more difficult to control the high current pulses (on/off) not to mention that the discharge of the caps automatically stops the pulse.  

Most semiconductor devices (at least standard transistors and SCRs) can't handle the high current and will melt the die.  Applying the control on the lowest current part is the way to go.  There is still a big problem with providing multiple high current shots rapidly but its not an issue at the moment.

Here is what I’m thinking!

Take a normal 12-volt car battery and cables ( 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 gauge wire ? ) and hook the wires to the two popper electrodes. No current will flow because of the air gap. Batteries could be put is series for 24 – 36 – 48 or 50  > volts dc…

Now send the high frequency HV from the car coils to the same two popper electrodes. This should provide a path and then the high current from the car battery can cross the gap.

Now I realize this may not be a good idea because the HV could go into the battery or the high current from the battery could go into the coils.

So to take it to another level how about a relay between the car cable and the electrode that could be pulsed on and off?

Would it be possible to put diodes on the high current car cables to keep any HV from going into the car battery?

For a high current relay a normal car starter solenoid could be used.

Not sure if the high current would travel back into the coils because the path of least resistance may limit it to just crossing the electrode gap?

Are capacitors really needed to supply the current or could just the current from a battery do the trick?

No charge up time when just using batteries.

Just brainstorming!  :s

element 119

www.theblackvault.com/documents/weapons/Plasmoid.pdf

Investigations of Pulsed-Train Plasmoid Weapons

In the mid-60s, the DOE contracted R&D research into a space based antisatellite plasmoid gun. This technology is close to what we are doing in this thread.

It is a user’s guide for making and shooting high powered plasmoids. The recently declassified top-secret document describes theory, equipment, and plasmoid projector designs. For all those interested in plasmoid production, direction and impact on surfaces, it is a must read.

Of interest regarding the double pulse discussion we are having in this thread as follows:

On page 12, the advantages of a double pulse spark production process is described. A weak first pulse followed by a strong high power second pulse will produce a plasmoid ring that conserves electron energy but keeps high energy electrons away from the projector walls.

Quote from Axil on November 12th, 2012, 11:32 PM

www.theblackvault.com/documents/weapons/Plasmoid.pdf

Investigations of Pulsed-Train Plasmoid Weapons

In the mid-60s, the DOE contracted R&D research into a space based antisatellite plasmoid gun. This technology is close to what we are doing in this thread.

It is a user’s guide for making and shooting high powered plasmoids. The recently declassified top-secret document describes theory, equipment, and plasmoid projector designs. For all those interested in plasmoid production, direction and impact on surfaces, it is a must read.

Of interest regarding the double pulse discussion we are having in this thread as follows:

On page 12, the advantages of a double pulse spark production process is described. A weak first pulse followed by a strong high power second pulse will produce a plasmoid ring that conserves electron energy but keeps high energy electrons away from the projector walls.

So the concept is then to "initiate" the plasma, as per what Russ is doing in the
Popper, then accelerate this "burning/exploding/reacting" plasma core by means
of applying an electromagnetic field around the core which in effect propels this
plasma "bullit" forward, much like the rail gun, and voila = the plasma rifle is born.

Would this be a somewhat correct assumption to what this is all about?