Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am fairly confident that these inventors do not claim that the electrical energy recovered due to the returning piston is significant compared to the mechanical output. I haven't followed this detail up to now. Here I am way out of my depth, but consider the following: * There is probably a high-capacity capacitor bank in most models that is used in part to create an electric arc in the gas. * When Feynman pulled the plug during the demo, the engine was ok for a little while, and then Papp got nervous, and then there was an explosion and some weird liquid. * In one of the kits (Bob's? John's?), a coil has been omitted; presumably this coil when present will have the effect of recovering some electricity through inductance, whatever else it does. What if in the Feynman incident the capacitor bank was somehow maxed out and then released its magic smoke? Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
I think we are dealing with an entropic force that can remove entropy from
the gas at times as well as give it back in the way of charged particles
On Monday, December 31, 2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM, David Roberson
dlrober...@aol.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dlrober...@aol.com');
wrote:
I am fairly confident that these inventors do not claim that the
electrical energy recovered due to the returning piston is significant
compared to the mechanical output.
I haven't followed this detail up to now. Here I am way out of my depth,
but consider the following:
* There is probably a high-capacity capacitor bank in most models that is
used in part to create an electric arc in the gas.
* When Feynman pulled the plug during the demo, the engine was ok for a
little while, and then Papp got nervous, and then there was an explosion
and some weird liquid.
* In one of the kits (Bob's? John's?), a coil has been omitted; presumably
this coil when present will have the effect of recovering some electricity
through inductance, whatever else it does.
What if in the Feynman incident the capacitor bank was somehow maxed out
and then released its magic smoke?
Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
I suppose that a large capacitor bank could let loose and so some damage, but in this case I recall that mechanical shrapnel did the damage. Most likely this was a result of the engine running at too high of a speed. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 8:57 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am fairly confident that these inventors do not claim that the electrical energy recovered due to the returning piston is significant compared to the mechanical output. I haven't followed this detail up to now. Here I am way out of my depth, but consider the following: * There is probably a high-capacity capacitor bank in most models that is used in part to create an electric arc in the gas. * When Feynman pulled the plug during the demo, the engine was ok for a little while, and then Papp got nervous, and then there was an explosion and some weird liquid. * In one of the kits (Bob's? John's?), a coil has been omitted; presumably this coil when present will have the effect of recovering some electricity through inductance, whatever else it does. What if in the Feynman incident the capacitor bank was somehow maxed out and then released its magic smoke? Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:56 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suppose that a large capacitor bank could let loose and so some damage, but in this case I recall that mechanical shrapnel did the damage. Most likely this was a result of the engine running at too high of a speed. Yes, when I look again, I see that it's not necessarily liquid, but a cone of silvery uniform stuff [1], which could be shrapnel. If you were to turn the piston on its side during an experiment, so that gravity does not play a role, that might control for the problem of stored energy being transferred back and forth with kinetic energy. In this case wouldn't work be done by the popper in either direction? Eric http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
Eric, you bring up a concept that has been on my mind this morning. I was trying to come up with any way that energy could be delivered by the Papp while leaving the gas cool. The only idea that remotely made sense was if there were two power strokes with the design. The first one is traditional where the excess gas pressure pushes the piston outward. The second might be achieved if the gas then proceeded to suck the piston backwards toward the bottom of the cylinder. If I recall some of the original steam engines used suction for their power strokes. For this idea to have any chance, there must be a load attached to the piston rod that drives a flywheel. The first push makes the flywheel accelerate in one direction. The suck occurs at a time that also contributes to the motion of the flywheel. A system of that sort would have two power strokes which has the potential to make it powerful due to the number of energy hits per second. We need to do further thinking about the thermodynamics of such a thing as I expect that a flaw will become evident soon. Such as, why would we expect the active gas to return to near its original temperature? If the process is totally adiabatic then perhaps that is possible. This implies that all of the LENR energy is fed to the flywheel and the gas is acting like the spring in my earlier analogy. It is obviously going to take more thought before I am willing to believe that this proposed process is possible. My gut feeling is that it is not going to work. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 12:51 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:56 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suppose that a large capacitor bank could let loose and so some damage, but in this case I recall that mechanical shrapnel did the damage. Most likely this was a result of the engine running at too high of a speed. Yes, when I look again, I see that it's not necessarily liquid, but a cone of silvery uniform stuff [1], which could be shrapnel. If you were to turn the piston on its side during an experiment, so that gravity does not play a role, that might control for the problem of stored energy being transferred back and forth with kinetic energy. In this case wouldn't work be done by the popper in either direction? Eric http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
If you remember one of the Rohners talked about the coil sucking the gas
and ballon in under vacuum. Sounds entropic and maybe endothermic, at
least at times
On Monday, December 31, 2012, David Roberson wrote:
Eric, you bring up a concept that has been on my mind this morning. I was
trying to come up with any way that energy could be delivered by the Papp
while leaving the gas cool. The only idea that remotely made sense was if
there were two power strokes with the design. The first one is traditional
where the excess gas pressure pushes the piston outward. The second might
be achieved if the gas then proceeded to suck the piston backwards toward
the bottom of the cylinder. If I recall some of the original steam engines
used suction for their power strokes.
For this idea to have any chance, there must be a load attached to the
piston rod that drives a flywheel. The first push makes the flywheel
accelerate in one direction. The suck occurs at a time that also
contributes to the motion of the flywheel.
A system of that sort would have two power strokes which has the
potential to make it powerful due to the number of energy hits per second.
We need to do further thinking about the thermodynamics of such a thing as
I expect that a flaw will become evident soon. Such as, why would we
expect the active gas to return to near its original temperature? If the
process is totally adiabatic then perhaps that is possible. This implies
that all of the LENR energy is fed to the flywheel and the gas is acting
like the spring in my earlier analogy.
It is obviously going to take more thought before I am willing to
believe that this proposed process is possible. My gut feeling is that it
is not going to work.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'eric.wal...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:56 AM, David Roberson
dlrober...@aol.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dlrober...@aol.com');
wrote:
I suppose that a large capacitor bank could let loose and so some
damage, but in this case I recall that mechanical shrapnel did the damage.
Most likely this was a result of the engine running at too high of a speed.
Yes, when I look again, I see that it's not necessarily liquid, but a
cone of silvery uniform stuff [1], which could be shrapnel.
If you were to turn the piston on its side during an experiment, so that
gravity does not play a role, that might control for the problem of stored
energy being transferred back and forth with kinetic energy. In this case
wouldn't work be done by the popper in either direction?
Eric
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I was trying to come up with any way that energy could be delivered by the Papp while leaving the gas cool. It occurs to me now that we may have made a simple problem into a difficult one. Our initial challenge is to find out whether the Papp mechanism is overunity by an obvious amount; ie, the effect is not a threshold one. We can start out with a simple popper hooked up to a flywheel like the one seen in Puppy Dog's video, where there is an arm that moves the wheel in only one direction. Now attach a chain to the wheel and use it to draw a sled with known weight across a surface of known friction with the sled. Energy in would be the integral over time of the power used to drive the system. Energy out would be a function of the distance the sled moved. Heating due to friction would be ignored to obtain a pessimistic lower bound. A two cylinder engine could be used in place of the popper if such an engine is available. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting. Does the piston return to its beginning point with each cycle? If so, at least a complete loop is covered which is the requirement. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 2:44 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I was trying to come up with any way that energy could be delivered by the Papp while leaving the gas cool. It occurs to me now that we may have made a simple problem into a difficult one. Our initial challenge is to find out whether the Papp mechanism is overunity by an obvious amount; ie, the effect is not a threshold one. We can start out with a simple popper hooked up to a flywheel like the one seen in Puppy Dog's video, where there is an arm that moves the wheel in only one direction. Now attach a chain to the wheel and use it to draw a sled with known weight across a surface of known friction with the sled. Energy in would be the integral over time of the power used to drive the system. Energy out would be a function of the distance the sled moved. Heating due to friction would be ignored to obtain a pessimistic lower bound. A two cylinder engine could be used in place of the popper if such an engine is available. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
Sounds like that would work Eric. My bet is on less than unity gain. I feel like the guy Jed has been discussing at this point. I hope that my mind remains open to a greater extent. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 3:01 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water On Dec 31, 2012, at 11:55, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting. Does the piston return to its beginning point with each cycle? If so, at least a complete loop is covered which is the requirement. The piston would return to its original position many times; in the case of the lone popper, it would be upright, so that gravity pulls the piston down. We would be looking for an average over many cycles rather than attempt to extrapolate from a single cycle. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
I just came to the realization that most of the demonstrations that Russ has performed do not show much real work output. The piston is driven upward by the spark activated mixture, but then returns to the starting point. Any work done on the mass of the piston is returned back to the gas when it retracts for a net of zero. On occasions I have seen him toss items into the air which intercept his fan or ceiling, but the mass is small and little damage appears to be caused by the projectile. It is going to be difficult to get accurate measurements for a valid determination of energy released unless that energy remains stored somewhere and compared to the electrical input. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 28, 2012 5:02 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water At 09:55 AM 12/28/2012, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Axil, etc. This is Vortex, and you guys are certainly free to speculate at the drop of a hat or a popper. However, I'm also free to note that trying to figure out what is going on with Russ's popper, when we have just about zero information about anything unusual happening, it like trying to see what is in a closed black box in a coal mine at midnight. And no light. What's in there? *Anything* could be in there. Boo! If Russ really wants to do something useful, he can start measuring the work done by that piston. It should be simple to do. Since it is reported that the thing doesn't heat up, no calorimetry is necessary, at least not yet. One regular characteristic of Papp engines is that they reportedly don't generate much, if any, heat. Just, allegedly, work. Okay, how much work with hou much energy input. A popper is perfect for testing this, avoiding all the complications of cycling engines. If there is no excess power in a single cycle, why would we even be interested in seeing if power can be sustained?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
At 06:02 PM 12/30/2012, David Roberson wrote: I just came to the realization that most of the demonstrations that Russ has performed do not show much real work output. The piston is driven upward by the spark activated mixture, but then returns to the starting point. Any work done on the mass of the piston is returned back to the gas when it retracts for a net of zero. On occasions I have seen him toss items into the air which intercept his fan or ceiling, but the mass is small and little damage appears to be caused by the projectile. It is going to be difficult to get accurate measurements for a valid determination of energy released unless that energy remains stored somewhere and compared to the electrical input. David, I think you have missed the point. Yes, gravity will continue to act on the driven piston, so it will return to the start. However, there would not be a return to zero, as such. Work would be done on the weight. What happens to the energy released? It would end up where it almost always ends up, as heat. But that is not the issue. When the piston is lifted, there is a force operating over a distance, against the inertia of the piston and against gravity. Force times distance is work, or energy. The energy that has been dumped into the piston should be measureable. The energy expressed as work, through the lifting of the piston, would be equal to that, if there is no XP, or less than that, because of friction. Friction will cause diversion of the energy into heat. The gas in the cylinder expanded. What happens to the expanded gas? If the piston is sealed, it stays expanded, does it? What happens to the gas? The gas must collapse if this cycle can be repeated with a sealed cylinder. The motion of that cylinder, from a single pop, could be quite interesting! The force exerted on the weight, over a time which can be found by observation of the piston lift, can be used to predict how an engine would behave, to a degree, though more is involved, i.e., how the gas then collapses. I suspect that the spark creates a transient high pressure, but only slightly elevates the temperature, and whatever temperature increase exists is rapidly dissipated. The motion of the piston, observed, could show the pressure behavior.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
I realize that there is work done on the heavy piston as it is lifted from the base. This indeed does represent energy being taken from the gas and delivered to the piston as you suggest. But, if the system then generates a negative pressure as is mentioned by John, it will essentially suck the piston back to the starting position. If we are to believe the inventors, very little heat is deposited in the cylinder as a result of this cycle. Had there been a report of gas heating, then you are correct, but there is none according to these guys. This is further supported by the fact that the piston does not remain in a high position after the energy pulse has completed. I contend that the gas would have remained in some expanded condition had the energy been given to it from that stored in the piston due to gravity. You could achieve a similar effect if you had a spring under the piston that is compressed and then a latch allows it to be released. Initially the piston accelerates upwards to a maximum height and speed. It could loose contact with the spring entirely at some point as it proceeds upwards. The spring at that point would be totally out of compression. Now, when the piston returns due to gravitational force, it again contacts the spring and compresses it. And, at this point the piston will continue to compress the spring until it reaches the original compression minus losses due to friction. So, even though we would measure potentially a great deal of energy and power in the piston due to the energy stored within the spring, the net work done is zero for a complete cycle. Therefore, if no heat is detected within the gas at the conclusion of the cycle, then there is no work done on the piston by that gas. For this reason it is not possible to measure the output of a Popp type system just by looking at the effect a pulse has on the piston movement unless the final energy is actually measured within the gas. Abd, you would be correct if the total amount of energy given to the piston by the gas were then measured as heat within that same gas after the stroke, otherwise as you say there is little to no heating in that gas so there is no net energy released. I suspect that what I have just stated is the general case that will always be true for a closed gas operated system. If at the end of the power pulse the gas is not at an elevated temperature, then there can be no net power delivered by the engine. I can think of one exception to this rule. If by some process the gas is able to convert that energy into some other form such as electrical energy, then its temperature might not have to rise to the extent that is normally required. I see no such mechanism at work within the Popp device. This is certainly the situation with Russ' experiments unless the capacitor bank is being mostly recharged by the return power pulse. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 8:46 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water At 06:02 PM 12/30/2012, David Roberson wrote: I just came to the realization that most of the demonstrations that Russ has performed do not show much real work output. The piston is driven upward by the spark activated mixture, but then returns to the starting point. Any work done on the mass of the piston is returned back to the gas when it retracts for a net of zero. On occasions I have seen him toss items into the air which intercept his fan or ceiling, but the mass is small and little damage appears to be caused by the projectile. It is going to be difficult to get accurate measurements for a valid determination of energy released unless that energy remains stored somewhere and compared to the electrical input. David, I think you have missed the point. Yes, gravity will continue to act on the driven piston, so it will return to the start. However, there would not be a return to zero, as such. Work would be done on the weight. What happens to the energy released? It would end up where it almost always ends up, as heat. But that is not the issue. When the piston is lifted, there is a force operating over a distance, against the inertia of the piston and against gravity. Force times distance is work, or energy. The energy that has been dumped into the piston should be measureable. The energy expressed as work, through the lifting of the piston, would be equal to that, if there is no XP, or less than that, because of friction. Friction will cause diversion of the energy into heat. The gas in the cylinder expanded. What happens to the expanded gas? If the piston is sealed, it stays expanded, does it? What happens to the gas? The gas must collapse if this cycle can be repeated with a sealed cylinder. The motion of that cylinder, from a single pop, could be quite interesting
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Therefore, if no heat is detected within the gas at the conclusion of the cycle, then there is no work done on the piston by that gas. For this reason it is not possible to measure the output of a Popp type system just by looking at the effect a pulse has on the piston movement unless the final energy is actually measured within the gas. I can see where this thought experiment leads to this conclusion in the middle of a run of cycles. But where I'm having difficulty is the conclusion that, absent heat, there is no work performed, when we consider the beginning of a run. To make the problem clearer, consider an extremely heavy, frictionless flywheel that is at rest. You have to put in a considerable amount of work to get the flywheel to spin rapidly. After that, it will continue to spin without losing energy. If we further suppose that there is a way to turn on magnetic brakes and convert the angular momentum in the wheel back into stored energy, one that operates perfectly and does not give rise to heat, you would then be able to apply that stored potential back into kinetic energy later on. But that would be after the initial work that was put into the system at the very start. I suspect that work must necessarily be done on the Papp popper at the very beginning, during the first discharge, and that this work can be measured and tell us whether the cycle is overunity. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect that work must necessarily be done on the Papp popper at the very beginning, during the first discharge, and that this work can be measured and tell us whether the cycle is overunity. But as I think about it more, I agree that, without significant heat (or electricity) production, there is potentially an energy balance problem to be dealt with. The heat might be generated at the engine, or it might be generated by the engine doing work on something in the environment or in creating electric current. There would essentially be an adiabatic transfer of energy from one form to another after the engine gets going unless the energy is allowed to exit the system. The fact that the Papp engine is not reported to heat up significantly adds an interesting twist to the story. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
This is another one of those interesting subjects that we have been discussing and it will be good to follow it to conclusion. Yes, you can impart energy to that flywheel that you envision. And indeed, the magnetic braking mechanism could be used to take the energy away. But, a useful system has to continue to impart energy to that flywheel as it speeds up with time. If the Papp cylinder is to be believed as a OU device, then we must be capable of measuring the net energy released over a closed cycle and compare it to that required to obtain that energy. For instance, if we put a small quantity of gasoline into a Papp cylinder that uses air instead of the normal mixture, then it would not be hard to believe that the burning gasoline would heat the air and result in its expansion. As Abd was discussing in his rebuttal, the pressure from the gas would force the piston forward at a speed and acceleration that would send it upward. It would be possible to calculate the pressure acting over the piston area generating a force. The height of the piston would be determined by the amount of net energy transferred by the gas into it as it worked against gravity. Then, the piston would attempt to move downward toward its starting position. Energy would then be transferred from the piston to the compressing gas until the net gas pressure acting over the area eventually balanced the weight of the piston. There is little doubt that the final state of the gas involves an increase in temperature which can be directly calculated. This is similar behavior to an ICE that we are familiar with. All of the energy ends up in the gas if the piston returns to the same level as it began. We also know that this is not possible since the burning gasoline heats that initial mix of gases. The elevated gas temperature results in elevated gas pressure holding up the piston. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 9:53 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Therefore, if no heat is detected within the gas at the conclusion of the cycle, then there is no work done on the piston by that gas. For this reason it is not possible to measure the output of a Popp type system just by looking at the effect a pulse has on the piston movement unless the final energy is actually measured within the gas. I can see where this thought experiment leads to this conclusion in the middle of a run of cycles. But where I'm having difficulty is the conclusion that, absent heat, there is no work performed, when we consider the beginning of a run. To make the problem clearer, consider an extremely heavy, frictionless flywheel that is at rest. You have to put in a considerable amount of work to get the flywheel to spin rapidly. After that, it will continue to spin without losing energy. If we further suppose that there is a way to turn on magnetic brakes and convert the angular momentum in the wheel back into stored energy, one that operates perfectly and does not give rise to heat, you would then be able to apply that stored potential back into kinetic energy later on. But that would be after the initial work that was put into the system at the very start. I suspect that work must necessarily be done on the Papp popper at the very beginning, during the first discharge, and that this work can be measured and tell us whether the cycle is overunity. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
I think that we are heading toward agreement Eric. The lack of heating within the gas or through the cylinder walls, etc. is problematic for this system. I am fairly confident that these inventors do not claim that the electrical energy recovered due to the returning piston is significant compared to the mechanical output. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 10:15 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect that work must necessarily be done on the Papp popper at the very beginning, during the first discharge, and that this work can be measured and tell us whether the cycle is overunity. But as I think about it more, I agree that, without significant heat (or electricity) production, there is potentially an energy balance problem to be dealt with. The heat might be generated at the engine, or it might be generated by the engine doing work on something in the environment or in creating electric current. There would essentially be an adiabatic transfer of energy from one form to another after the engine gets going unless the energy is allowed to exit the system. The fact that the Papp engine is not reported to heat up significantly adds an interesting twist to the story. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
The Papp reaction will be revealing to those who are interested in the DGT LENR reaction in that it is similar to the spark discharge that is being used in the DGT reaction. If it is true that we know nothing about the Papp reaction, then the same must be said about the function of spark energy discharge into the hydrogen envelope of the DGT reactor. Consider the formation of atomic hydrogen and hydrogen atomic crystals using a spark discharge considered in this thread. Could a study of the workings inside the Papp cylinder be useful in understanding the *REAL* mechanism that is occurring in the DGT reactor? I think this is so. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 09:55 AM 12/28/2012, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Axil, etc. This is Vortex, and you guys are certainly free to speculate at the drop of a hat or a popper. However, I'm also free to note that trying to figure out what is going on with Russ's popper, when we have just about zero information about anything unusual happening, it like trying to see what is in a closed black box in a coal mine at midnight. And no light. What's in there? *Anything* could be in there. Boo! If Russ really wants to do something useful, he can start measuring the work done by that piston. It should be simple to do. Since it is reported that the thing doesn't heat up, no calorimetry is necessary, at least not yet. One regular characteristic of Papp engines is that they reportedly don't generate much, if any, heat. Just, allegedly, work. Okay, how much work with hou much energy input. A popper is perfect for testing this, avoiding all the complications of cycling engines. If there is no excess power in a single cycle, why would we even be interested in seeing if power can be sustained?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:48 PM 12/28/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.comja **nap...@gmail.com janap...@gmail.com wrote: Heat output can be neglected. I strongly disagree. If there is no excess energy, expressed in motion, then the lack of heat is *not* an anomaly. A triple negative. How about this: If there is excess energy, expressed in motion, then the presence of heat is *not* an anomaly. That is true enough on its face. However it does fly in the face of Papp's claims. I'm looking at heuristics here. What approaches will most efficiently resolve claims? Axil is proposing 3 quantitative measurements that, in the absence of Papp's claim of absence of substantial heat, are clearly needed. I'm looking merely to falsify one claim by Papp with one qualitative measurement. Now, it is true that the accelerometer measurements have been made much more economically accurate than in the past and that my intuition may be off in this area. However, we _are_ dealing with discontinuous phenomena here and it isn't always the case that the time constants on measurement instruments are well specified.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
A simplified experiment is the most elegant, the most understandable, and the most convincing. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is wise to suggest that the pressure of air compression by the piston in the popper is best removed as an experimental variable. His astute suggestion about the addition of weight resistive to piston movement in a vertical direction of proper design can greatly simplify the over unity energy experiment for the popper. So sorry please excuse me, why did I not see this wisdom to begin with? See this Khan lecture to see the theory behind the simplest experiment for over unity energy determination that can be executed. http://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/mechanics/v/work-and-energy--part-2 The height that the weighted piston travels upward to a stop determines the output energy of the popper. Unavoidably, the energy associated with the feedback current must be determined and added to the energy imparted to the piston. This experimental approach must be the simplest and cheapest one that can be run to prove over unity energy production. This experiment should be the one first run to evaluate the popper. Cheers: axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:34 PM 12/28/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Your opinion is most valuable. What do you recommend in terms of experimental detail? I posted previously that an accelerometer installed on the piston would provide the finest grained experimental detail. Yes. I think I said the same. But if we know the mass of the piston, and if a video is taken with a screen behind the piston with calibrations on it, and time references, it might be simpler. The higher speed the video, the better. If a computer data aquisition system is being used, the motion could be captured in any of various ways. From the mass and motion, in time, of the pistion, one can calculate the force and the weight. If the piston is held back by a spring, that force can be calibrated, etc. A graphic profile of the piston's movement plotted against time could be converted to energy output by integrating the area under the piston's movement curve. The force of gravity must also be accounted for in this calculation. Yes. Or the experiment is run horizontally, as in the advertised popper kits. A spring is then used to retard the motion. That spring can be calibrated so that the force exerted for every point of motion is known. An accelerometer may also provide data that can be used to determine torque that may be expected from an engine application. That's premature, not really necessary until it is time to design an engine, which could be way down the road, and is speculative. The original purpose of poppers was to compare the results for different formulations of the operating gas. Great idea. But without knowing the actual energy released, one doesn't know if there is any effect of value. All one is getting is relatively good ways of creating an apparent artifact. Measure the energy, one will see if one is actually optimizing a real energy release, or merely getting more efficient at transferring energy from excitation to piston motion. There is also a compression of gas(air) above the piston that acts as a shock absorber so that the piston does not hit the metal stops at the top of the piston rod. That's all what would be considered. That's a relatively complicated way to do it. A simpler way is to make the piston heavy enough -- put weight on the top -- so that it doesn't reach the stops. Let it free fly, only deaccelerated by gravity -- or a spring that is calibrated. This compression of the gas can be measured by a pressure sensor whose output can also be plotted against time. This data can also be converted to energy using the area under the curse technique. Yes. There is also the feedback current that must be considered in the detailed energy output accounting. This current must be captured and measured in terms of joules of electric energy output from the popper. Yes. The basic claim, though, is that there is *lots* of energy being released. How accurate one must be in measuring input power, then, is a question. The more accurate, the better, and lots of Free Energy demonstrations seem to depend on faulty estimations of input power. The Naudin MAGH study is a totally blatant example. Really, really embarrassing, but the *most* embarrassing thing is that Naudin never said, Oops! What was I thinking! Sorry guys! I won't do that again! Pons and Fleischmann screwed up on neutron measurments, but they retracted their report. That's what a real scientist does when they make a mistake. They correct the record, as soon as possible. Since a real scientist is *trying to falsify their conclusions*, they will eagerly investigate it. Yes, human beings often do otherwise, but ... that's when we are not scientists, we have gotten trapped in belief.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
At 03:20 PM 12/29/2012, Axil Axil wrote: The height that the weighted piston travels upward to a stop determines the output energy of the popper. Well, that shows the work done by the piston. Unavoidably, the energy associated with the feedback current must be determined and added to the energy imparted to the piston. If that is an experimental factor. It would be better, if it can be done, to avoid such complications. This experimental approach must be the simplest and cheapest one that can be run to prove over unity energy production. Yup. So ... why isn't it being done? When I saw the first popper, the Bob Rohner version, I think he put a weight on top. But there was no data on the output energy vs the input energy. The *most obvious issue.* This experiment should be the one first run to evaluate the popper. Yup. John Rohner sold a popper kit, but published *no data* on how his kit performed. Did he actually have any test data? I wonder. Is it necessary to be obtuse to (1) work in this field, or (2) be interested in it? I love it that people like Russ will get their hands dirty. But ... why not do it Smart?
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
Axil, I like a lot of your theory but think you are drawing too quickly your initial conclusion that no heat means no atomic hydrogen is being produced ..and even here we may be getting into syntax since atomic hydrogen once formed wants to immediately recombine.. and here is also my point that most disassociation and reassociation cycles are going to be almost instantaneous and the energy in to disassociate will normally be more than the energy released upon reassociation .. so the spark could very well be disassociating hydrogen which immediately reforms with little thermal indication for this.. a bootstrap requirement to set up the environment that your plasma theory or other over unity theories can multiply without an external source of energy -tapping some sort of zero point or LENR to keep the up the disassociation portion of the cycle while still releasing energy at the same rate on the reassociation portion of the cycle. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 1:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water The recombination of atomic hydrogen to diatomic hydrogen is notoriously exothermic. Why, then, is it reported that the gas temperature rises little if at all The fact that Russ has seen no heat produced by the spark discharge in hydrogen speaks to the fact that no atomic hydrogen is produced by the spark discharge. This is a clue to what is going on inside the gas medium. This insightful experimental observation supports the theory that accelerating plasmoid movement toward the head of the cylinder is the primary source of the power generated by the Papp reaction. If the plasmoid is the active power producing structure in the Papp engine, then it can concentrate a large number of electrons is high amperage circulating current flow concentrations at and around the outer surface of the plasmoid. As the plasmoid move through the uncharged dialectic gaseous medium(UDGM), The plasmoid must generate large numbers of negative charged clusters of gas atoms in the thin boundary zone between the plasmoids negative charged current layer and the UDGM. It is this contrail of residual negatively charged gas clusters that must be neutralized before the start of the next cycle can begin. This process of charge neutralization is how the feedback current is generated. The magnitude of this feedback current might be greater than the current that produced the spark discharge under certain noble gas mixtures. This increase in current can be one of the contributors to over unity power generation in the Papp reaction. This may also be the reason why the Papp engine exploded during the R. Feynman demo when an unchecked positive feedback current loop was formed between the various cylinders when the circuit that controlled the current feed to these cylinders was disabled. Increasing spark discharge current having been directly supported by the feedback current from other various cylinders produced a series of plasmoids of increasing strength. It was this uncontrolled current loop that eventually culminated in an explosive disintegration of the Papp engine after a few moments of unregulated operation when the control circuit was disabled after R. Feynman pulled the plug to the control unit. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.commailto:jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The recombination of atomic hydrogen to diatomic hydrogen is notoriously exothermic. Why, then, is it reported that the gas temperature rises little if at all? On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The discussion of Papp and his engine leads me to one question. Is it possible that the extra force that Russ, the video experimenter, obtained using hydrogen as the active gas was due to the dissociation of the hydrogen molecules into individual atoms? I suspect that the pressure must increase in such an environment due to the fact that there are more particles colliding. This may have been discussed previously, but the thought just came into my mind and I wanted to pass it on. Dave
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
At 09:55 AM 12/28/2012, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Axil, etc. This is Vortex, and you guys are certainly free to speculate at the drop of a hat or a popper. However, I'm also free to note that trying to figure out what is going on with Russ's popper, when we have just about zero information about anything unusual happening, it like trying to see what is in a closed black box in a coal mine at midnight. And no light. What's in there? *Anything* could be in there. Boo! If Russ really wants to do something useful, he can start measuring the work done by that piston. It should be simple to do. Since it is reported that the thing doesn't heat up, no calorimetry is necessary, at least not yet. One regular characteristic of Papp engines is that they reportedly don't generate much, if any, heat. Just, allegedly, work. Okay, how much work with hou much energy input. A popper is perfect for testing this, avoiding all the complications of cycling engines. If there is no excess power in a single cycle, why would we even be interested in seeing if power can be sustained?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
Your opinion is most valuable. What do you recommend in terms of experimental detail? I posted previously that an accelerometer installed on the piston would provide the finest grained experimental detail. A graphic profile of the piston’s movement plotted against time could be converted to energy output by integrating the area under the piston’s movement curve. The force of gravity must also be accounted for in this calculation. An accelerometer may also provide data that can be used to determine torque that may be expected from an engine application. There is also a compression of gas(air) above the piston that acts as a shock absorber so that the piston does not hit the metal stops at the top of the piston rod. This compression of the gas can be measured by a pressure sensor whose output can also be plotted against time. This data can also be converted to energy using the area under the curse technique. There is also the feedback current that must be considered in the detailed energy output accounting. This current must be captured and measured in terms of joules of electric energy output from the popper. Heat output can be neglected. Please list in detail how to set this experiment up including recommendations that include but not limited to associated mathematical formulae, experimental hardware, interconnect data bus structures, software, firmware, and related graphical and computational packages. Take pains to minimize costs but insure that the experimental techniques used in experimentation are air tight and will satisfy the most skeptical critics of over unity energy technology. If you have the time, please include an experimental test plan that includes experimental setup and explanation of associated results. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 09:55 AM 12/28/2012, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Axil, etc. This is Vortex, and you guys are certainly free to speculate at the drop of a hat or a popper. However, I'm also free to note that trying to figure out what is going on with Russ's popper, when we have just about zero information about anything unusual happening, it like trying to see what is in a closed black box in a coal mine at midnight. And no light. What's in there? *Anything* could be in there. Boo! If Russ really wants to do something useful, he can start measuring the work done by that piston. It should be simple to do. Since it is reported that the thing doesn't heat up, no calorimetry is necessary, at least not yet. One regular characteristic of Papp engines is that they reportedly don't generate much, if any, heat. Just, allegedly, work. Okay, how much work with hou much energy input. A popper is perfect for testing this, avoiding all the complications of cycling engines. If there is no excess power in a single cycle, why would we even be interested in seeing if power can be sustained?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Heat output can be neglected. I strongly disagree. We hear a lot about how the temperature doesn't rise in any degree approaching what one would expect from the joule input but one must recall that this is one of the most anomalous claims about the Papp system.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
At 07:34 PM 12/28/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Your opinion is most valuable. What do you recommend in terms of experimental detail? I posted previously that an accelerometer installed on the piston would provide the finest grained experimental detail. Yes. I think I said the same. But if we know the mass of the piston, and if a video is taken with a screen behind the piston with calibrations on it, and time references, it might be simpler. The higher speed the video, the better. If a computer data aquisition system is being used, the motion could be captured in any of various ways. From the mass and motion, in time, of the pistion, one can calculate the force and the weight. If the piston is held back by a spring, that force can be calibrated, etc. A graphic profile of the piston's movement plotted against time could be converted to energy output by integrating the area under the piston's movement curve. The force of gravity must also be accounted for in this calculation. Yes. Or the experiment is run horizontally, as in the advertised popper kits. A spring is then used to retard the motion. That spring can be calibrated so that the force exerted for every point of motion is known. An accelerometer may also provide data that can be used to determine torque that may be expected from an engine application. That's premature, not really necessary until it is time to design an engine, which could be way down the road, and is speculative. The original purpose of poppers was to compare the results for different formulations of the operating gas. Great idea. But without knowing the actual energy released, one doesn't know if there is any effect of value. All one is getting is relatively good ways of creating an apparent artifact. Measure the energy, one will see if one is actually optimizing a real energy release, or merely getting more efficient at transferring energy from excitation to piston motion. There is also a compression of gas(air) above the piston that acts as a shock absorber so that the piston does not hit the metal stops at the top of the piston rod. That's all what would be considered. That's a relatively complicated way to do it. A simpler way is to make the piston heavy enough -- put weight on the top -- so that it doesn't reach the stops. Let it free fly, only deaccelerated by gravity -- or a spring that is calibrated. This compression of the gas can be measured by a pressure sensor whose output can also be plotted against time. This data can also be converted to energy using the area under the curse technique. Yes. There is also the feedback current that must be considered in the detailed energy output accounting. This current must be captured and measured in terms of joules of electric energy output from the popper. Yes. The basic claim, though, is that there is *lots* of energy being released. How accurate one must be in measuring input power, then, is a question. The more accurate, the better, and lots of Free Energy demonstrations seem to depend on faulty estimations of input power. The Naudin MAGH study is a totally blatant example. Really, really embarrassing, but the *most* embarrassing thing is that Naudin never said, Oops! What was I thinking! Sorry guys! I won't do that again! Pons and Fleischmann screwed up on neutron measurments, but they retracted their report. That's what a real scientist does when they make a mistake. They correct the record, as soon as possible. Since a real scientist is *trying to falsify their conclusions*, they will eagerly investigate it. Yes, human beings often do otherwise, but ... that's when we are not scientists, we have gotten trapped in belief. Heat output can be neglected. Apparently. If really accurate measurements are to be made, some measurement of heat might be needed. But are these experiments worth the effort? The default with claims like this should be No. *However,* it is a community obligation to leave the door open to the unknown, so some level of credence should be allowed any at-all-credible report. I'll note that Feynman spent his time to attend a Papp demonstration. Unfortunately, he seems to have been a bit too eager to debunk. Tragically so. In a way, I don't blame him, and I blame Papp for making such a dangerous engine, with no protection against power failure. Papp was crazy, part of the problem. Please list in detail how to set this experiment up including recommendations that include but not limited to associated mathematical formulae, experimental hardware, interconnect data bus structures, software, firmware, and related graphical and computational packages. Take pains to minimize costs but insure that the experimental techniques used in experimentation are air tight and will satisfy the most skeptical critics of over unity energy technology. Aw, c'mon, Axil. Russ could take some simple measures that would provide basic data. It
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
At 07:48 PM 12/28/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.comjanap...@gmail.com wrote: Heat output can be neglected. I strongly disagree. We hear a lot about how the temperature doesn't rise in any degree approaching what one would expect from the joule input but one must recall that this is one of the most anomalous claims about the Papp system. While theoretically this is true, if it is also true that there is *little* heat from a Papp engine, and if excess energy is shown by a reasonably careful analysis of the motion of a popper piston, without considering heat, heat generation would only *add* to the excess energy. Whether there is any need to look for heat, then, is a subsidiary question. Is there excess energy, expressed in piston motion? If there is such energy, then we will want to know quantitative data about heat, it's part of attempting to understand the process. And if there is no such energy, putting a lot of work into dotting the i's and crossing the t's is probably a waste of time. If there is no excess energy, expressed in motion, then the lack of heat is *not* an anomaly. Why would we expect heat? I'm looking at heuristics here. What approaches will most efficiently resolve claims?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Dec 28, 2012, at 20:25, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Whether there is any need to look for heat, then, is a subsidiary question. Is there excess energy, expressed in piston motion? This makes sense. Look for first order effects, then zero in on second order effects if any first order ones can be established. We would be assuming, here, that there is no significant endotherm. Eric
