Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:41 PM 1/2/2013, Ruby wrote:

While this is not cold fusion, I had an opportunity to video a new 
energy lab, and took it.
I will continue to create portraits of new energy researchers, if it 
comes my way.


Sure. However, be careful. What is the purpose of Cold Fusion Now? Do 
you aim to be politically effective?


I see cold fusion as the most probable breakthrough for the near 
future, but the Papp engine may not be far behind, and is a 
technology that could operate alongside it.


There are quite a few people working on Papp devices. There is no 
sign of any confirmation coming soon. Sure, it could happen.


However, "Papp Engine" and "Cold Fusion" should not be associated. 
Cold fusion is an established scientific phenomenon. Papp Engines are 
not. Papp was crazy, that's obvious. "Crazy" doesn't negate his 
having found something, but it does mean that what he showed can't be 
trusted, because *he did fake things*. Some have been pointing out 
that he set up red herrings, claims that this or that was necessary, 
that wasn't. Maybe.


This is the sixth movie I have made this year, all by my lonesome 
since my cameraman/editor left me to pursue more lucrative 
endeavors.  I'm getting better with each edit, with the goal of 
entertaining and educating.  As a Clean Energy Advocate, I do not 
grill or snake scientists.


Nobody is suggesting you become a Steve Krivit clone. However, you 
would not have to be Steve Krivit to be informed, in advance, of what 
questions to ask to get the actually important information. You did 
ask Kolstermann about energy production. He gave you an answer. The 
answer actually means, if true, that *he has nothing*, that his 
conclusions that the noble gases were not necessary are 
*speculation*, because he hasn't actually shown energy production, 
which Papp supposedly did. Papp actually ran engines with 
dynamometers and expert engineers, if certain documents are correct, 
and I've heard private testimony that I trust. It certainly *looked 
like* he was producing energy! Were there hidden wires or a fuel supply?


Ruby, all these things have happened before. There *have* been 
frauds, sometimes very convincing.


  I am not a detective (not yet anyway).  I ask, they answer.  I am 
grateful for all the help I continue to get in learning to ask the 
right questions.


The problem that I see is associating *highly speculative* 
technologies, that have a high probability of not being real, with 
cold fusion. Cold fusion is real, it's testable, and it's been 
tested, over and over, with results reported in scientific journals. 
It has problems with reliability, but that's an entirely different 
issue. If the reliability problem cannot be solved, it's possible 
that cold fusion will never be practical.


But it's real, and the chances are quite good that, with better 
understanding, the reliability problem can be solved. Reliability 
cuts two ways. Pons and Fleischmann started with a cm. cube of 
palladium. The thing melted down in about 1984, destroying their 
apparatus, burning a hole in the lab bench, and down inches into the 
concrete floor. That was not chemistry. After that happened, they 
scaled down, and most cold fusion experiments deliberately work with 
low quantities of materials, because "unreliable" can mean that one 
unexpectedly gets *much more* heat than expected.


What is needed is basic research. This is not going to come from 
"entrepreneurs," people who keep their work secret. It's going to 
come from scientists, and that takes money that is not about profit, 
though some funding may come from corporations doing background investigation.


I cannot categorically state that the Papp engine is impossible, but 
I will state is that we do not know if it's possible, and the 
Klostermann video takes us no closer to knowing. If you want to cover 
every possible alternative technology, there are many. I was the 
administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago, and we were 
working on, among other projects, satellite solar power. That is a 
whole approach to solving not only the energy problem, but ultimately 
the whole problem of polluting the earth. But I'd not expect Cold 
Fusion Now to get involved. Having a page that links to other clean 
energy projects, great. But the level of focus on Kostermann seems 
too much to me.


Cold Fusion Now wants to remain positive, and rated G for the 
kids!  I want to show the kids, the students, and those who are 
looking for inspiration: What does a new energy lab look like?  How 
do researchers in this field operate?  What kind of research is 
going on?  What kind of energy solutions are being pursued and, what 
is the level of development?


Klostermann's shop does not look like a lab to me, it looks like a 
nice workshop. It doesn't actually look like an energy solution. It 
looks like an electric cannon, that doesn't do anything more than 
convert stored power from a capacitor bank to kinetic energy of the 

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:32 PM 1/1/2013, Axil Axil wrote:

The construction of the Klostermann test device is not in the proper 
configuration to test for over unity energy output.

For that over unity test, the popper is best to use.


It could be used. The energy that appears as kinetic energy of the 
unopposed piston is the useful output of that reaction. Heat would be 
waste, as it is in internal combustion engines.


So what is the kinetic energy of the projectile? That would only 
depend on its mass and velocity at ejection. Both are easily 
measurable, in many ways, and with primitive equipment. For example, 
what is the trajectory? How far does the path of the projectile drop 
in it's horizontal motion?


Yes, to do a complete analysis could be more involved, but a useful 
reaction would show over unity with a simple analysis.


And if it isn't over unity, and if an analysis of the waste energy 
didn't show clear over-unity as a total, then the project is a nice 
hobby, but not worthy of the massive investment that has been suggested.


[...]
In my opinion, a popper configuration in preference to a cannon is 
most amenable to a full accounted of all the energy output sources 
that the Papp reaction may produce.


But the cannon is more fun!

The biggest problem with a cannon would be air resistance, which 
would lower the velocity of the projectile. So this test, using a 
cannon, should be done in an evacuated tube, or, alternatively, 
accurate measurements could be done to measure the effect of air 
resistance with a known force acting on the projectile.


First things first. What would a study of the kinetic energy show? If 
it's over unity, maybe it would be time to break out the champagne, 
but only after checking everything carefully! If it is short of over 
unity, how short?


As has been pointed out, this could be an efficient electric cannon. 
Well? What I wrote of as "frustrating" was the apparent lack of 
testing of the *only truly important issue*. Yet there are plans for 
much more elaborate devices. Big plans.


Klosterman allegedly found that air worked. What does that *mean*? As 
far as I can tell, he could fire a projectile through an electrical 
discharge in air. Unless there is an overunity process, this does not 
indicate that the Papp effect has been reproduced. Papp, if he had 
anything real, operated engines. What has been described as the 
approach of others is the testing of mixtures.


Was this testing to see how the energy output varied with the 
mixture? That's the only testing that actually makes sense.


Firing projectiles that knock over a carboard box -- but that don't 
damage it, as far as I could see -- is not actually very impressive.


By the way, someone mentioned the recoil of the firing unit. It is 
against the wall, and when the projective is fired, it will recoil 
against the wall. It will then bounce out, as observed.



 When attacked by the pseudoskeptics,  I would suggest to resist 
any tendency to intimidation but patiently explain all the 
subtleties involved in the Papp reaction.
I am sure that is patience, together with a full command of the 
subject matter will be effective in protecting LENR from their skepticism.


The "subtleties involved in the Papp reaction" are? A collection of 
speculations are not subtleties. There are mysteries around the Papp 
history. Mysteries cannot be assumed to resolve in a particular 
direction. I know a reputable individual who has claimed to have 
witnessed a Papp engine operating. And what that means, *I don't know.*


I just don't want to see cold fusion tossed into the same box as the 
Papp engine. A "mystery" with no confirmed science behind it.






Cheers:   Axil

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Interesting video, but frustrating.

Klostermann seems like a sweet old guy who is having fun working 
with the Papp concept. He's done all kinds of things, but the type 
of cannon he has built, and that we saw firing so many times, could 
easily be arranged so that energy output is measured.


He's planing on using a government design for an electric generator, 
and predicts power output, etc., yet he's not done the most basic 
measurement, and he acknowledges that, but he seems to imply that it 
would be expensive.


No, it would be about as easy as what he's already done, in fact, 
easier. The output of his cannon is the kinetic energy of the 
projectile, and that is easily measured. If the kinetic energy of 
the projectile is as we would expect, less than the energy dumped 
into the cannon by the ionizatin sources, then neither would a 
generator work to generate excess power. Yes, it would generate 
power, but less than the electrical power used to operate it.


Ruby asked him the question, he didn't answer it. She's very polite 
and did not push him. Looks like she's having fun.


"Marshall Plan" to support this is not going to happen unless 
someon

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[Ruby]

While this is not cold fusion, I had an opportunity to video a new 
energy lab, and took it.
I will continue to create portraits of new energy researchers, if it 
comes my way.


I see cold fusion as the most probable breakthrough for the near future, 
but the Papp engine may not be far behind, and is a technology that 
could operate alongside it.


This is the sixth movie I have made this year, all by my lonesome since 
my cameraman/editor left me to pursue more lucrative endeavors.  I'm 
getting better with each edit, with the goal of entertaining and 
educating.  As a Clean Energy Advocate, I do not grill or snake 
scientists.  I am not a detective (not yet anyway).  I ask, they 
answer.  I am grateful for all the help I continue to get in learning to 
ask the right questions.


Cold Fusion Now wants to remain positive, and rated G for the kids!  I 
want to show the kids, the students, and those who are looking for 
inspiration: What does a new energy lab look like? How do researchers in 
this field operate?  What kind of research is going on?  What kind of 
energy solutions are being pursued and, what is the level of development?


This video shows one team's engines in development, an explanation of 
its operational principles, however incomplete, in their own words, and 
what they plan to do next.  It has a light-science background for the 
general public.


While the video does not appear to show over-unity by examining the 
speed of the piston, I would not dismiss this whole technology through 
Youtube analysis.  I am convinced by what I've read that Joseph Papp had 
something going on.  Now, a handful of teams are trying to reproduce it.


For all our sake, I only hope they succeed.

Please direct your technical questions about the Pulser to Heinz 
Klostermann at heinri...@me.com.


Pseudo-skeptics have held the power of position, but now they are 
irrelevant - irrelevant I say!
Maybe I don't have the right to say that, but the fact is, the noisy din 
of useless information does not carry their protestations far, nor does 
their message have penetration or "staying power", as they did 
pre-Internet.


Yes, the after-image of their sad, destructive paradigm still prevents 
the MSM from reporting on the developments in cold fusion and new 
energy; legislators and policy-makers are woefully uninformed and do not 
fund this research; pseudo-skeptics have chosen to be die-hards, and 
they will, as all old paradigms do.


We are building a new house, so when the old one collapses, it'll be 
ready to move in!


After a short break over the next couple weeks, 2013 projects for Cold 
Fusion Now include:


 * more cold fusion video interviews as dictated by my geographic
   location on the west coast,
 * a possible mini-conference in Los Angeles,
 * activist visits to schools and colleges in the So Cal area (Caltech
   look out!),
 * attendance at ICCF-18 to conduct one-on-one interviews,
 * putting next year's 2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar together
   with a an awesome new theme (not tellin yet!) but it's really cool.

You can help support my efforts by purchasing a Calendar here:
http://coldfusionnow.org/store/2013-history-of-cold-fusion-calendar/

Thank you for all the feedback.

Your comments help to make my art more communicative.

Happy New Year!
Ruby



On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Interesting video, but frustrating.

Klostermann seems like a sweet old guy who is having fun working with 
the Papp concept. He's done all kinds of things, but the type of 
cannon he has built, and that we saw firing so many times, could 
easily be arranged so that energy output is measured.


He's planing on using a government design for an electric generator, 
and predicts power output, etc., yet he's not done the most basic 
measurement, and he acknowledges that, but he seems to imply that it 
would be expensive.


No, it would be about as easy as what he's already done, in fact, 
easier. The output of his cannon is the kinetic energy of the 
projectile, and that is easily measured. If the kinetic energy of the 
projectile is as we would expect, less than the energy dumped into the 
cannon by the ionizatin sources, then neither would a generator work 
to generate excess power. Yes, it would generate power, but less than 
the electrical power used to operate it.


Ruby asked him the question, he didn't answer it. She's very polite 
and did not push him. Looks like she's having fun.


"Marshall Plan" to support this is not going to happen unless someone 
shows over unity, convincingly.


I recommend that Cold Fusion Now stay away from these very shaky 
Alternative Energy claims, and stick to LENR. That's where political 
support could be useful and effective.


Otherwise pseudoskeptics, faced with some actual possible 
breakthrough, politically, will use support for something ilke the 
Papp engine to attack the credibility of the organization.


At 12:39 PM 12/31/2012, Ruby wrote:


video: PU

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[Axil Axil]

Allow me to restate and clarify specifically.
For example, by effectively acting as a capacitor or a battery, if 500
watts of input power is used to create the spark per each discharge with
little heat having been produced, the popper must act to preserve the input
current in part or in total through electronegative ionization in the form
of a resultant feedback current.

In the engine design by Papp, he used this feedback current to power the
spark discharge of the next cylinder in the firing chain.

In the Papp engine, the magnitude of this feedback current might have been
greater than the current that produced the spark discharge in the first
place under certain noble gas mixtures.

This increase in the feedback current might well 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.
Because of this positive current feedback, an increasing positive spark
discharge current feedback loop having been directly supported by a gainful
feedback current from other various cylinders in previous cylinder
activations might have produced a series of plasmoids of increasing
strength.

It was this uncontrolled gainful 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.

The relatively long delay in the time between the removal of the plug by
Feynman and the onset of piston failure and its  explosion points to a slow
buildup of the strength of the feedback current and not an sudden explosion
caused by a abrupt decompression of the reaction gases.



Cheers:   Axil
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:02 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> It is reasonable to expect that the feedback current when added to the
>> energy exerted in the vigorous movement of the piston will comfortably
>> exceed over unity energy production expectations.
>>
>
> Eh?
>

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[James Bowery]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It is reasonable to expect that the feedback current when added to the
> energy exerted in the vigorous movement of the piston will comfortably
> exceed over unity energy production expectations.
>

Eh?

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[Axil Axil]

The construction of the Klostermann test device is not in the proper
configuration to test for over unity energy output.
For that over unity test, the popper is best to use.


The Papp reaction acts as a kind of capacitor which stores the energy input
that has been expended in the production of the spark discharge.

Experimentation with the Plasmatron, a device similar to the popper in some
particulars if not concept will produce over unity energy output.
See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-94c1Q6Ms

It is reasonable to expect that the feedback current when added to the
energy exerted in the vigorous movement of the piston will comfortably
exceed over unity energy production expectations.

In my opinion, a popper configuration in preference to a cannon is most
amenable to a full accounted of all the energy output sources that the Papp
reaction may produce.

 When attacked by the pseudoskeptics,  I would suggest to resist any
tendency to intimidation but patiently explain all the subtleties involved
in the Papp reaction.
I am sure that is patience, together with a full command of the subject
matter will be effective in protecting LENR from their skepticism.



Cheers:   Axil

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> Interesting video, but frustrating.
>
> Klostermann seems like a sweet old guy who is having fun working with the
> Papp concept. He's done all kinds of things, but the type of cannon he has
> built, and that we saw firing so many times, could easily be arranged so
> that energy output is measured.
>
> He's planing on using a government design for an electric generator, and
> predicts power output, etc., yet he's not done the most basic measurement,
> and he acknowledges that, but he seems to imply that it would be expensive.
>
> No, it would be about as easy as what he's already done, in fact, easier.
> The output of his cannon is the kinetic energy of the projectile, and that
> is easily measured. If the kinetic energy of the projectile is as we would
> expect, less than the energy dumped into the cannon by the ionizatin
> sources, then neither would a generator work to generate excess power. Yes,
> it would generate power, but less than the electrical power used to operate
> it.
>
> Ruby asked him the question, he didn't answer it. She's very polite and
> did not push him. Looks like she's having fun.
>
> "Marshall Plan" to support this is not going to happen unless someone
> shows over unity, convincingly.
>
> I recommend that Cold Fusion Now stay away from these very shaky
> Alternative Energy claims, and stick to LENR. That's where political
> support could be useful and effective.
>
> Otherwise pseudoskeptics, faced with some actual possible breakthrough,
> politically, will use support for something ilke the Papp engine to attack
> the credibility of the organization.
>
>
> At 12:39 PM 12/31/2012, Ruby wrote:
>
>
>
>  video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine
>>
>> 
>> >http://www.**youtube.com/watch?v=**lNSAXbZfnbE
>>
>>
>>
>> post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall
>> Plan to support this"
>>
>> http://coldfusionnow.org/**heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-**
>> engine-there-should-be-a-**marshall-plan-to-support-this/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ruby Carat
>> r...@coldfusionnow.org
>> Skype ruby-carat
>> **www.coldfusionnow.org
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Interesting video, but frustrating.

Klostermann seems like a sweet old guy who is having fun working with 
the Papp concept. He's done all kinds of things, but the type of 
cannon he has built, and that we saw firing so many times, could 
easily be arranged so that energy output is measured.


He's planing on using a government design for an electric generator, 
and predicts power output, etc., yet he's not done the most basic 
measurement, and he acknowledges that, but he seems to imply that it 
would be expensive.


No, it would be about as easy as what he's already done, in fact, 
easier. The output of his cannon is the kinetic energy of the 
projectile, and that is easily measured. If the kinetic energy of the 
projectile is as we would expect, less than the energy dumped into 
the cannon by the ionizatin sources, then neither would a generator 
work to generate excess power. Yes, it would generate power, but less 
than the electrical power used to operate it.


Ruby asked him the question, he didn't answer it. She's very polite 
and did not push him. Looks like she's having fun.


"Marshall Plan" to support this is not going to happen unless someone 
shows over unity, convincingly.


I recommend that Cold Fusion Now stay away from these very shaky 
Alternative Energy claims, and stick to LENR. That's where political 
support could be useful and effective.


Otherwise pseudoskeptics, faced with some actual possible 
breakthrough, politically, will use support for something ilke the 
Papp engine to attack the credibility of the organization.


At 12:39 PM 12/31/2012, Ruby wrote:




video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE


post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a 
Marshall Plan to support this"


http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/


--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[Axil Axil]

Thanks Ruby; A great video from Ruby Carat.

Russ used air in on demo and got poor results. Hydrogen was better and
helium was the best.

Heinz Klostermann uses air because his cannon system cannot be made gas
tight.

A linier motor can be made completely gas tight; as tight as a compressed
gas tank.
The lack of a pop when the projectile leaves the tube tells me that the
system does not use gas pressure to apply energy to the projectile.

I believe that a plasmoid hitting the face of the projectile is the means
of energy transfer between the spark and the projectile.



Cheers:Axil

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ruby  wrote:

>
>
>
> video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE
>
>
> post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall
> Plan to support this"
>
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/
>
>
> --
> Ruby Carat
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> Skype ruby-carat
> www.coldfusionnow.org
>
>

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[David Roberson]

You have a good explanation for the lack of visible reaction away from the 
projectile.  The law of conservation of momentum ensures that the initial 
movement of the barrel must be in the opposite direction.  The amount of 
movement might be small if the barrel kinetic energy is absorbed by a barrier 
that is stiff, and that must be what we have.  Energy can then be returned to 
the barrel from the barrier by spring action propelling it in the same 
direction as the piston.


How often do claims of the type revealed within this video arise?   You would 
think that by now we would realize most are nothing but fancy electric motors 
of an unusual design.  I will be very surprised to see one that actually 
delivers over unity performance throughout a complete cycle when the total 
input is accurately determined.


The inventor stated that a significant amount of energy still remained within 
the capacitor bank after a power pulse.  Since energy stored within a capacitor 
is proportional to the square of the voltage I would not be so kind.  
160^2/500^2=.1   Only 10% remains which is not a large proportion.



Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 2:49 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine



Interesting observation…
 
If you watch the white box/cannon assembly (not the cardboard white box 
‘target’), you would think that the recoil would cause it to move backward, in 
the opposite direction as the projectile (piston); in fact, the assembly moves 
in the SAME direction as the projectile.  The only explanation that I can see 
is that the assembly is already placed against an immovable barrier which 
prevents the recoil from moving it to the right, and that force pushes back on 
the assembly moving it in the same direction as the projectile…
 
-Mark
 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

 
8:54 in is a slow motion shot showing the 1lb projectile travelling about 2 
meters in about 3 frames.  He also claims that the effective energy delivered 
to the plasma is about 600J.

sqrt(600J/(2*lbm))?m/s

sqrt((600 * joule) / (2 * poundm)) ? meter / second
= 25.717452 m/s

30frames/sec;3 frames/2m?m/s

([30 * frames] / second) * ([3 * frames] / [2 * meter])^-1 ? meter / second
= 20 m/s

So it appears he has an 80% efficient electric cannon.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ruby  wrote:




video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE


post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall Plan to 
support this"

http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/



-- 
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org


 

 

RE: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Interesting observation.

 

If you watch the white box/cannon assembly (not the cardboard white box
'target'), you would think that the recoil would cause it to move backward,
in the opposite direction as the projectile (piston); in fact, the assembly
moves in the SAME direction as the projectile.  The only explanation that I
can see is that the assembly is already placed against an immovable barrier
which prevents the recoil from moving it to the right, and that force pushes
back on the assembly moving it in the same direction as the projectile.

 

-Mark

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

 

8:54 in is a slow motion shot showing the 1lb projectile travelling about 2
meters in about 3 frames.  He also claims that the effective energy
delivered to the plasma is about 600J.

sqrt(600J/(2*lbm))?m/s

sqrt((600 * joule) / (2 * poundm)) ? meter / second
= 25.717452 m/s

30frames/sec;3 frames/2m?m/s

([30 * frames] / second) * ([3 * frames] / [2 * meter])^-1 ? meter / second
= 20 m/s

So it appears he has an 80% efficient electric cannon.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ruby  wrote:




video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE


post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall Plan
to support this"
 
<http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-
be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/> 
http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-b
e-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/



-- 
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org

 

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

[James Bowery]

8:54 in is a slow motion shot showing the 1lb projectile travelling about 2
meters in about 3 frames.  He also claims that the effective energy
delivered to the plasma is about 600J.

sqrt(600J/(2*lbm))?m/s

sqrt((600 * joule) / (2 * poundm)) ? meter / second
= 25.717452 m/s

30frames/sec;3 frames/2m?m/s

([30 * frames] / second) * ([3 * frames] / [2 * meter])^-1 ? meter / second
= 20 m/s

So it appears he has an 80% efficient electric cannon.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ruby  wrote:

>
>
>
> video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE
>
>
> post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall
> Plan to support this"
>
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/
>
>
> --
> Ruby Carat
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> Skype ruby-carat
> www.coldfusionnow.org
>
>