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 doesn't have to be perfect. Yes. It could be
quite cheap, at least a first pass. Doing this perfectly could be
expensive, but *that's not necessary.*
If you have the time, please include an experimental test plan that
includes experimental setup and explanation of associated results.
I don't, and given that I've seen nothing but hot air about this cool
engine, I'm not exercised to create the time. It would be a lot of
effort. I would be willing to communicate with Russ or anyone, to
brainstorm experimental techniques, but, Axil, you seem to be missing
something.
Russ is, unless he actually looks at power generation, wasting his
time. He could fix that if he wants to. Not difficult. Instead of
demanding a detailed plan that would take a lot of time to put
together, and that would require information that I do not have, why
not work with Russ? Actually help him?
I'm saying that theoretical explanations for power that may not exist
are not terribly useful. That's all.
I'm assuming that Russ really wants to make a contribution, instead
of just creating video fans, he may need to listen to these concerns.
Maybe he's already doing that, Russ is a bit long-winded, but, hey,
he's not the only one. Except I would *never* do this with a video! I hope.
(I've stopped watching his videos, because they take too much time.
I'd read a transcript, no problem.)
Cheers: Axil
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
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?
