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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> 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>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE>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-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/
--
Ruby Carat
<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Skype ruby-carat
<<http://www.coldfusionnow.org>http://www.coldfusionnow.org>www.coldfusionnow.org
