I find it difficult to compare the Papp engine with a Rossi ECAT. They are very different in structure and behavior.
In the Papp there is obvious motion of the piston which could generate electrical voltage by normal processes. The ECAT has no moving parts that I am aware of. This is not to say that the ECAT does not generate electrical power, only that if it does the process is likely different than the one occurring within the Papp. I still require convincing that the Papp engine is capable of performing as advertised. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Nov 20, 2015 12:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter? Electrical production has been done in the Papp engine. I go back to the Papp engine that was self powered by recycling overunity electrons produced by the LENR reaction. Look at starting at 21:10 of the video below. Watch the motor driven by the feedback current gathered by the thorium filled buckets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zWJNyoFgJM On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:08 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: First it must be determined that nickel based systems can not generate electricity in the same general manner. So far we have not actually seen proof that either metal works all that well. I remain skeptical until more evidence becomes available in support of this concept. I wonder what fraction of the energy release can be directly converted into electricity? Unless it is a large proportion some form of heat powered generator is going to be required anyway. The overall system will have to be optimized. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter? The cost is cheap if the reactor can produce electricity directly. On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:21 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: The counts for elements of that m value appear quite small when compared to the other elements. Also, why on earth would anyone use such an expensive element if a dirt cheap one can substitute? My suspicion is that this is a dead end idea if production costs are taken into consideration. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 10:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter? On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:34 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Rossi has never mentioned palladium use within his reactors Axil. That is your thought as far as I am aware. I don't know whether Rossi is now using or has used palladium in the past. But one detail in the Lugano report that only became apparent to me much later was that there appears to have been a number of heavy elements in one of the fuel assays in Appendix 3 (see the lower graph, outlined in red). http://i.imgur.com/7RQon11.png Some of these heavier masses were likely to have been compound ions. But it's seems unlikely that 100 percent of them were. Note that palladium overlaps with m=105. Even if palladium were not present, I would not be surprised if one or more heavier elements were. I do not know why this was the only instance in which a graph for m>100 was shown in the appendix. Eric
