This feedback current is an integral part of the Papp reaction. All successful Papp implementations demonstrate current feedback.
Conversely, IMO, this occurrence of the feedback demonstrates a successful Papp reaction. Russ has not installed the coils and the RF yet, or has he optimized the spark. I expect a good deal of progress going forward. On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > I thought so. But why are you conflating the Russ "feedback" with Papp's > original engine? Did Papp get a feedback similar to Russ' and did he feed > that to his second cylinder? Did Papp use hydrogen? which Russ seems to > have discovered is the gas that causes feedback. Russ never got his noble > gas mixture to create feedback that caused his diodes to blow. > > I think it would help if people are more careful to not conflate various > anecdotal evidence. I'm all for the success and/or reality of the Papp > engine, but it is not helpful to our credibility if we start playing loose > with our evidence, especially evidence that is anecdotal. > > As for the patent, we don't really know how it was evaluated. Maybe, the > examiner got caught up with the "noble gas" novelty also that he got > distracted. You can't really say the patent process is foolproof. Just > peruse the hundreds of "overunity" inventions that were granted patents. > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:34 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Open Source Papp Update > > I said "...Papp engine self-powered ...". I was talking about the Papp > engine. This info is in his patent. This was the reson why the Papp engine > exploded in the finemen incident when the power to the controls was removed. > > Papp would not have been issued a patent unless the engine worked. > > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> How did you come to this conclusion? Have I missed a video that Russ >> powered a second opposing cylinder from the feedback of the first? >> >> Are you referring to some other papper engine built by somebody else? >> >> I think you may be guilty again of conflating anecdotal evidence from >> various videos to come to the wrong conclusion. But, I would be very >> much happier if I am wrong. That would only mean we can free ourselves >> from raghead slavery. So, please correct me. >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:58 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Open Source Papp Update >> >> One point about the energy balance that you have not considered is the >> amount of energy contained in the feedback current that Russ is seeing when >> the plasma is relaxing. This current jumped an air gap, blew out all his >> high powered diodes along with his neon light. >> >> This feedback current was strong enough to power the alternate cylinder >> in a two cylinder configuration making the Papp engine self-powered after >> the initial startup excitation. >> Cheers: Axil >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Axil, >>> >>> Russ delivers 1000 joules of energy per spark with his high voltage and >>> huge capacitor banks. If he does this at a continuous rate of 1 spark per >>> second, that would be 1000 Watts of energy delivered/inputted into his >>> papper cylinder. >>> >>> It seems to me that the piston jump of 6 inches with a light weight >>> piston DOES NOT equate to 1000 Watts of power. This does not look like it >>> is overunity. This appears to be just ordinary thermodynamic expansion of >>> the gas due to inputted energy. Nothing appears to be special here. >>> >>> Now, I am willing to be wrong. I do not have the time nor the >>> inclination to watch all his videos from 1 to 11. I watch 9 and 11 >>> partially. In his other videos, did he mention how much the weight of his >>> piston is? If he did, maybe you can calculate the amount of work performed >>> on the piston with a 6 inch travel upwards. This would probably be around >>> 10%-20% efficiency, which would totally be consistent with a thermodynamic >>> expansion cycle of a compressed gas. Seems to me this is nothing more than >>> an internal combustion engine, with the spark providing the raw energy for >>> gas expansion. >>> >>> Funny, but Papp may have found a clever and "magician trick" way of >>> running an internal combustion engine making it appear to be overunity. >>> With the process appearing to work with normal air, and now hydrogen, the >>> noble gas "mixture" may just have been a convenient and effective >>> "magician's sleight of hand technique" to divert attention from his engine >>> just being an ordinary Internal Combustion Engine. Everybody was focusing >>> on the "novelty" of using a certain "magic formula" of noble gases that >>> nobody bothered to check the energy balance. I believe this is what >>> happened. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:58 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Open Source Papp Update >>> >>> Video #11, tends to support my belief that the power, force, and speed >>> of gas expansion is inversely proportional to the duration of the spark. >>> When the duration of the spark is short, the compressive force of the gas >>> grows large. A very short spark is a powerful spark. This powerful spark >>> will produce a powerful and forceful expansion of the gas. >>> >>> To get gas expansion to the maximum, the duration of the spark must be >>> reduced to the minimum duration possible. >>> >>> To optimize gas performance, I recommend a spark rise time under 50 >>> nanoseconds with a very short duration to produce the most powerful >>> explosive and forceful expansion of the gas. >>> >>> Video #11 shows that a continuous high voltage spark does not cause gas >>> expansion, but a short and powerful spark with a very short duration does. >>> >>> It is not the energy that the spark carries in joules. It is how fast >>> this energy is delivered to the gas. >>> >>> This is analogous to how explosives perform. >>> >>> Low explosives are compounds where the rate of decomposition proceeds >>> through the material at less than the speed of sound. The decomposition is >>> propagated by a flame front (deflagration) which travels much more slowly >>> through the explosive material than a shock wave of a high explosive. >>> >>> High explosives are explosive materials that detonate, meaning that the >>> explosive shock front passes through the material at a supersonic speed. >>> >>> Some theory >>> >>> Because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, no two electrons can orbit the >>> atom on the same quantum level. >>> >>> Electron degeneracy pressure is a particular manifestation of the more >>> general phenomenon of quantum degeneracy pressure. The Pauli Exclusion >>> Principle disallows two half integer spin particles (fermions, that is >>> electrons) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state. The >>> resulting emergent repulsive force is manifested as a pressure against >>> compression of matter into smaller volumes of space. >>> >>> Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism >>> that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter. >>> >>> When electrons are squeezed too close together, the exclusion principle >>> requires them to have different energy levels. To add another electron to a >>> given volume requires raising an electron's energy level to make room, and >>> this requirement for energy to compress the material appears as a pressure. >>> >>> A big spark packs large numbers of electrons into fixed volume in a very >>> short amount of time and the gas explodes due to electrostatic increasing >>> repulsion. >>> >>> At any given instant, the more electrons that are added to a gas, the >>> bigger the gas atoms gets in that fixed timeframe. This causes >>> electrostatic pressure increase as all the atoms of the gas grow bigger at >>> the same fixed instant of time. >>> >>> If the spark pulse is short and powerful enough, an electrostatic shock >>> wave may be produced that may then result in an intense level of >>> compression and electron nuclear screening which then results in associated >>> nuclear reactions. >>> >>> It is well known the lightning produces gamma rays neutrons and >>> transmutation of matter. >>> >>> This electrostatic shock wave may be causing this type of nuclear >>> activity. >>> >>> QED. >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> It's not exactly a proof of principle - and in fact it is closer to a >>>> disproof of principle. >>>> >>>> He gets little to no effect from the Noble gas mixture, but gets an >>>> interesting effect from hydrogen. It is probably a hydrino effect. The >>>> violet color is indicative of UV emission, which is the signature of the >>>> Mill's f/H reaction. >>>> >>>> Papp says over and over that he does not use hydrogen in his mix, and >>>> the >>>> Rohner's agree. Therefore since hydrogen gives a rather strong effect, >>>> and >>>> the Nobel gas mix gives almost none, by comparison, this amounts to a >>>> rather >>>> compelling disproof of principle for Papp and/or a putative NGE. >>>> >>>> Jones >>>> >>>> From: Axil Axil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBWiWftGknI&list=UULuDKTNDFfat7iO7KGE7fQA&in >>>> dex=1&feature=plcp >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
