A face-palm moment. Trying to bring an engine to market based on no known physics, with no published complete data, is little short of insane. From a known effect to a practical mass application can take a very long time. From an unknown effect, forget about it. The basic work must be done first.
Sure, if you can pull it off, amazing. But I, for one, won't be holding my breath. Selling a demo "popper," brilliant idea, actually. If you can't get a popper to show XP, and engine is impossible. If an XP effect can be shown, it can be studied, and this can become confirmed knowledge, and an engine is *probably* possible, even if it takes years. But the popper kit is being sold without there being published data on operation. As noted, it should be simple to measure stroke input and output power. So why don't we have this data? My guess, and it is just a guess, it's because there is no there there. We should know soon, there are probably enough honest and careful people trying this. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:13 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > That was an interesting video, but no attempt was made to measure output > energy compared to input energy as far as I could tell. That is the kind of > information that we need if we are to accept that it works. > > It is my suspicion that this type of machine behaves more like an electric > motor than a heat engine and of course electric motors put out less > mechanical energy than they require electric energy for drive. Also, > Electric motors run moderately warm due to high efficiency which is similar > to the claims of Papp. > > I was considering a test that would demonstrate excess output energy of a > single cylinder experiment if it appears. Place a calibrated weight such as > 10 kilograms on the piston rod and fire the engine. Carefully measure the > heigth that the weight reaches before it begins to fall back and then > calculate the net change in potential energy. Charge up the capacitors to a > know energy level and derive the small energy required to fire the spark gap > from this charge. Power should be disconnected from the capacitor bank prior > to the drive pulse. It should be easy to calculate the energy stored within > the capacitor bank both before and after the weight has been shot into the > air. Determine how much electrical energy was drawn from the capacitor bank > and compare it to the potential energy acquired by the weight. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:58 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has >> been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the same >> level of proof for the Papp devices? > > Nothing solid, but there's an interesting video of a Papp replication linked > to in a post from Puppy Dog that seems to be doing real work: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg71223.html > > Eric >
