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. 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. An accelerometer may also provide data that can be used to determine torque that may be expected from an engine application. 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. 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. 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. Heat output can be neglected. 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. If you have the time, please include an experimental test plan that includes experimental setup and explanation of associated results. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>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? >
