A simplified experiment is the most elegant, the most understandable, and the most convincing.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is wise to suggest that the pressure of air compression by the piston in the popper is best removed as an experimental variable. His astute suggestion about the addition of weight resistive to piston movement in a vertical direction of proper design can greatly simplify the over unity energy experiment for the popper. So sorry please excuse me, why did I not see this wisdom to begin with? See this Khan lecture to see the theory behind the simplest experiment for over unity energy determination that can be executed. http://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/mechanics/v/work-and-energy--part-2 The height that the weighted piston travels upward to a stop determines the output energy of the popper. Unavoidably, the energy associated with the feedback current must be determined and added to the energy imparted to the piston. This experimental approach must be the simplest and cheapest one that can be run to prove over unity energy production. This experiment should be the one first run to evaluate the popper. Cheers: axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 07:34 PM 12/28/2012, Axil Axil wrote: > > 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. >> > > Yes. I think I said the same. But if we know the mass of the piston, and > if a video is taken with a screen behind the piston with calibrations on > it, and time references, it might be simpler. The higher speed the video, > the better. If a computer data aquisition system is being used, the motion > could be captured in any of various ways. > > From the mass and motion, in time, of the pistion, one can calculate the > force and the weight. If the piston is held back by a spring, that force > can be calibrated, etc. > > > 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. >> > > Yes. Or the experiment is run horizontally, as in the advertised popper > kits. A spring is then used to retard the motion. That spring can be > calibrated so that the force exerted for every point of motion is known. > > > An accelerometer may also provide data that can be used to determine >> torque that may be expected from an engine application. >> > > That's premature, not really necessary until it is time to design an > engine, which could be way down the road, and is speculative. The original > purpose of poppers was to compare the results for different formulations of > the operating gas. Great idea. But without knowing the actual energy > released, one doesn't know if there is any effect of value. All one is > getting is relatively good ways of creating an apparent artifact. > > Measure the energy, one will see if one is actually optimizing a real > energy release, or merely getting more efficient at transferring energy > from excitation to piston motion. > > > 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. >> > > That's all what would be considered. That's a relatively complicated way > to do it. A simpler way is to make the piston heavy enough -- put weight on > the top -- so that it doesn't reach the stops. Let it free fly, only > deaccelerated by gravity -- or a spring that is calibrated. > > > 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. >> > > Yes. > > > 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. >> > > Yes. The basic claim, though, is that there is *lots* of energy being > released. How accurate one must be in measuring input power, then, is a > question. The more accurate, the better, and lots of Free Energy > demonstrations seem to depend on faulty estimations of input power. The > Naudin MAGH study is a totally blatant example. Really, really > embarrassing, but the *most* embarrassing thing is that Naudin never said, > "Oops! What was I thinking! Sorry guys! I won't do that again!" > > Pons and Fleischmann screwed up on neutron measurments, but they retracted > their report. That's what a real scientist does when they make a mistake. > They correct the record, as soon as possible. Since a real scientist is > *trying to falsify their conclusions*, they will eagerly investigate it. > Yes, human beings often do otherwise, but ... that's when we are not > scientists, we have gotten trapped in belief. > > > Heat output can be neglected. >> > > Apparently. If really accurate measurements are to be made, some > measurement of heat might be needed. But are these experiments worth the > effort? > > The default with claims like this should be No. *However,* it is a > community obligation to leave the door open to the unknown, so some level > of credence should be allowed any at-all-credible report. I'll note that > Feynman spent his time to attend a Papp demonstration. Unfortunately, he > seems to have been a bit too eager to debunk. Tragically so. In a way, I > don't blame him, and I blame Papp for making such a dangerous engine, with > no protection against power failure. Papp was crazy, part of the problem. > > > 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. >> > > Aw, c'mon, Axil. Russ could take some simple measures that would provide > basic data. It doesn't have to be perfect. Yes. It could be quite cheap, at > least a first pass. Doing this perfectly could be expensive, but *that's > not necessary.* > > > If you have the time, please include an experimental test plan that >> includes experimental setup and explanation of associated results. >> > > I don't, and given that I've seen nothing but hot air about this cool > engine, I'm not exercised to create the time. It would be a lot of effort. > I would be willing to communicate with Russ or anyone, to brainstorm > experimental techniques, but, Axil, you seem to be missing something. > > Russ is, unless he actually looks at power generation, wasting his time. > He could fix that if he wants to. Not difficult. Instead of demanding a > detailed plan that would take a lot of time to put together, and that would > require information that I do not have, why not work with Russ? Actually > help him? > > I'm saying that theoretical explanations for power that may not exist are > not terribly useful. That's all. > > I'm assuming that Russ really wants to make a contribution, instead of > just creating video fans, he may need to listen to these concerns. Maybe > he's already doing that, Russ is a bit long-winded, but, hey, he's not the > only one. Except I would *never* do this with a video! I hope. > > (I've stopped watching his videos, because they take too much time. I'd > read a transcript, no problem.) > > >> >> >> >> Cheers: Axil >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto: >> a...@lomaxdesign.com>a**b...@lomaxdesign.com <a...@lomaxdesign.com>> 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? >> >> >
