The construction of the Klostermann test device is not in the proper configuration to test for over unity energy output. For that over unity test, the popper is best to use.
The Papp reaction acts as a kind of capacitor which stores the energy input that has been expended in the production of the spark discharge. Experimentation with the Plasmatron, a device similar to the popper in some particulars if not concept will produce over unity energy output. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-94c1Q6Ms It is reasonable to expect that the feedback current when added to the energy exerted in the vigorous movement of the piston will comfortably exceed over unity energy production expectations. In my opinion, a popper configuration in preference to a cannon is most amenable to a full accounted of all the energy output sources that the Papp reaction may produce. When attacked by the pseudoskeptics, I would suggest to resist any tendency to intimidation but patiently explain all the subtleties involved in the Papp reaction. I am sure that is patience, together with a full command of the subject matter will be effective in protecting LENR from their skepticism. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > Interesting video, but frustrating. > > Klostermann seems like a sweet old guy who is having fun working with the > Papp concept. He's done all kinds of things, but the type of cannon he has > built, and that we saw firing so many times, could easily be arranged so > that energy output is measured. > > He's planing on using a government design for an electric generator, and > predicts power output, etc., yet he's not done the most basic measurement, > and he acknowledges that, but he seems to imply that it would be expensive. > > No, it would be about as easy as what he's already done, in fact, easier. > The output of his cannon is the kinetic energy of the projectile, and that > is easily measured. If the kinetic energy of the projectile is as we would > expect, less than the energy dumped into the cannon by the ionizatin > sources, then neither would a generator work to generate excess power. Yes, > it would generate power, but less than the electrical power used to operate > it. > > Ruby asked him the question, he didn't answer it. She's very polite and > did not push him. Looks like she's having fun. > > "Marshall Plan" to support this is not going to happen unless someone > shows over unity, convincingly. > > I recommend that Cold Fusion Now stay away from these very shaky > Alternative Energy claims, and stick to LENR. That's where political > support could be useful and effective. > > Otherwise pseudoskeptics, faced with some actual possible breakthrough, > politically, will use support for something ilke the Papp engine to attack > the credibility of the organization. > > > At 12:39 PM 12/31/2012, Ruby wrote: > > > > video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine >> >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=lNSAXbZfnbE<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE> >> >http://www.**youtube.com/watch?v=**lNSAXbZfnbE<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE> >> >> >> >> post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall >> Plan to support this" >> >> http://coldfusionnow.org/**heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-** >> engine-there-should-be-a-**marshall-plan-to-support-this/<http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/> >> >> >> -- >> Ruby Carat >> <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org**>r...@coldfusionnow.org >> Skype ruby-carat >> <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>**www.coldfusionnow.org<http://www.coldfusionnow.org> >> > >
