With Regards to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax comment on pre-ionization… The Papp reaction is hard to get a handle on because Papp produced two patents with multiple “Preferred Embodiments.”
Having stated this declaimer up front, as far as I can tell at this juncture, Papp used alpha particle emitting radioactive isotopes to produce "accelerated" alpha emissions when directly exposed to a strong spark discharge. Papp states that this nuclear based sub-reaction generates x-rays that produce the pre-ionization. Note in the Papp patent: The cathode and anode carry the radioactive isotopes. >From the US Patent # 4,428,193 (January 31, 1984) “the gating signal supplied from distributor 135 to unit 121 is also supplied to relay 97A. The current from switching unit 121 and from oscillator 95 also is supplied to the anode and the cathode. It is calculated that this causes radioactive rays (x-rays) to flow between the anode and the cathode, thereby further exciting the gaseous mixture.” As far as I know, this is on the fringe of nuclear science and in fact may not be valid; a science fantasy that Papp invented. Even if this unorthodox use of alpha emission were valid, there are better ways to pre-ionize the spark channel that has been devised since the 80’s. This technique is commonly used in plasmoid generators and nuclear space ion thrusters. This is done by producing x-ray and UV-ray photons, and high energy electrons by simply applying a high voltage pre- spark discharge to condition the primary spark channel to ionize the gas in the small gas filled space between the electrodes. As a practical matter, a commercial Papp engine cannot use large amounts of radio-active isotopes to support the Papp this type of nuclear reaction. There is a 4 ounce limit on possession of Th232 imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to thwart the construction of the U233 bomb. Yes, it would be interesting to experimentally verify that exposing alpha emitters to a spark discharge will produce gas ionizing X-Rays, but it does not further the development of the Papp engine under the current nuclear regulatory environment. By the way, check out David Hahn as an object lesion who deal in radioactive sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn “On August 1, 2007, Hahn was arrested in Clinton Township, Michigan for larceny, in relation to a matter involving several smoke detectors, allegedly removed from the halls of his apartment building. In his mug shot, his face is covered with sores which investigators claim are possibly from exposure to radioactive materials. During a Circuit Court hearing, Hahn pleaded guilty to attempted larceny of a building. The court’s online docket said prosecutors recommended that he be sentenced to time served and enter an inpatient treatment facility. Under terms of the plea, the original charge of larceny of a building would be dismissed at sentencing, scheduled for October 4. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail for attempted larceny. Court records stated that his sentence would be delayed by six months while Hahn underwent medical treatment." https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuZYM7V4NGRdEhPgnJ63clDreYGForfLOAX6tyBBhE3q91L8Ml Cheers: Axil On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 04:21 PM 12/12/2012, Axil Axil wrote: > > The reason why Russ is using so much spark power (500 joules ) is because >> he is following the system that Bob Rohner built which does NOT use >> pre-ionization. >> >> >> > Axil, I'm not particularly interested in why an experimenter did > something, but in what they did and what can be observed to have resulted. > There is an obvious question here: does this Popper produce anomalous > energy? Has *any* Popper (from whomever, following the Papp engine ideas) > ever produced energy? There are reports of Papp engines long ago running > continuously and generating substantial power. Has anything like this been > confirmed, recently? > > If there is no single-cycle XP, we cannot expect it to appear in > multiple-cycle engines. That's the craziness I was pointing to, regarding > the "licensees" believing they were just on the verge of success. Yeah, *if > there are clear, confirmed, single-cycle demonstrations*, then the rush > would be legitimately on to develop an engine with it. What's bizarre is > that rush *without* the simple demonstration. Building an engine is > complicated, and there will be many obstacles and thus many excuses for > failure. But a simple demonstration? > > If a simple demonstration cannot be constructed, there is no basis at all > to conclude that the necessary technology is understood enough to create an > engine. > > There is some phenomenon here of reaction to skepticism. Skeptics demand > running practical devices to believe in the effect, so people rush out to > try to create them. Bad Idea. A real skeptic will be reasonably satisfied > with a conclusive demonstration, regardless if it's a practical engine. It > can be a small effect. It might not even be practical, in which case the > possibility of practicality would still be open, but uncontaminated by any > need to "prove" reality. > > The FPHE might *never* be practical, except as a demonstration of LENR. > But, of course, if it's real, there could be a lot more research needed to > really answer the "practicality" question. As the message that Cold Fusion > is real starts to penetrate outside the peer-reviewed journals that have > allowed publication, as the sober reviews that have concluded there is a > real effect become more broadly known, that research *will* be funded. It's > already happening. > > "Pre-ionization" could represent building up some level of energy storage > in the working plasma. It would simply make the matter more confusion and > less clear. Sure, it's possible that some effect would rise above noise > under these conditions, but, again, there is only one reason I can come up > with to think that there might be a there there. > > That is that John Rohner has made a lot of claims that appear to indicate > he's got a working engine. Plasmerg.com implies that they did a lot of > research on the performance of various gases in producing the power > impulse. But it says *nothing* about energy production, with regard to > those tests. Did they measure power production, or just relative strength > of the impulse? It's looking like, if they did this at all, it was the > latter. It would have been relatively simple to measure energy, but if they > did it, they are not telling us. Nor, I suspect, are they telling their > licensees. > > From many failures to keep his promises, and from the way in which he > interacts and comments on other people, John Rohner isn't to be trusted. > He's got "issues with reality." He reports what he seems to want, as if it > were fact, rather than what is actually happening. It's a not terribly > uncommon disease. We may all do this to some degree. However.... someone > who does this continually and routinely.... > > It seems that Rohner is a persuasive bullshitter. That is, someone has > some question, some concern, perhaps some doubt is arising, and John is > able to respond in a way that the matter seems resolved, without that > actually having happened. John may have an instinctive capacity to come up > with excuses that people will adequately buy for a time. "Well, I suppose > that *could* have actually happened...." > > It seems to be getting thin. Sterling reports that the "Master > Manufacturers" at Powergen met last night, and were "unhappy" with Rohner. > Well, we've heard that before! The real question is whether or not they > will do something about it. Did PPT licensing actually rent all those > booths? If so, that's a large chunk of cash that disappeared from the > company assets ($60,000), making it less likely that these guys will get > something back on their investment. > > You'd think that the money people around John Rohner would realize > something is off. Why did they need all those booths? There is a blatant > grandiosity here, the kind that can bankrupt a company that is dealing with > a real technology, even. > > I predict that Russ will fail, unless he starts to analyze his existing > device instead of moving on to "better." If he makes the device more > complex, he will be making the analysis more complicated and more subject > to error. If he analyzes and carefully measures power output from his > already-made device, from those 500 joule impulses, and finds some XP, he > would sensibly, and first, vary the experimental conditions there to find > the optimum operating point. (He would also attempt to identify prosaic > cause for the XP, and attempt to confirm those.) *Then* he'd develop the > next stage being informed by what he's done. Otherwise he's groping in the > dark. > > People are very appreciative of Russ because he's getting his hands dirty, > and that is indeed to be commended. But that's not enough. Cold fusion > flopped about for years with people trying to make reliable heat. > Scientifically, the field did not shift until Miles did much more than > that: he measured helium as correlated with heat, which can cut through > mountains of BS. And which did. That was a huge amount of work, he had to > run many experiments, at the same time as he was losing funding and > support, and it was difficult, to get published and he faced some serious > -- and seriously silly -- opposition, from no less than Steve Jones, who > never saw a real cold fusion result beyond his own tiny reported effect, > that he didn't dislike. > > Jones, of course, was behind -- the cause of -- the original rush to > announce by Pons and Fleischmann. That whole story is amazing. > >
