You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News > October
Russ Gries runs Bob Rohner's Noble Gas Popper replication on Hydrogen
Hydrogen is not a noble gas, yet it appears to provide significant work
in the plasma-based piston that Russ Gries has built. Gary Hendershot reminds us
that hydrogen gas is easy to heat and expands readily, and that could be what is
causing this effect, not plasma.
|CAUTION: (from Russ)
"What we are doing is very dangerous and should not be played with as
a toy. Do not attempt unless you know what you're doing. If oxygen gets
inside that chamber it's very possible it could explode."
Pure Energy Systems News
Russ Gries over at RWG Research has posted
a video on his very active video channel, in which he shows himself running his
replica of Bob Rohner's noble gas "Popper" on hydrogen gas.
Hydrogen is not a noble gas, and is highly combustible.
Russ shows an upward mechanical force being produced each time he fires the
system, apparently from a plasma state of hydrogen, rather than from combusting
it. The hydrogen is not in a mixture with oxygen that would be conducive to
Since he is using the Bob
Rohner set-up, I presume that the way he loaded the cylinder was to create a
vacuum then add the nominally pure hydrogen, so the resulting pressure was
around 1 atmosphere.
And with this set-up, he is able to fire it repeatedly without replenishing it each time.
If there were any combustion taking place, the gases would be consumed during the
first firing. I would estimate that in the 36 minute video, he fires it maybe 200
times, all from the same volume.
Not only does the firing cause the piston to move up about 4-5 inches, but it
causes the 70+ pound set-up to jump. He also places a small mass on top of the
piston, showing that the firing of the piston causes the mass to shoot upward
about 3-4 feet. Then he puts his weight on the piston by grabbing onto it with
one hand, and shows that it still jumps upward when he fires it.
I think it is safe to say that in this arrangement, he has shown that combustion
could not be what is causing the mechanical movement. It would appear that the
hydrogen going into a plasma state is what is causing the mechanical movement.
We're not sure yet, but he may have discovered a new phenomenon that has never
before been observed or reported.
He also said that hydrogen works much better in this apparatus than any of the
noble gasses he has tried. But he hasn't had the full assortment of gasses to
Gary Hendershot of the SmartScarecrow
Show points out that hydrogen absorbs heat readily, and expands upon heating,
and the metal cylinder could readily dissipate that heat. (At the end of the
testing, Russ measured the temperature of the cylinder to be 88°F). So he
doesn't think that plasma-based work is the definite explanation here, though he
does think this is worth further investigation.
Here's his video.
I would like to applaud Russ for his excellent technique and attention to
detail. He certainly is deserving of the assistance he solicits on his
sites. He deserves to be working full time, with assistants.
Of course, I'm delighted to see his support of the open source approach, sharing
his data and protocol as he develops it.
This is but one of many projects he's tackled. His list of open source projects
include: Stanley Meyers water fuel cell, the 'infinity' motor/generator,
Voltzilla EV motorcycle, automatic pulse fire sequence generator, Lenz lawless
generator, vortex based math research, power supply build, magnetic tester,
Bedini charger system, Burn-o-meter, Electrolysis Rods, Stirling engine, Toroid
coil winder, Commutacar EV, Edward Leedskanin TPU, Mini rail gun, Gap-power
replication, K-nex structure.
Russ wrote in response to what I detailed above:
Thanks for the plug. Something interesting is happening here, that's for sure.
Also first note, the mass it's lifting is 70+ LB ( thought it was 30lb) I could not even hold it up on the scale with one hand. I just have a spring scale here...
Also, this may be a replica of Bob's set up, but all the circuits and unit measurements are my own creation. I just used Bob's videos as reference. Bob did not give me any circuits or drawings of the device. I only used what I [have] seen in his videos and used it as a reference.... Just an FYI. I have been in contact with Bob and want to say [that] without his videos, I would not be here. There is enough info in his videos to get this far.
All the videos leading up to this one should be noted; just send them to this page:
I will also be doing a show with Gary on the 11th of this month.
Then, on October 02, 2012 3:09 AM [MDT] he wrote:
The most important thing for other readers to know is that I'm just showing what I have, so others can expand on it. I do not know just yet what is going on in the system. Sharing knowledge for free is going to be the only way to make a change on this planet.
It's not about greed or self righteousness. We all need to work as one, all egos aside. This is how things get done. And we as a human race, we can make this place we call home a better place to be.
Also a note to the reader, this is something I do in my "spare time", what ever that is. Lol. I would love to do this full time; but for now, it is what it
is. I'm trying to find a way to save money so I can spend more time with my family, and less time working to pay for over priced items that are needed to make a living.
Every project I do is funded by individual people that are willing to pitch in and see what we can come up with. I'm a reporter/researcher, trying to prove that the technologies people present are real and we can use them now. Some are duds, some are useable, and sometimes, we come up with things that were not known or shown.
I do not claim I'll ever come up with an "OU" device. But one thing is for sure: I have the drive to make a change. If we can make a system work within the 90% efficiency range, then we are going good. Saving money is earning money.
I tell all my followers the same thing in every video, "I can not do it alone;
no one can"; so I'm open for all the help I can get. Sometimes I'm overwhelmed with help and I'm grateful for it.
Every one has a "gift" so whatever it is, whether its helping moderate the forums, helping design Electronics, or just researching some theories, one does not need money to help, but some are blessed with money. Use your gift, whatever it is. Most know what that is. I can whip up about anything with anything. Use your resources, they are all around us.
"Be the change you want to see."
If we all just think change will happen, you will be left behind. We all must work together to make a change.
"Knowledge is power."
Give and be given, this is the way of the future. Share your experiences with others so they can learn from you. And they may even teach you something.
Last (but always first on the list), I want to thank God, as he has given me the
gift I share with you. I was given a gift, and I share it freely with you, so
you can learn what I know. I hope you will do the same.
And in the comments section below, Mark
Dansie wrote: (slightly edited)
Russ is an excellent experimenter, and I am one of his biggest fans.
Hopefully with some guidance, he will be able to measure energy in vs. energy out, which Bob seems a little reluctant to do.
I am sure Mark E. will be talking about the science on this one, including where the heat is going. (Helium has a lot to do with this.) Basically, you are rapidly expanding the gas and it contracts when the energy is dissipated, through mechanical work, conduction and convection. I think you will also find some more exotic process being involved with the dissipation. Once it dissipates, the gas contracts as expected.
The real trick is getting a crank to be able to rotate 360 degrees continuously, and generate enough power to complete another cycle, closed looped. This, of course, could be done without a crank, using a linear generator and perhaps harvesting some of the EMF pulse. This, to date, has not been accomplished, and no device has been demonstrated to run without an outside power source or assistance.
I am yet to be convinced by anyone (hopefully Russ, you prove me wrong) that there is any excess energy that can be harvested that is greater than what is being put in.
I take my hat of to Russ. He is the type of experimenter, along with people like Zero Fossil Fuel, that should be supported and listened to, as they are about finding the truth and doing things properly.
They are not about hype. They are not about making claims, but to report their finding and data to help others, and progress many of the technologies they replicate and develop. They are about truth and honesty.
Five Stars from me, Russ. You are truly a person whose enthusiasm, quest for knowledge and understanding should be highly commended.
I hope to meet up with you, Russ, one day on my travels. I am interested in many of your projects.
Then, Mark Euthanasius gave the following input: (slightly edited)
It's a neat experiment. I think what Russ is doing is great. What he has shown is so far consistent with established physics.
- He strikes an arc through the hydrogen.
- Once the hydrogen arcs, the large capacitor bank discharges.
- The extremely rapid heating sends an acoustic shock wave through the cylinder, which is what accelerates the piston so rapidly.
- The capacitors discharge in some number of milliseconds, limited by the wiring.
- Two things are then important: The shock wave dissipates through reflections, and the input impulse is gone.
- This removes the force pushing the piston upward. Now the pressure inside the vessel is below 1 ATM, because of the piston extension.
- The external air pressure in the room then forces the piston to rapidly return.
When Russ fired the system on auto, the initial extension was longer than the subsequent throws, because the capacitors did not fully recharge, and/or the hydrogen inside the cylinder was heated, reducing the temperature difference that drives each shock wave.
Russ's meters blow up from induced EMF. The rapid current build-up and collapse each generate large dB/dt gradients. These induce voltage across the electrodes which is rippling back through his system.
Note to Russ: Protect your meters with a bilateral Transzorb device, or disconnect the meters when firing.
Overall, these experiments are lots of fun.
Bob Rohner wrote:
Russ should be congratulated on his efforts to verify my procedures. He is an
experimentalist. He is also open and honest in all his presentations, a quality
refreshing nowadays. I had, of course, hoped to see if the Inteligentry
"popper" could be
made to operate. Ample evidence of my setup is already posted. [...]
Regarding the hydrogen gasses, as I stated at the Tesla show, the popper will
about anything. Our hydrogen experiments yielded the same power efficiency
with inert gas mixtures but only at a large increase in voltage levels. Since
input is a function of the voltage squared, even the smallest increases will
the results. A similar result can be obtained with air at even more voltage.
Russ now needs to configure a rapid and repeatable setup for measuring I/O and
work on data logging. Gap changes, Gas Mixes, Voltage levels, Input Pressure, RF
Radiation, and Recovery Power; all logged against the Output. It is the
tells the tale. From experience, really excitable power outputs often come from
inefficient power inputs. For instance, Russ is showing a 738 J input - the
mechanical output would require lifting a 900 pound weight approximately 4 in.
the cylinder pressurization. This is not meant to criticize, it is meant
It would be nice if we could work together but I am not a believer in open
sourcing. It is,
in my opinion, a means to allow the rich to steal technology without investing
time, or energy. None of my material would be on the web without protection.
And on October 03, 2012 3:06 AM [MDT] Russ replied
I want so say thank you to Bob for his kind words and response. I have the upmost respect for his work.
To clear some comments up, Bob has directly given me some guidance on about 3% of what I have shown in my videos. The rest I have done on my own or with the help of members of the forums.
Bob dose not want to go open source and I do not what to give his "secrets" away, so the Limited information from him I'm ok with and is a good thing, when I learn on my own I then can give all the information away with out worry of "braking bonds", the last thing I want to do is step on others toes and hard work. I have addressed this with Bob and he has been extremely kind about it.
I have decided to walk the path of replicating what he has shown for 2 main reasons,
1. He has shown a working device, (proof of concept) whether you believe it of not, the goal for me is to prove it for my self. And then show others so they can expand on it. the information provided in his videos is priceless. There is a HUGE amount of information in his videos if you take the time to look at the details.
2. Bobs popper setup is well engineered and there is enough information in his videos to fully replicate the mechanical side of his set up. Why reinvent the wheel. This device is not going to give us the efficiencies one would expect. As
Bob stated, this is a test set up.
The circuit is really the major factor, and even that is some what exposed in his videos. I have what I think is the equivalent of his circuit, (the basics) there are differences but I think it's close enough to show results. Time will tell. There is still more to do, but we got to start some where.
Again, I want to stress that I have the upmost respect for Bob and i am thankful for his presence.
I do not clam I have found any thing new, but until it is exposed, others will never be informed. I'm just trying to inform!
Lastly, Mark Dansie commented "often it's not the destination that's important, but the journey it's
I could not agree more, live and learn and have fun! If it's not fun! It ant worth doing! ;)
On the statement of "plasma" I do think that plasma or the transition of plasma is doing the work, and that is what Papp was doing. So to me this is a start to prove to my self that the plasma transition can do work, now we just need to find the best way to make it happen with minimal amount of energy.
I also will agree with Bob on the amount of energy to get this to work is way above what we would want in a real application.
So far my tests have shown that the hydrogen has shown the best result with my current setup and tests. I just got started on trying different mixtures and gasses.
For those who want data...
There is a lot of factors here, but so far...
Started with 981.87 Joules of energy, after it popped, I had 509 joules of energy still reserved, (on average to mammy variables still)
So the work preformed used 472.87 joules of energy with out capturing any of the lost energy of the EMP or mechanical work being done.
There is also losses in how my current system works. So this is just an idea of the energy input...
Good data loggers and other precise test equipment is out of my price range, so the hard way around is coming. Long test runs and Manual data logging will need to be done for more data, which I will be doing.
Thanks for all the support and positive responses.
Inteligentry Patent Status: Non-Final Rejection
In other noble gas engine news, Mark Euthanasius brought to my attention that on September 18, 2012, the U.S. Patent Office issued a non-final rejection of Inteligentry's one and only published patent application. The associated rejection letter explaining the rejection has not posted yet.
John Rohner replied on October 02, 2012 9:03 AM [MDT]:
I have copied it to our attorney for further action and maybe a
"challenge" to your web page.
I suggest you "verify" what you publish. And understand that
journalists of repute always verify any story or they get sued.
To get to this information, use the following procedure:
- Go to: https://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
- Satisfy the captcha challenge.
- Click the bottom radio button for publication number, and enter
- See "Transaction History" tab. Also, the image file
wrapper will let you view each document.
||Mail Non-Final Rejection
||Information Disclosure Statement considered
||Date Forwarded to Examiner
||Response to Election / Restriction Filed
John replied, in part:
It is a normal part of the negotiation process and only means that some
small element is being "challenged". We will now counter that
challenge and go to the next step. We may even give up the element to get the
rest, and in patent filings you always build in such things.
Mark Euthanasius replied:
About the only thing that John is right about is that the rejection is non-final. Claims battles can go on for years. Some like the original microprocessor patent went on for more than a decade. What is important is that:
- The rejection is for prior art.
- The rejection is of all claims.
- The Papp part of the prior art cited is stuff that John's application lifted nearly verbatim.
The restriction that led to the divisional, IE splitting out claims 15 and 16 to another patent speaks to sloppiness in the original composition along the same lines as the now recurrent problems with the drawings.
John's idea of reality is unique. Your posting stated the patent office action exactly as it is reported by the patent office. John is no doubt so angry because at this point, his one and only published application is on life support. Other than that, John is playing his usual role as a bully. I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, it is only my observation: I have never heard of a successful defamation action where the damaging statements were true.
# # #
What You Can Do
- Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
- Click to Tweet: https://clicktotweet.com/yq8fg
- Donate to PES Network
to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
- Subscribe to our newsletter
to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy
- Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of