Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:50 AM 12/12/2012, Eric Walker wrote:

I think it is Bob Rohner's company that has the 
kits, and he appears to be making them 
available, contrary to John Rohner's wishes, 
if I remember correctly. Â It also looks like 
Bob Rohner's kit is the one that Russ Gries is 
testing out in the youtube videos [1]. Â I also 
believe it was Bob Rohner that demonstrated a device to Michael McKubre.


[1]Â 
http://pesn.com/2012/10/02/9602199_Russ_Gries_runs_Bob_Rohners_Noble_Gas_Popper_replication_on_Hydrogen/


The original kit was offered by John Rohner, and 
Russ bought one, and decided the information with 
it was completely inadequate. There are lots of 
details to cover to accurately report on all this "news."


I see no sign in the PESN page cited that 
Rohner's company "has the kits." Rather, Russ 
followed Bob Rohner's "procedures." Very 
explicitly, Russ claims that only 3% of what he did came from Bob Rohner.


There is something totally frustrating about 
Russ's reports. He's operating a Popper, and 
generating some considerable force with it. But 
he's also got a capacitor bank discharging into 
the thing. He dumped, in a single "pop," almost 
500 Joules into it. There is *no* information 
that can allow the calculation of work done by 
that piston. We have no idea if there is any XP at all.


A joule would lift 100 grams a meter. Suppose the 
weight and the piston are 10 kg.


500 Joules, efficiently transferred, could lift 
them a half-meter, more than enough.


Michael McKubre was present at the Tesla 
conference where Bob Rohner demonstrated his own 
popper, and where Plasmerg announced the John 
Rohner Popper kit. I've seen nothing from McKubre 
that would represent a validation of the Papp 
engine, only some comment that there might be 
something interesting happening. And that's 
obvious. After all, I spent many hours 
researching Papp on the web. Interesting. And 
apparently seriously crazy, that submarine affair was a doozy.


Yet all this was interesting enough that Feynman 
attended a Papp demonstration. Feynman pulled the 
plug. Originally, he pulled it with Papp's 
permission, but then delayed handing it back as 
Papp became more and more frantic. And then the 
thing exploded. Feynman had, rather obviously, 
shut down the control system. There were attempts 
made to claim that Papp had deliberately exploded 
his device, but not only does that seem thin as 
hell, under those conditions, Caltech did pay a 
settlement to the family of the deceased. I'm 
sure there was an investigation, and explosives would leave traces.


This may have been the saddest incident of Feynman's life.

McKubre is a real scientist, a professional. He 
does not rule things out on theoretical grounds. 
If he runs calorimetry or an energy balance study 
on this or something else, we can trust it. When 
John Rohner attacks "MM", I think he means McKubre.

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[7323fu...@gmail.com]

FYI:
See: http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=659&page=56
Copy below:

 Today, 12:26 AM
Post: #1120
Chan Offline
Junior Member
**
Posts: 20
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 0
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Let's build A "Popper" Noble Gas Engine AKA Ppap Engine.
Russ,
Papp dissociates deoxygenated water to produce
a corona containing "atomic" hydrogen and applies
a burst of electrons via capacitors to create a
plasma of H + - => H- which rapidly expands because
of electrostatic repulsion.
RWG dissociates H2 to produce a corona containing
"atomic" hydrogen and applies
a burst of electrons via capacitors to create a
plasma of H + - => H- which rapidly expands because
of electrostatic repulsion.
Congratulations! That is a patentable discovery.
It's all about explosive bursts into high energy
plasma, shall we say clouds. You did this. Please
do not neglect chamber shape (Toroids Referenced)
electromagnet field influences and radio frequency
injection. Electronics are important but of a
secondary nature, mostly already studied and
solved by yourself.
May God continue to guide you and nurture your
gifts to proceed to even more fundamental
discoveries.
Chan

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

They could say so. But what they actually do is to claim that they have
> something already. They actually did have Popper kits. The question is
> whether or not they worked, that is, sure, they might "pop." the piston
> would move, perhaps. But how much energy went into compression and/or the
> spark activation, compared to how much work was done moving the piston?
> I've seen no analysis.
>

I think it is Bob Rohner's company that has the kits, and he appears to be
making them available, contrary to John Rohner's wishes, if I remember
correctly.  It also looks like Bob Rohner's kit is the one that Russ Gries
is testing out in the youtube videos [1].  I also believe it was Bob Rohner
that demonstrated a device to Michael McKubre.

Eric


[1]
http://pesn.com/2012/10/02/9602199_Russ_Gries_runs_Bob_Rohners_Noble_Gas_Popper_replication_on_Hydrogen/

RE: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Abd:

 

...

 

> What we have is Sterling Allen, who cut John Rohner a lot of slack.

> And who is now about as negative as I can imagine him getting.

> 

>  
http://pesn.com/2012/12/10/9602241_Inteligentry_Egg-on-Face_PowerGen/

 

Yeah, I just read Sterling's report. IMO, Sterling is competent enough to
make an assessment of Mr. Rohner's intentions.

 

I think Mr. Rohner is sincere in what he believes. But sincerely deluded.

 

I think Sterling hit it on the nail. What I see is an incredibly deluded
individual. I think Mr. Rohner has managed to cocoon himself within a
glittering fantasy world of his own making, a fantasy where he imagines he
has truly developed a free energy device. It's an exciting fantasy, if only
it were true. When I first looked at John Rohner's website, particularly the
long rambling streams of text, the first thing that hit me was an
overwhelming feeling that I was reading nothing more than pure and
unadulterated bullshit. Much of what's portrayed is but a long conscious
stream of Rohner's fantasies being playing out.

 

For a while I, too, thought I had developed a "free" energy device.  I gotta
tell ya, it's one hell of a psychic aphrodisiac - to honestly believe that
one has developed something as incredible as a free energy machine.
Suddenly, I felt a huge responsibility to get my "mission" completed before
I died. One certainly doesn't want to be accidentally run over by a truck,
not before I had accomplished a major mission in life! Alas, when my bubble
was finally popped (and fortunately for me I did the popping myself!), it
was quite the slam dunk! It was an incredible learning experience. Painful,
but in the end, worth it.

 

There's are deep lessons in all of this. It's not just Rohner's lessons,
which he is currently avoiding. It's the lessons of everyone else who have
chosen to hitch a ride on Rohner's imaginary coattails. Some will graduate.
Some won't.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:42 PM 12/11/2012, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

Just to be clear on something I recently opined. It’s one thing to
express a personal opinion of extreme doubt and suspicion, as I have
recently done. It’s quite another thing to assume one’s personal
opinion is the correct one that other’s should emulate.


Sure. However, I've just pointed to the obvious.


If there is the slightest chance that this outfit has something valid,
I do not wish to in any impede them (financially or politically) in
their efforts to bring such a new technology out into the open.


There is some chance that there is something 
valid about the Papp engine. It's a serious 
mystery. Papp was an enigma, clearly crazy as 
well. However, he did some demonstrations. It's 
always possible they were thoroughly rigged. It's 
simply never been demonstrated. Some 
knowledgeable and not-naive people have been 
impressed. Which doesn't prove anything, because 
a sophisticated con, in demonstrations that are 
not thoroughly open, can fool anyone.


That's why we want independent demonstrations. 
Some want fully-independent ones, but 
demonstrations using a kit or the like, supplied 
by the inventor, can be possible, as long as 
those examining the thing can *fully* investigate the kit!



OTOH, simply based on just the general appearance they exude… and aall
I know is that I want to run in the opposite direction as fast as I
can. I’m left with a subjective impression that what this all seems to
boil down to is: “We need more money to get our baby off the ground”.
Maybe they do… maybe they truly do.


They could say so. But what they actually do is 
to claim that they have something already. They 
actually did have Popper kits. The question is 
whether or not they worked, that is, sure, they 
might "pop." the piston would move, perhaps. But 
how much energy went into compression and/or the 
spark activation, compared to how much work was 
done moving the piston? I've seen no analysis.



But not with my money. It wouldd be
useful to locate a competent individual or organization that has
performed due-diligence on this outfit. Does such an animal exist?
Would they willing to go on the record and express what they have
surmised?


What we have is Sterling Allen, who cut John 
Rohner a lot of slack. And who is now about as 
negative as I can imagine him getting.


http://pesn.com/2012/12/10/9602241_Inteligentry_Egg-on-Face_PowerGen/

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[James Bowery]

This guy checked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHn5gTtLGkc

the technology cited at:

http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html

which was cited by:

http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/Forming.html

item 12

He apparently didn't want to release his technology because "it would harm
the world economy".  The legendary Chevrolet El Camino was not available to
be shown because his "wife made him encase it in concrete".


Now, you might say that this is a case of simply going after a weak
argument when there are many other strong arguments, so I'm being unfair.

However, this is the first argument I investigated that Chan presented.
 Bad luck?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Cy Cle  wrote:

>
>
>
> Answer at bottom:
>
> James Bowery
> Wrote on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:07:00 -0800
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Cy Cle  wrote:
> > No working Papp engine will be displayed or videos shown. It has not
> been
> > replicated as yet. Rohner brothers do not understood the mechanisms of
> > Papp's engine. Perhaps they should try to contact Chan.
> >
>
> 1) How would Chan know?
> 2) Your statement, as fact, that no working Papp engine will be
> displayed or videos shown at the PowerGen conference contradicts very
> specific, explicit and statements to the contrary by the
> Intelligentry/PTP Licensing folks.  This goes beyond "puffery" --
> well beyond.  It doesn't matter whether they have subsequently
> deleted such statements from electronic media (or not).  Do you
> have specific information not available to the rest of us, other
> than your confidence in your physical theory?
>
> See Chan comments on Dec 10 at:
> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=659&page=56
> Take note of the references he cited listed below:
> http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/
> http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/Forming.html
> http://file.seekpart.com/keywordpdf/2011/5/21/201152135132261.pdf
>
> All is available but lazy windbreakers never check.
> If the shoe fits, wear it.
>
> Always on the Beat
>

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Cy Cle]

   Answer at bottom:James Bowery Wrote on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:07:00 -0800On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Cy Cle  wrote:  > No working Papp engine will be displayed or videos shown. It has not been > replicated as yet. Rohner brothers do not understood the mechanisms of > Papp's engine. Perhaps they should try to contact Chan. >1) How would Chan know?  2) Your statement, as fact, that no working Papp engine will be displayed or videos shown at the PowerGen conference contradicts very specific, explicit and statements to the contrary by the Intelligentry/PTP Licensing folks.  This goes beyond "puffery" -- well beyond.  It doesn't matter whether they have subsequently deleted such statements from electronic media (or not).  Do you have specific information not available to the rest of us, other than your confidence in your physical theory?See Chan comments on Dec 10 at:http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=659&page=56Take note of the references he cited listed below:http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/ http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/Forming.htmlhttp://file.seekpart.com/keywordpdf/2011/5/21/201152135132261.pdfAll is available but lazy windbreakers never check. If the shoe fits, wear it.Always on the Beat

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

>
> Yeah. I would assume that Jed is using another approach. That is a
> charitable activity. It is definitely *not* a profit-making business.
>

Actually, LENR-CANR.org has no legal existence at all. It is informal.
However, I get some money from the New Energy Foundation. About half my
expenses, which are $6,000 to $10,000 per year. It is up the New Energy
Foundation to keep things square with Uncle Sam. I doubt anyone would say
my activities fall outside of what they are allowed to fund.

I had to deal with the IRS years ago before the New Energy Foundation was
founded, back when it was Gene and me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Inteligentry announced this Popper kit, earlier this year, with a 
huge fanfare, to allow people to test the technology. Great idea, really.


What happened? http://www.plasmerg.com/kits.html

Currently, the page says that the original kit is not available. Not 
to worry, it is being replaced with a Better Kit.


The Better Kit will be available, it's promised, at the CES show, January 8.

Did anyone build and test the kit and show energy generation?

Not reported. Instead, the plasmerg page cited, like many pages 
produced by this man, is full of attacks on others, and confident 
plans to Defeat Them!


This is beyond "Bad Feeling."

There are a series of entrepreneurs in the "alternative energy" field 
who are, even their supporters sometimes freely acknowledge. Crazy as a Loon.


The kit page has a huge amount of detail that is totally irrelevant 
to the Kit. He makes the point that the kit isn't an "engine." That's 
right. So what is all that information doing there about his engine controller?


This is the situation: if there is no energy produced in a single 
cycle in the popper, and that could rather easily be measured, there 
is nothing on which to base an engine. After all, an engine like this 
is merely a series of "pops". If each one is not producing energy, 
the collection of them is not.


That's why most of us involved with cold fusion aren't focusing on 
devices that produce massive energy. It's dangerous, for starters, 
until the reactions are well understood. A small device that produces 
a little power could generally be, in principle, scaled up. But 
first, *is there any effect to scale up?*


The Popper Kit was a great idea, if the effect behind it were real, 
and the Popper, studied carefully, would show that. We must strongly 
suspect that it did *not* show that, and that is the default 
explanation for why the kit was cancelled. It makes no business 
sense. The kits were being sold at a price that should have more than 
covered expenses and a quite decent profit. I've proposed 
demonstration kit sales for many technologies.


Some sort of need to improve technology to make it "practical" is 
often asserted. It's a total red herring. If one cannot make and sell 
a demonstration kit, one does not have a technology that is even 
close to ready for commercial application. Kits can be sold for 
investigational use. They can come with all kinds of warnings about 
risk. They don't even have to be particularly reliable, if this is 
disclosed -- and if a kit is cheap, basically, it might well be 
disclosed that one must run N of these to have M% chance of seeing results.


Kits are a fast way to share developing technology.

But I don't think Plasmerg/Inteligentry actually has a developing 
technology. If they did, their behavior would make no sense.


No, there is a default hypothesis that can't just be set aside here: 
John Rohner is nuts.


This is a basic question about the Popper. Was the Popper capable of 
demonstrating the effect? If so, it was useful and it makes no sense 
to stop selling it. If not, then *why was it sold in the first place? 
Did they ever test it? Do they sell stuff without having tested it? 
If so, can they be trusted *at all*?


There is comment on Russ, who has lengthy videos where he talks and 
talks with little substance. Waste of time to watch them. He's 
offered his popper kit for sale. He never tested it. Maybe he 
realized how much work would be involved (the kit is not complete, 
and, good question: why not? Could that be to actually discourage 
testing? An incomplete kit may sit and gather dust for a long time, 
maybe forever.)


(I write and write, and sometimes people think it's without 
substance! While I don't think so, I'd never do this with a video, 
because it takes a lot of time to view a video, and my target 
audience for what I write can scan a post of mine in minutes or less. 
Videos can be great, but chatty videos can be *awful* unless one is 
personally enamoured of a speaker.)

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:54 AM 12/11/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
<svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:


I gather "chan.fusion" is accusing Mr. Rothwell of using the lenr-canr
website specifically for the purposes of a tax dodge.


I missed that. This would be the world's worst tax dodge, since it 
costs me a lot more than I can reduce in taxes in the best case. 
This would make about as much sense as the facetious "two for one" 
lottery, where every $2 ticket automatically wins $1.


As it happens, the IRS audited me years ago. A nice woman there 
explained what records I need to keep, and so on. The IRS does not 
care about the nature of a business. I expect you could actually run 
a business evaluating massage parlors. As long as you record 
expenses correctly and people pay you for the information, it is a business.


The only problem I face is when I make no income at all. The IRS 
says that is a hobby.


I think that editing papers and maintaining a web site would be the 
world's most boring hobby.


Jed, it's nonprofit, that's rather obvious. You may be a *writer* for 
profit. And your web site might be considered part of that business, 
so it's not impossible.


You can make no profit at all, for extended times. I posted a link to 
a page that examines the real rules in detail. Some businesses never 
make a profit, but if it can be shown that the goal is the 
*possibility* of profit, it can still be a business. That there is no 
profit in three years out of five, if that's the default standard, 
merely establishes a kind of presumption. It's not a fixed rule.


Yes. There are businesses that evaluate other businesses, they send 
testers. People love these jobs! They go to restaurants and order 
meals and then report how they were treated. They stay in hotels, 
ditto. In theory, a massage parlor might hire them; or they could, 
also, do this completely independently and write reports, and, say, 
sell advertising on a web site with the reports.


The key is conducting yourself as a business, as mentioned. Read the 
link I gave, it does explain more of how the IRS will judge a 
business that does not show a profit, because some don't.


For example, Blacklight Power has probably never shown a profit, so 
far, but I'm quite sure it's considered a business. R&D business is 
specifically considered in the standards for judging. Such business 
is highly speculative and might *usually* fail to find profit. And 
still be a great business idea. Start a hundred of these businesses 
and do it right, you might get very rich indeed. Better have deep 
pockets, though!


The 3/5 rule is an easy default test that is easily judged from tax 
returns. It is by no means conclusive. Basically, if you *do* make a 
profit three out of five years, you *are* a business, unless it were 
shown that the books were being cooked in some way to artificially 
create this impression, and the IRS will rarely look that closely.


Jed, I'd look at your activity as an editor. Are you paid? Even if 
you were paid something small, this could establish your writing as a 
business activity, and then you could deduct expenses, such as 
travelling to conferences. A writer in a field might engage in some 
otherwise nonprofit activity as a correlate with the business, or for 
publicity, for example.


Because lenr-canr.org is clearly a nonprofit activity in itself -- it 
could be incorporated and operated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 
organization, qualified to receive tax-deductible donations -- that 
might be kept separate from your "editing business." I don't know 
enough about your specifics to go beyond this. 

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Just to be clear on something I recently opined. It’s one thing to
express a personal opinion of extreme doubt and suspicion, as I have
recently done. It’s quite another thing to assume one’s personal
opinion is the correct one that other’s should emulate.

If there is the slightest chance that this outfit has something valid,
I do not wish to in any impede them (financially or politically) in
their efforts to bring such a new technology out into the open.

OTOH, simply based on just the general appearance they exude… and all
I know is that I want to run in the opposite direction as fast as I
can. I’m left with a subjective impression that what this all seems to
boil down to is: “We need more money to get our baby off the ground”.
Maybe they do… maybe they truly do. But not with my money. It would be
useful to locate a competent individual or organization that has
performed due-diligence on this outfit. Does such an animal exist?
Would they willing to go on the record and express what they have
surmised?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:44 AM 12/11/2012, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

I gather “chan.fusion” is accusing Mr. Rothwell of using the lenr-canr
website specifically for the purposes of a tax dodge.

Oh, give me a tax break! I think not.


Yeah. I would assume that Jed is using another 
approach. That is a charitable activity. It is 
definitely *not* a profit-making business.


(If it were, he would be much more exposed to 
liability if he errs and puts up a paper without 
explicity copyright owner permission, which can 
happen, given his methods. He depends on author 
assurances, and he's found that actually 
soliciting publisher permission is mostly a waste 
of time. There is no cheese in it for publishers, 
they ignore the requests, even if they don't 
really care. Mostly what Jed posts is preprints 
and most of the publishers allow those. They 
mostly don't allow an actual as-published PDF. 
Krivit takes a different approach, which is also 
sort-of legal: he publishes under a claim of "fair use." Jed does not do this.


Krivit, again, is operating as a noprofit. That 
he might be getting a salary from his organizatioh does not negate that.


Both Krivit and Rothwell can deal with legal 
issues, rather easily, by following the DCMA 
takedown rules. Essentially, if the copyright 
owner objects, take the material down first and 
ask questions later. A for-profit publisher might 
have much more legal responsibility, given the profit motive.


As to operating nonprofit, it's a bit more 
involved, but a nonprofit organization can pay 
expenses. This can also happen without actual 
incorporation, it's merely less solid and more 
likely to be challenged. "Unincorporated association."


There are rules about deducting donations to the 
nonprofit. Jed is asking for donations toward 
expenses. These don't just directly help. If 
there are significant donations not from him, he 
might be more able to deduct his own donations. It can get complicated.


Lenr-canr.org itself is a legitimate nonprofit 
activity. It does not quality as a "business," my guess.


I have no idea of chan.fusion was talking about 
Jed. He certainly was not explicit. 

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[James Bowery]

Actually, if one reads the entire tome JR posted at
http://inteligentry.com/report.html there are a couple of contingencies
that must be met before demonstrations either live or via video:

1) There is the matter of "pending patents" which sets some sort of
contingency that may block demonstration.  It is unclear exactly what
minimum condition must be met here but it could be (in JR's word) "years".

2) There is the matter of manufacturers desiring no release of information
until they have met some sort of contingency.  It is unclear exactly what
minimum condition must be met here, too.

JR's concluding statement:  "*No real hurry really*."

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From James:
>
> > One can read these "optimistic noises with only a day to go" as implying
> > that they are delaying any public demonstration of their engine until
> > January's CES show in Vegas.  It all hinges on the meaning of the phrase
> > "the show" as binding to the temporal context of the PowerGen show -- or
> > binding to the prior paragraph's reference to January's CES show in
> Vegas.
>
> Boy! Do I have a bad feeling about this outfit.
>
> I sure hope I’m proven wrong, but at present I’m inclined not to trust
> them any farther than I could pee upwind.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From James:

> One can read these "optimistic noises with only a day to go" as implying
> that they are delaying any public demonstration of their engine until
> January's CES show in Vegas.  It all hinges on the meaning of the phrase
> "the show" as binding to the temporal context of the PowerGen show -- or
> binding to the prior paragraph's reference to January's CES show in Vegas.

Boy! Do I have a bad feeling about this outfit.

I sure hope I’m proven wrong, but at present I’m inclined not to trust
them any farther than I could pee upwind.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[James Bowery]

One can read these "optimistic noises with only a day to go" as implying
that they are delaying any public demonstration of their engine until
January's CES show in Vegas.  It all hinges on the meaning of the phrase
"the show" as binding to the temporal context of the PowerGen show -- or
binding to the prior paragraph's reference to January's CES show in Vegas.

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:10 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

>  Inteligentry is still making optimistic noises with only a day to go
>
> *Wow!! It looks like we'll be busy with News and Media for several
> months. We are getting invites to other shows as well.!!*
>
> We may take a *big booth* at the *CES* show here in Vegas in January.
> *ANY LICENSEE want to JOIN us?. WARNING, CES is a BIG show*!! This is one
> *of Many* such "*requests*" we are getting from all over the world.
> The funny thing is I only sent out *one* little *video* to a *friend
> of mine* in a *news* organization, on the promise he won't go public with
> it till the show. All of a sudden, we are getting "*calls*", from
> producers, all over the world to *appear* on their programs or allow them
> to do a *video* story about us. *Funny thing* is they all *understand*why we 
> want silence till the show and all are "
> *voluntarily*" adhering to our "*request*".
> See http://www.inteligentry.com/
>

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:

I gather “chan.fusion” is accusing Mr. Rothwell of using the lenr-canr
> website specifically for the purposes of a tax dodge.
>

I missed that. This would be the world's worst tax dodge, since it costs me
a lot more than I can reduce in taxes in the best case. This would make
about as much sense as the facetious "two for one" lottery, where every $2
ticket automatically wins $1.

As it happens, the IRS audited me years ago. A nice woman there explained
what records I need to keep, and so on. The IRS does not care about the
nature of a business. I expect you could actually run a business evaluating
massage parlors. As long as you record expenses correctly and people pay
you for the information, it is a business.

The only problem I face is when I make no income at all. The IRS says that
is a hobby.

I think that editing papers and maintaining a web site would be the world's
most boring hobby.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

I gather “chan.fusion” is accusing Mr. Rothwell of using the lenr-canr
website specifically for the purposes of a tax dodge.

Oh, give me a tax break! I think not.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[7323fu...@gmail.com]

  
  

  Abd
  ul-Rahman Lomax
  Mon,
  10 Dec 2012 19:42:40 -0800

At 08:36 AM 12/10/2012, chan.fusion.po...@gmail.com wrote:


  FYI:
http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/Forming.html
www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P2.pdf

  BTW Trying to pass off LENR as a business when you admit it is
your hobby to avoid paying taxes to the IRS is a ploy
used by the dishonest born or lucky Rich and that is
illegal, JR. Vortex is read by citizens ready to earn
IRS rewards. Just pay your taxes!
  
  Chan



Gaming the system:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg72990.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73002.html
Just pay your taxes!
  


  

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:36 AM 12/10/2012, chan.fusion.po...@gmail.com wrote:

FYI:
http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/Forming.html
www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P2.pdf
BTW Trying to pass off LENR as a business when you admit it is your 
hobby to avoid paying taxes to the  IRS is a ploy used by the 
dishonest born or lucky Rich and that is illegal, JR. Vortex is read 
by citizens ready to earn IRS rewards.  Just pay your taxes!

Chan


This is ridiculous. I have no specific opinion about the sites 
linked, but they don't "admit" that LENR is a hobby.


Sometimes something is both a hobby and an attempt to discover 
something that could make a profit. IRS rules cover this, and require 
that the business be conducted toward earning a profit, or the 
deductions might be disallowed. Generally it is required that a 
business make a profit so many years out of so many.


Someone reporting someone else for allegedly only being engaged in a 
hobby would probably not earn a reward, and incorrectly claiming a 
hobby as a business isn't exactly "illegal," unless it is flagrant, 
and that could be very difficult to prove.


Yeah, I have a business testing massage services. My expenses include 
getting a massage every day, and I carefully record my satisfaction 
and intend to write a report and earn big bucks. Illegal? Probably 
not. Could I get away with it? Maybe, more likely not. But if I could 
show that my behavior was consistent with a profit-making intention, 
this would actually be a business, no matter how much personal 
pleasure I derive from it.


If the IRS could show that I really knew this was a bogus scheme, 
yes, it might even be criminal. But if I actually intended to make a 
profit, even foolishly, and I could present evidence for that, quite 
likely the IRS would not prosecute, and might fail if they tried. It 
can be hard to prove intention.


This site,
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/turning-hobby-into-business-means-tax-breaks.aspx

actually covers how to convert a hobby to a business. The central 
matter is conducing the "business" like a business, the goal of the 
IRS interpretation is to determine if the activity is conducted with 
a goal of profit (even if it doesn't actually make a profit); if so, 
it's a business and income is taxable, and expenses are fully 
deductible from other income. If it's a hobby, expenses are only 
deductible up to the amount of income, you cannot deduct "hobby" 
losses from other income.

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[a.ashfield]

Inteligentry is still making optimistic noises with only a day to go

/*_Wow_!! It looks like we'll be busy with News and Media for several 
months. We are getting invites to other shows as well.!!*/


We may take a /big booth/ at the *CES* show here in Vegas in 
January. *ANY LICENSEE want to JOIN us?. /_WARNING, CES is a BIG 
show_/*!! This is one /of Many/ such "/requests/" we are getting from 
all over the world.
The funny thing is I only sent out *_/one/_* little /video/ to a 
/friend of mine/ in a /news/ organization, on the promise he won't go 
public with it till the show. All of a sudden, we are getting "/calls/", 
from producers, all over the world to /appear/ on their programs or 
allow them to do a /video/ story about us. /_Funny thing_/ is they all 
/understand/ why we want silence till the show and all are 
"/voluntarily/" adhering to our "/request/".


See http://www.inteligentry.com/

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[James Bowery]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Cy Cle  wrote:

> No working Papp engine will be displayed or videos shown. It has not been
> replicated as yet. Rohner brothers do not understood the mechanisms of
> Papp's engine. Perhaps they should try to contact Chan.
>

1) How would Chan know?

2) Your statement, as fact, that no working Papp engine will be displayed
or videos shown at the PowerGen conference contradicts very specific,
explicit and statements to the contrary by the Intelligentry/PTP Licensing
folks.  This goes beyond "puffery" -- well beyond.  It doesn't matter
whether they have subsequently deleted such statements from electronic
media (or not).  Do you have specific information not available to the rest
of us, other than your confidence in your physical theory?

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Cy Cle  wrote:
> No working Papp engine will be displayed or videos shown. It has not been
> replicated as yet. Rohner brothers do not understood the mechanisms of
> Papp's engine. Perhaps they should try to contact Chan.

Hmmm, so what's the point?

Anyway, they have a lot of floor space for vaporware but it's all the
way in the back on the right.  I guess that's where they put the free
energy section . . . near the toilets.

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Cy Cle]

No working Papp engine will be displayed or videos shown. It has not been replicated as yet. Rohner brothers do not understood the mechanisms of Papp's engine. Perhaps they should try to contact Chan.Cheers,Intellect Axil Axil Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:30:16 -0800  John Rohner will show his version of the Papp engine through his subcompany, PTP Licensing.Axil  On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:  > Speaking of, Power-Gen starts tomorrow in Orange County, FL.  Wasn't > Rohner supposed to do his thing there?  Here is the map of exhibitors: > > > http://fp32.a2zinc.net/clients/fppennwell/events12/public/fphtml.aspx?eventid=178&AEID=129,172,170,171,176&IMID=170 > > I don't see PlasmERG or Rohner Engineering.  Who should we be seeking? >  Anyone going? > > 

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Axil Axil]

John Rohner will show his version of the Papp engine through his
subcompany, PTP Licensing.

Axil

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Speaking of, Power-Gen starts tomorrow in Orange County, FL.  Wasn't
> Rohner supposed to do his thing there?  Here is the map of exhibitors:
>
>
> http://fp32.a2zinc.net/clients/fppennwell/events12/public/fphtml.aspx?eventid=178&AEID=129,172,170,171,176&IMID=170
>
> I don't see PlasmERG or Rohner Engineering.  Who should we be seeking?
>  Anyone going?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Terry Blanton]

Speaking of, Power-Gen starts tomorrow in Orange County, FL.  Wasn't
Rohner supposed to do his thing there?  Here is the map of exhibitors:

http://fp32.a2zinc.net/clients/fppennwell/events12/public/fphtml.aspx?eventid=178&AEID=129,172,170,171,176&IMID=170

I don't see PlasmERG or Rohner Engineering.  Who should we be seeking?
 Anyone going?

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[chan.fusion.po...@gmail.com]

FYI:
http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/Forming.html
www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P2.pdf
BTW Trying to pass off LENR as a business when you admit it is your 
hobby to avoid paying taxes to the  IRS is a ploy used by the dishonest 
born or lucky Rich and that is illegal, JR. Vortex is read by citizens 
ready to earn IRS rewards.  Just pay your taxes!

Chan

Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[ny . min]

http://papp.scienceontheweb.net/

[Vo]:Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.

[Axil Axil]

Thoughts on reading the Papp patent - #2.


I have been reading the Papp patent to understand what Papp originally had
in mind and was really doing. It looks to me like no present day
replicators that I know about are doing what Papp did.
As an example from the patent as follows:

*“It is important however that the spark gap 31 of the electrode assembly
extend slightly below the bottom of the two activating cells so that when
the cylinder or chamber is in its collapsed or minimum volume position, the
spark gap extends into the aqueous medium of de-oxygenated water in the
bottom of the chamber. Similarly, it is desirable that the extreme lower
ends of the activating cells contact or are in very close proximity to the
water in the bottom of the chamber when the chamber is in its collapsed
position.”*

This segment of the patent tells me that Papp was producing cavatation in
water when he initiated the spark discharge.

The water reference from the patent:

*“The variable volume chambers may contain a precharge composed of between
10% and 25% of de-oxygenated water by volume,”*

Also from the patent regarding the electrodes as follows:

*"Phosphorus and rubidium and its isotopes are examples of elements adapted
for use in the activating cells 20 and 21…*

*… Mesothorium I or radium D can be used in the activating cells to good
advantage, although they have a shorter half-life than rubidium. Elements
useful in the activating cells are preferably those capable of emitting
electrons, alpha rays, beta rays, gamma rays and x-rays, negative beta rays
being particularly useful since they are directed to exert their force (as
hereafter described) in the direction of the movement of the end wall of
the expanding chamber."*


What we have called the buckets were filled with radioactive elements and
were actually what we think of as the spark discharge electrodes. These
electrodes extend into the water when they produced the cyclic spark
discharge.


Correct me if I am wrong, what the Rohner brothers (and Russ Gries as a
Rohner replicator) are doing have nothing to do with the original Papp
reaction design.

I am confused, am I reading the proper patent? Did Papp change his design
after the patent was awarded?

Cheers:   Axil