According to my theory these devices magnify the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal by design (the larger the singularities or the more of them are created, the more uncertainty there is). Which, as you said and I agree is not good for life. Actually it is probably more of a love/hate relationship, heat is good, singularities are bad. Nature wants to create certainty within life organisms and repeatable processes to sustain it, singularities go against the mechanisms that support that and can trigger malfunctions.
We are witness to what they can do to a piece of wire and should apply that to the rest of the world. Papp died of colon cancer, Tom Rohner recently died of pancreatic cancer and Dr. Richard Feynman who was there when a Papp device exploded died of two rare forms of cancer (he also worked for Los Alamos, which may have had something to do with it...) The Papp device was always malfunctioning and the Plasma Popper malfunctioned during the demo with Mr. McKubre. Note I am not saying the device causes cancer. I am merely stating facts about how people died. I said these devices create singularities and you said singularities are bad in nature and we agree 100% on that. The rest is pure speculation by others. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote: > > Step aside and ask yourself why after 50 years there is no working two > cylinder engine. They have the prototype seemingly finished. Why doesn' it > run? > > The general answer is we need xxx,xxx Dollars and 6 months to get it > running. Their excuse is actually much more rediculous. If we finish it > will be stolen. That is an absurd explanation for failing to show even a > video of a running papp engine. They should join the Rossi club and fade > away. > > > Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:41:09 -0500 > > To: c...@googlegroups.com; c...@googlegroups.com > > From: a...@lomaxdesign.com > > Subject: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine > > > > > Original subject: RE: CMNS: Grand Unification Theory of Cold Fusion > > > > At 03:09 PM 8/16/2012, Brian Ahern wrote: > > >None of the five competing groups have a working engine. Their > > >excuse is a classic. "We do not want to have a working engine > > >because the MEN IN BLACK will take it." > > >They cannot even provide a video of one running at any time, but > > >they want your investment money nonetheless ! > > > > > >This is a new page from the Rossi play book. > > > > This comment is, unfortunately, misleading. > > > > To establish the Papp Effect, an engine is not necessary. All that is > > necessary is a device (or even a complete, detailed report, enough > > for replication) that shows the effect, such that it can be > > independently verified. Of course, selling or making available such a > > device or report will reveal the secret. In a field like this, there > > is reluctance to reveal whatever secrets one has possession of, > > because then someone could, indeed, "steal" it. However, if one has > > protected the secret with a patent, this risk is routinely taken. > > > > One of the problems here is that the original Papp patents have > > expired. On the other hand, those patents were not adequate to allow > > anyone to build a working device. (An Inteligentry employee explains > > in a video referenced below that Papp included red herrings that flat > > out won't work.) So those patents were not valid anyway, it could be > > claimed. Or they could be treated as having placed everything in them > > into the public domain (John Rohner is claiming that). > > > > The comment from Brian lumps all of the "five competing groups" > > together as if they tell the same story. The history of the Papp > > engine is complex, and was heavily interwoven with Papp's paranoia. > > While it's possible that, at one point or other, each of the five > > groups or a principal in them gave the reason of avoiding theft of > > the property, the major secrecy seems to have been abandonded by > > Plasmerg, John Rohner's company, and a kit is being offered. The kit > > documents disclose the fuel formula, already (reportedly it is the > > same formula as in the original Papp patent). The kit apparently > > discloses everything one needs to build a "popper," and it includes > > (essentially, it *is*) the electronics, which would automatically > > apply the stimulation protocol at the push of a button. > > > > That is not a "working engine," but one could make an engine from > > one, two, or more of these. Measuring the work done by the piston in > > this would be trivial, and measuring the input energy, as well. > > > > (Actually, if the device assembled per kit instructions works, it's > > an "engine." Just a single-stroke one. But, sure, we think of > > something designed for continuous running.) > > > > (If the kit is built out of plastic, it might not be able to > > withstand continuous running. The popper was designed and built to > > test gas mixtures and electronic protocols, which is just what would > > be done. Struggling with a full engine would be a very Bad Idea.) > > > > Because I don't know of anyone who has actually bought and built one > > of these kits, it's not really over, there is no independent > > verification of operation, so the real situation has not yet shifted, > > but if John is lying, he's playing an end game. There is nothing > > difficult-to-deliver or to make about the kit. A circuit board is > > cheap to make, and if there were some technical glitch ("The UPS > > truck went off the road, sorry we can't deliver kits right now") the > > schematics and part specifications for the kit could be sold for a > > lower price, same profit. Immediate delivery over the internet. Those > > could be back-engineered by anyone who buys a kit, anyway. Even an > > EPROM can be read, even custom microprocessors can be decoded, if > > there is enough need. > > > > Here is the kit page: http://plasmerg.com/kits.html > > > > John Rohner's pages link to youtube videos that have been taken down > > to copyright infringement claims from "Rohner Group, LLC." It's easy > > to do that. Just make the claims, and youtube will take the videos > > down. They can't afford to investigate the claims. John doesn't tell > > you -- and maybe doesn't know -- that he can make a counterclaim and > > that youtube would then put up the videos again until a court > > adjudicates it. That's my recollection of the procedure. If he makes > > a fraudulent counterclaim, he could get seriously slapped. He could > > also sue Rohner Group, LLC, for making a fraudulent claim of > > copyright, if that claim was fraudulent. > > > > Don't you love family feuds? They can get utterly vicious. Typically > > everyone loses. > > > > On the face of it, some of the copyright claims look fraudulent. It > > looks like Rohner Group, LLC, is, indeed, trying to prevent > > disclosure of the technology, shotgunning everything. Their claims > > are, on the face, defective, for at least some of the videos. > > > > That Papp may have said their work was essential to his engine's > > running has *no* legal consequence. It merely is a feather in their > > caps. It lends credibility to their claims to understand the process, > > but, unfortunately, that is rooted in the comments of someone who > > wasn't necessarily reliable! I.e., Papp. What would count, legally, > > would be documents signed by Papp, binding contracts, accompanied by > > consideration. And, on the face, that's what John has. Or had. It's > > not clear he still owns that. > > > > Other companies may be attempting to shoehorn themselves into this, > > and that is their right, as long as they are not violating a valid > > and unexpired patent, or a valid nondisclosure agreement. > > > > As to John Rohner's credibility, it's not looking good, this was from > > June 29, 2011, PESN: > > > > http://pesn.com/2011/06/29/9501860_PlasmERG_Engine_-_To_be_or_not_to_be/ > > > > On the other hand, this is quite recent from PESN and Stirling Allen: > > > > > http://pesn.com/2012/08/03/9602151_Bob-Rohner-Group_presentation_at_TeslaTech/ > > > > It's about Robert Rohner's demonstration at TeslaTech of a "popper," > > not John's design, and not being offered for sale. And no information > > about the truly interesting details, i.e., how much energy goes in to > > fire the thing, and how much work is done lifting that weight (how > > heavy is it, and what is the distance over which that work is done)? > > > > I looked at the video linked. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPY0skKjJU8 After 41 minutes into the > > video, Robert shows a "popper" lifting a weight. As I mentioned > > above, the details we'd really be interested in are missing (once we > > realize how the simplest specifics are missing, the rest is revealed > > as hot air. Interesting, maybe, for the drama of all this, but ... > > where's the meat? Lots of commenters on the videos notice this.... > > > > Even more recently, August 10, Stirling wrote this about John's > Inteligentry: > > > > http://pesn.com/2012/08/10/9602157_Inteligentry_to_debut_at_Power-Gen/ > > > > I cannot fail to notice in Stirlings reporting that John Rohner > > apparently acknowledges lying about various things. The latest one, > > here, is where he dismisses allegations he lied about his PhD's. It's > > worth quoting. > > > > >I also asked John what he says in response to assertions that he > > >doesn't have even one Ph.D., let alone two, from MIT. He replied > > >something to the effect: "Who gives a shit. Everything I learned in > > >1962 is invalid any way." He also said that his Ph.D.s are "under > > >secret lock, and there is nothing I can do about it." He went on to > > >say that he has "spent 40 years designing things that are supposed > > >to be impossible. Take a hard look at my > > ><http://www.inteligentry.com/_files/JOHNR10x.pdf>resume. I still > > >turn down 'consulting' jobs every week." > > > > Stirling notes the release of the kit by Inteligentry. Stirling also > > uploaded a video of an Inteligentry presentation. On the face, it's > > credible. They had an actual engine there, and begged off > > demonstrating it because of licensing agreements. But they offered > > the kit. That kit *is* an engine, just a single-stroke one. > > > > However, a bucket of cold water here: the three videos posted by > > Stirling do not show the "popper" firing. Just lots of talk. Nice talk. > But: > > > > There is no video I've been able to find of the Inteligentry popper > > firing. Bob Rohner has video out showing his popper actually working. > > Bob demonstrated this at the same TeslaTech show that Inteligentry > > was at. And, remarkably, in an inteligentry.com report, linked below, > > John refers to that demo as helping his kit sales. Maybe. Caveat emptor. > > > > Still, Inteligentry is in an end game. If what they say is true, > > there will be a licensee demonstrating soon. Here, we enter Rossi > > territory. But the "popper" kit is something totally absent from the > > Rossi sage. The equivalent there would be Rossi announcing, well, for > > various reasons, blah blah, our home E-Cat isn't available, but here > > is a kit for $500, ready to go, purely to demonstrate the concept, > > not for anything but experimental use. Buy one, study it, etc., etc. > > > > The Inteligentry report claims that it's all public domain now, as to > > the basic demonstration of the Papp Effect. > > > > The interview claims you can view the assembly on "John's web site." > > That appears not to be, if it's available at all, assembly of the kit > > popper. Reading the page totally convinced me that John is crazy. > > There are other people involved, but they allow him to be publicly > > crazy. Not a good sign. > > > > http://inteligentry.com/report.html > > > > I noticed, stumbling about, a comment from at least one person saying > > he was going to buy a kit and build the thing. However, I'm now > > worried, given all the anti-Bob Rohner polemic, that a bogus kit > > could be sold, that would fail. It's fascinating to note that John > > mentions the Bob Rohner demo as useful to him for selling his > > Plasmerg kit. It's not the same device. John also attacks Mike > > McKubre. Very bad sign. If anyone from Inteligentry sees this, I > > highly recommend putting John in a straight jacket, he's crazy, and > > that he controls the inteligentry web site is very Bad News for the > > company. If he's good at designing stuff, great. Don't let him speak > > for the company! > > > > (Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get > > you. But if you are paranoid, you will never know the truth, because > > everything you see will be interpreted within the confines of the > > story you firmly believe. That is what paranoia does. Moving beyond > > paranoia doesn't involve finding proof you are wrong, because the > > paranoid state is not amenable to any proof but what proves what is > > already believed. Rather, if it's possible at all, it involves > > getting that *all stories* are neither true nor false,* and that we > > actually chose what stories to keep in mind. Becoming able to invent > > new stories that are more functional in terms of leading us to what > > we actually want requires dropping, entirely, attachment to *all* > > stories, "right" or "wrong." That also happens to be what allows > > progress in science, beyond what we already "know.") > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "CMNS" group. > > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. >
