Show me a currently available and operating device that can be independently proven and I will be convinced. The burden is upon those that make the extraordinary claims. If it was done once, then it should be possible to do it again.
I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the same level of proof for the Papp devices? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences To my best knowledge, the Papp engine is the only over unity invention to have ever received an American patent. The self-powered Papp engine was tested by independent and objective parties and certified under oath to be functional and witnessed to produce over 100 horsepower. The Papp reaction was tested under the supervision of the navy and observed by defense contractors to split open and shatter a 6 inch diameter 3/8 inches thick steel gun barrel when its projectile jammed in that barrel. An isolated and completely self-powered Papp engine produced sufficient power to explode with such force to kill and injure multiple observers. IMHO, the Papp reaction has proven to be more viable than any other over unity devices with a COP of infinity. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:18 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Axil, it has not been proven that the Papp engine is capable of performing as advertised. I have serious doubts from what has been demonstrated to date and it is wise to continue to pursue technology that we know exists. Can you point me to a recent demonstration that actually shows a Papp engine generating mechanical power that is measurable? All I recall so far are some interesting experiments that are basically a one hit pony. We need to see a continuously running machine. I would like very much to believe that the Papp concept is valid. So far I am not convinced. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of heat from LENR is the least desirable, efficient and resource intensive of those various over unity energy production methods. As a superior engineering approach, I favor the Papp reaction which extracts energy out of the quantum foam. Its conversion efficiency of pressure to electricity is in the high 90’s percentages with little or no heat production. The reactions typically referred to as cold fusion will be discarded as antiquated and resource intensive when compared to the Papp reaction. The Papp reaction does not modify the nucleus of the noble gases that carry its energy content so no waste products are produced. These minuscule 500 CCs of noble gases that enable the Papp reaction do not deteriorate for many years and are essentially indestructible. These noble gases do not produce toxic or radioactive wastes and this clean gas phased single stage electrical generation operating regime reduces the total cost of electric power production from the Papp reaction to the absolute minimum. Coupled with Papp electric generators, zero heat producing electric LED lighting will not add to the urban heat load. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: Gibbs published a new article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/ For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable. I posted the following response: Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold fusion. These problems -- and others -- have been discussed by several people since the discovery of cold fusion, especially: Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Arthur C. Clarke, David Nagel, Michael McKubre, Michael Melich, Eugene Mallove, Anthony Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin, Adm. Sir Anthony Griffin and me. I described some of their conclusions in chapters 11, 12 and 19 of my book, “Cold Fusion and the Future.” The book is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Some of these problems are not likely to be as serious as Gibbs fears. The total nuclear waste from cold fusion cells is likely to be very small. It should be easily contained because the cells will be sealed units, like batteries. As long as the recycling plants are designed and run correctly, this should not be a problem. Clarke discussed the heat islands problem. He, I and others concluded that even with low Carnot efficiency, savings from co-generation space heating will likely lower overall heat releases. Agriculture from desalinated water may be a problem, but not if the standards of Israeli and Saudi desalination plants are adhered to. These and other examples demonstrate that the use of cold fusion will have to regulated to some extent. Granted, there are many other unintended consequences. They are anticipated, but not intended. There are also a host of evil applications for cold fusion, some of which I describe in the book. Fleischmann and Pons delayed the introduction of cold fusion for a few years partly because they feared some of these applications. They thought it might be a good idea for the Department of Defense to classify the research. - Jed
