We are working to recovery this technology in an open source effort
involving multiple experimenters. Cheers:    Axil


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:45 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to