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 >>> >>> >> >