http://pesn.com/2012/12/10/9602241_Inteligentry_Egg-on-Face_PowerGen/
PowerGen opened and no running demonstration engine.
Now, what I notice on the PESN page is a comment
from a licensee, Ben Gresham, representing G&G
Products Family of Companies, LLC.
They have two non-running engines they built at PowerGen.
Now, for all those that doubt the technology or
the ability of such an engine to be mass
produced, I truly understand your skepticism.
The longer we work with John Rohner, the more we
realize the guy may have some issues with
reality. He is paranoid and guarded, he doesn't
have a clue about how manufacturing works, his
comprehension of mechanical issues is limited,
and he has to be shown his way may not work
before he'll listen to anybody about alternatives.
That being said, I have come to understand his
traits and learned to be patient with him. There
is no doubt of his electrical genius and his
understanding of theory is much better than most.
If he has an "understanding of theory," it does
not seem apparent. From the Plasmerg home page: http://www.plasmerg.com/
This is a new system that crosses the previous
borders the science of physics as it is part
Fusion, fission and plasma working together
utilizing elements of each to the advantage of
the result. this result is power.
This is a statement showing about zero
understanding. Fusion and fission? Any evidence for this? Gresham continues:
As is with most geniuses, there is some egotism
and eccentricities that one has to deal with. We
have elected to stay the course, not just
because of all the blood, sweat, and tears
invested, but because we truly believe in John
and his Plasma Transition Process™. We have no
doubt this will change the world as we know it.
It's simply a matter of timing and having all
the right pieces falling together.
"Egos" and "Eccentrics" seem to be able to
attract support like this, phenomenally naive
support. If Gresham actually has reason to
believe that this thing works, he's not telling
us. He is building an engine, a far more
complicated affair than a demonstration device.
The non-existent Popppers are demonstration
devices. An engine would be built from multiple
devices. A Popper will show a single cycle of
what, repeated, would make up an engine. If you
can't build a Popper, and test it, you can't
build an engine. Building an engine is complex,
and there can be many delays, and Rohner always
has some excuse why he can't demonstrate an
*engine.* But what about a demonstration of the effect itself?
And, it seems, there are licensees willing to
pour a lot of money in without having seen such a
demonstration. Maybe a Popper exists, and maybe
they've seen it, but we also see naive response
to, say Russ's Popper, as if a piston moving when
you dump 500 joules into it is somehow amazing.
There is *no report* from anyone that energy
output has been measured from one of these, in
recent times, that exceeded energy in (i.e, that
is finding energy from an anomalous source).
another licensee (Barry Mead) writes:
Before I invested in this technology, I
carefully investigated the reality of the
physics involved. Although many skeptics find
it hard to believe, there really is a way to
coax free energy out of the Zero Point, using
the 4th state of matter (Plasma).
I personally visited John Rohner at his business
in Las Vegas, and found him to be extremely
intelligent and competent as both an Electronics
Engineer and Embedded Systems Software
developer. I ought to know because I have been
a Senior Electronics Engineer and Embedded
Systems Software engineer myself for over 25
years. All of the electronics designs are
brilliant, and the software that John is
developing in his controllers is absolutely real!
Even if John could use a little more experience
in mechanical engineering, I don't think that is
an issue, because there are thousands of
qualified people to help out in this area. The
difficult tasks of controlling the timing and
sequencing of the physics events that bring
about the free energy conversion reaction are
well handled, and success is inevitable.
Wow! "Real software." Some accomplishment, eh? I
guess when you run out of good things to say
about someone, you have to make them up. So John
is writing software. This means?
John Rohner can impress an Electronics Engineer
and Embedded Systems Software engineer, with his
knowledge of that field. Great! What does this
have to do with what would be necessary to "coax
free energy out of the Zero Point?" What are the "physics events?"
What is the *evidence* for this "free energy
conversion reaction"? Lots of us would love to
know that Free Energy is possible, even though it
might make those of us who *do* understand some
physics a bit uncomfortable. But what I'm seeing
here is phenomenal naivete, almost certainly
based on some personal sense that one can judge
*science* based on a perception of the "intellgence" of another.
We do not think cold fusion is real because we
were impressed with the personal qualities of
Pons and Fleischmann. We merely trusted, some of
us, their experimental reports, as such reports
(the facts, the actual measurments) are routinely
trusted, and our confidence lessened when there
was difficulty confirming them, and was restored,
ultimately, when there was massive confirmation
and a clear understanding of why the original
difficulties existed, and those difficulties had
practically nothing to do with the personalities of Pons and Fleischman.
No, we were convinced as to cold fusion when
there was adequate experimental evidence, not
only for a heat anomaly (Free Energy! -- though
it is isn't really Free, it is energy generated
from mass conversion to energy from deuterium
transformation to helium), but for the fuel and ash involved.
What is the evidence for this Zero Point Energy
that this licensee "carefully investigated"? What
did he investigate and how did he identify
anomalous energy, if apparent, with "Zero Point
Energy"? And was he competent to do this?
What happens here may be that we see something we
don't understand, and someone proposes an
explanation, and human beings dislike not
understanding things. So we accept the
explanation. The scientific method was developed
to move beyond this. We *test* explanations,
*seeking to falsify them*. As to interpersonal
relations, that can be rude. But it is an absolute necessity in science.
It is not a question of "hard to believe." It is
the utter lack of a reason to believe. Mead and
Gresham lost their protective skepticism. Not
pseudoskepticism, that involves a belief in
bogosity or impossibility, but genuine,
scientific skepticism that abstains from
believing *anything*; a real skeptic does come up
with provisional beliefs, i.e., conclusions about
nature that are routinely accepted without
question, but every one of them is rebuttable, at
least in theory, and contrary evidence is of high interest to a real skeptic.
Pseudoskeptics actually search for possible
contrary evidence, assert it, and then sit back,
imagining that they have accomplished something
by proposing a "prosaic explanation* -- without testing it.
The licensees are paying a high price for their naivete.
And if I'm wrong, off the wall here, I'll pay a
certain price, but it would be a small price to
pay for the value of a real ZPE device. I simply
don't expect that to happen, because of not only
a lack of evidence for it, but plenty of
circumstantial evidence in the other direction.
We have a situation where an inventor is
continually misrepresenting the situation, that's
become obvious. Gresham wrote of Rohner as having
"some issues with reality." Gresham has a lot on
the line, and took a risk by saying that.
However, here is someone who is presumably about
as close to the source as possible, who still sees that Rohner is not reliable.
It became obvious to me many months ago, that, if
what John Rohner had was real, the investors
should keep him in a cage, not let him speak
publicly, or they should *get out*, because the
web sites of the companies involved clearly show
insanity. If he is actually a brilliant engineer, let him engineer.
It is not impossible for a brilliant engineer to
get that he is not a brilliant public
spokesperson for his company. But part of what's
happening here is John Rohner's ego, his pride
that he has a "real company" when others don't.
He makes it all personal, which is a serious problem in business.
Sterling Allen is obviously sincere in his hope
that John Rohner would pull it off. But because
Allen has reported the situation *as it is*,
Rohner has said that Allen is trying to destroy his work.
This business sure attracts some doozies.
