Abd ul-Rahman Lomax on vortex stated: *“People are very appreciative of Russ because he's getting his hands dirty, and that is indeed to be commended. But that's not enough. Cold fusion flopped about for years with people trying to make reliable heat. Scientifically, the field did not shift until Miles did much more than that: he measured helium as correlated with heat, which can cut through mountains of BS. And which did. That was a huge amount of work, he had to run many experiments, at the same time as he was losing funding and support, and it was difficult, to get published and he faced some serious -- and seriously silly -- opposition, from no less than Steve Jones, who never saw a real cold fusion result beyond his own tiny reported effect, that he didn't dislike.”*
Someone posted on Russ’s site that most of the videos about the Papp engine are currently disabled. I checked a few and its true. Why would the Rohners do this? Could it be that the open source Papp engine effort is just far too productive for comfort? Could it be that Russ has done more to bring back the Papp technology in a month than the Rohner’s have accomplished in 30 years? Russ back engineered the Papp popper hardwaredown to the centimeter right from those videos; a very impressive accomplishment in my opinion. We all know that the best way to motivate the development of any product is to encourage fierce competition. The first developer who can demonstrate over unity in power production will have all those disgruntled Rohner investors… you get the idea. Even without the explicit intention, I think that could be underway shortly. The Papp engine is just so attractive that it inspires con men and charlatans in unlimited numbers including Papp himself. The Rohners spent years learning at the feet of Grandfather Papp, all of it, the good, the bad and the ugly. For all those who would aspire to the vision and the dream that the true Papp technology can be, these men of good and stout heart must be ever vigilant and watchful of scandal in this regard. I am sure that if there is anything to the Papp engine, Russ and his friends will dig it out in the most up front, honest, straightforward and well documented manner that they can muster. cheers: Axil. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 04:21 PM 12/12/2012, Axil Axil wrote: > > The reason why Russ is using so much spark power (500 joules ) is because >> he is following the system that Bob Rohner built which does NOT use >> pre-ionization. >> >> >> > Axil, I'm not particularly interested in why an experimenter did > something, but in what they did and what can be observed to have resulted. > There is an obvious question here: does this Popper produce anomalous > energy? Has *any* Popper (from whomever, following the Papp engine ideas) > ever produced energy? There are reports of Papp engines long ago running > continuously and generating substantial power. Has anything like this been > confirmed, recently? > > If there is no single-cycle XP, we cannot expect it to appear in > multiple-cycle engines. That's the craziness I was pointing to, regarding > the "licensees" believing they were just on the verge of success. Yeah, *if > there are clear, confirmed, single-cycle demonstrations*, then the rush > would be legitimately on to develop an engine with it. What's bizarre is > that rush *without* the simple demonstration. Building an engine is > complicated, and there will be many obstacles and thus many excuses for > failure. But a simple demonstration? > > If a simple demonstration cannot be constructed, there is no basis at all > to conclude that the necessary technology is understood enough to create an > engine. > > There is some phenomenon here of reaction to skepticism. Skeptics demand > running practical devices to believe in the effect, so people rush out to > try to create them. Bad Idea. A real skeptic will be reasonably satisfied > with a conclusive demonstration, regardless if it's a practical engine. It > can be a small effect. It might not even be practical, in which case the > possibility of practicality would still be open, but uncontaminated by any > need to "prove" reality. > > The FPHE might *never* be practical, except as a demonstration of LENR. > But, of course, if it's real, there could be a lot more research needed to > really answer the "practicality" question. As the message that Cold Fusion > is real starts to penetrate outside the peer-reviewed journals that have > allowed publication, as the sober reviews that have concluded there is a > real effect become more broadly known, that research *will* be funded. It's > already happening. > > "Pre-ionization" could represent building up some level of energy storage > in the working plasma. It would simply make the matter more confusion and > less clear. Sure, it's possible that some effect would rise above noise > under these conditions, but, again, there is only one reason I can come up > with to think that there might be a there there. > > That is that John Rohner has made a lot of claims that appear to indicate > he's got a working engine. Plasmerg.com implies that they did a lot of > research on the performance of various gases in producing the power > impulse. But it says *nothing* about energy production, with regard to > those tests. Did they measure power production, or just relative strength > of the impulse? It's looking like, if they did this at all, it was the > latter. It would have been relatively simple to measure energy, but if they > did it, they are not telling us. Nor, I suspect, are they telling their > licensees. > > From many failures to keep his promises, and from the way in which he > interacts and comments on other people, John Rohner isn't to be trusted. > He's got "issues with reality." He reports what he seems to want, as if it > were fact, rather than what is actually happening. It's a not terribly > uncommon disease. We may all do this to some degree. However.... someone > who does this continually and routinely.... > > It seems that Rohner is a persuasive bullshitter. That is, someone has > some question, some concern, perhaps some doubt is arising, and John is > able to respond in a way that the matter seems resolved, without that > actually having happened. John may have an instinctive capacity to come up > with excuses that people will adequately buy for a time. "Well, I suppose > that *could* have actually happened...." > > It seems to be getting thin. Sterling reports that the "Master > Manufacturers" at Powergen met last night, and were "unhappy" with Rohner. > Well, we've heard that before! The real question is whether or not they > will do something about it. Did PPT licensing actually rent all those > booths? If so, that's a large chunk of cash that disappeared from the > company assets ($60,000), making it less likely that these guys will get > something back on their investment. > > You'd think that the money people around John Rohner would realize > something is off. Why did they need all those booths? There is a blatant > grandiosity here, the kind that can bankrupt a company that is dealing with > a real technology, even. > > I predict that Russ will fail, unless he starts to analyze his existing > device instead of moving on to "better." If he makes the device more > complex, he will be making the analysis more complicated and more subject > to error. If he analyzes and carefully measures power output from his > already-made device, from those 500 joule impulses, and finds some XP, he > would sensibly, and first, vary the experimental conditions there to find > the optimum operating point. (He would also attempt to identify prosaic > cause for the XP, and attempt to confirm those.) *Then* he'd develop the > next stage being informed by what he's done. Otherwise he's groping in the > dark. > > People are very appreciative of Russ because he's getting his hands dirty, > and that is indeed to be commended. But that's not enough. Cold fusion > flopped about for years with people trying to make reliable heat. > Scientifically, the field did not shift until Miles did much more than > that: he measured helium as correlated with heat, which can cut through > mountains of BS. And which did. That was a huge amount of work, he had to > run many experiments, at the same time as he was losing funding and > support, and it was difficult, to get published and he faced some serious > -- and seriously silly -- opposition, from no less than Steve Jones, who > never saw a real cold fusion result beyond his own tiny reported effect, > that he didn't dislike. > > Jones, of course, was behind -- the cause of -- the original rush to > announce by Pons and Fleischmann. That whole story is amazing. > >
