On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Sorry John. You are correct about what you say to a certain extent. How > much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a > vehicle that runs virtually for free? Virtually zero, BUT that is the end process of it being developed into an acceptable mass market proven product. People have tried to sell free energy devices that are at the 'built by someone in a shed' stage and not attracted many sales apparently. This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden > behind closed doors. Erm, no. Because it needs to go a long way BEFORE it gets to this stage. Consider that there are people dying of many diseases and there are alternative methods for treatment for these. Additionally some have rather impressive track records far beyond conventional treatments. BUT despite this, MOST people with a death disease sentence do not investigate alternatives, and many if told just ignore them. LERN needs a great deal of investment and approval and agreement from many people before it is going to power anyones home. It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the > automobile companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the > first one to put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes > an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do > not understand that. I completely disagree. > > If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to > buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use. > Things are bought by oil and car companies and shelved. Inventors have sold out for hundreds of millions, I recall reading that Archie Blue, water car inventor sold out for a nice sum, though I can't find anything to support this at the moment. If you doubt that the automotive industry isn't in bed with the oil industry, I suggest you look at 'Who killed the electric car'. > That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the companies > realize that this technology is real. So far, no one has convinced the oil > industry that they are doomed. Hopefully, it will be too late for them to > slam shut the doors in time to save themselves. Are you aware of any past > attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine? > > I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is > as revolutionary as the Papp engine. How can I or anyone else trust our > normal senses to be right about such a device? From what I read, Papp did > not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and > tested by anyone out of his control. Who are we to trust to make a > determination that that device was not a fraud? Apparently Feynmann did > not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics > community. > He is also heavily invested in physics the way it was. I would not trust a sceptical person about something not being real... Any more than I'd trust a true believer in their subject (UFO's, God, etc...) that they are right. Both are horribly biased. I'd look at the evidence on a level playing field, not assume that my prejudices were meaningful (not let that tilt the playing field) and let the evidence speak for it's self. > So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept. > That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is > preserved in such a system. > Why do you believe that it MUST be preserved? The idea that it is is just an idea. The belief that energy might be created isn't illogical, it merely goes against the assumption and general observation that it is conserved. Consider that you could have a monetary system in a computer simulation, and within the rules of the game money can't be created or destroyed, merely moved from one place to another... But a programmer could also setup a hotkey to increase money in a certain part of the simulation. Now money normally follows the observed rules that it is only moved around, pays off debts and is loaned out, spent etc, and sometimes illogically in seeming violation of the rules just appears out of nowhere. The same could be true with energy, it might be costless to produce energy if we are working at a sufficiently deep level, going beyond the rules of the game and into the underlying system literally changing the rules, working from a different level. Now I have no idea if this is so, but neither do you. Additionally even if God existed, he couldn't comment on the impossibility that anything could exist outside of the everything s/he thinks he knows. Indeed this idea even exists in religion and is related gnosticism, the idea that maybe the God that made the physical universe might not really know it all. Now recognizing this, you could always argue that energy that seems to be created is actually coming from some unseen source of energy. In the end the creation or conservation can't be proven, because to know that would mean that you knew everything that could possible exist, that you not only knew everything, but you somehow knew that there could not be anything outside of your knowledge. Which is impossible. Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I wish him plenty of luck. But, > until strong evidence is presented I will harbor significant doubt. I have > a suspicion that you are also not convinced that the Papp engine is totally > above board. Am I right? > I can not conceive of any reason to let the gas out of his machines unless it was genuine. There is no way the gas could have shown he was fake since no known gas could account for his results. Even if it was fake, how could gas have given this away? Also if it was only the gas that was let out and nothing else changed, then what hoax could he have been running that only requires a gas to be lost to hide the fraud? I do not think it at all sane to propose that he wanted that explosion to happen either since he became frantic, did he plan on having RF become a dick to have him to blame it on? That whole argument makes x100 times more sense as RF trying to reason away his actions for being responsible for killing a guy. > > Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death. Hiding the > secret that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not > the kind of action taken by a reasonable, caring individual. > No, I think he was a bitter angry paranoid douche who finally decided to take his secret to the grave, possibly in part a result of his stomach cancer. Probably not conducive for being in a good mood. > Instead, it is exactly what I would expect for one hoping to keep his > soon to be tarnished reputation intact into the future. Apparently he did > a great job of hiding his secret liquid brew along with his submarine scam. > Maybe that one was real and I just do not understand it either? > We don't know if Papp was for real, and yet explaining how his hoax worked in a reasonable fashion has so far escaped the sceptics. It seem easier to me to assume that he found a revolutionary energy discovery rather than a revolutionary hoaxing method. And I'd rather err on the side of possibly believing a faker than rejecting the revolutionary work of a genius. The cost of the former is low if you aren't looking to be an investor. The cost of the latter could be the eventual extinction of the human race from the effects of not finding an energy solution. Of course MMYV, you may err of the side of not looking foolish in the eyes of the likes of the not so amazing Randi etc... John
