Another off-list response from JNP. I've found these emails very
enlightening.
They're getting nastier at this point, and have decided to act angry,
but they still provide no value for output power. (I say "they" --
I'm not sure who at JNP wrote this message; the original one was
signed Evan Soule, but this one carries no signature.)
They've resorted to ad hominem attacks, and have also resorted to the
"playground tactic" of playing "I-dare-you" ... but still no numbers.
And they asked one interesting question: Why, if they gave a number
for power output, would I believe them? This is worth considering,
because there *is* an answer to it. Consider the possibilities:
-- They are soliciting investors. If they simply fail to provide
an output-power number, well -- caveat emptor. It is the
responsibility of the investor to do due diligence.
-- But power measurements are pretty easy to verify. Suppose they
described their power measurement methodology, and they provided
power numbers, and they /lied/ about it -- that would be fraud.
And it would be a fraud that was easy to discover. I seriously
doubt they would do such a thing.
So, if they provided power numbers, along with a description of the
measurements which led to them, I would believe them; I think it very
unlikely they'd lie about it.
And what of a third possibility -- suppose they flatly refused to
produce power numbers? That would be seem suspicious, to nearly
everyone, I think. But they have not done that! They simply don't
provide the numbers -- they don't ever explicitly refuse.
Now, on to their latest response, with my comments/replies
interspersed:
JNPCo. wrote:
>> You've responded again, once again off-list, and once again you
>> have not stated:
>>
>> -- what torque your engine applies to the shaft at 100 RPM
>>
>> -- what the output power is
>>
>> -- how much water is being pumped, up how much rise
>>
>> Please state the output power, clearly, as shaft horsepower. Stop
>> dodging. Please state the actual output power of the engine, not
>> some vacuous it-must-be-real-powerful-if-it-can-do-this claim.
>
> I resent your statement that I am "dodging'.
Then stop doing it, and state the shaft output power!
Is that so hard to do?
You are _dodging_ the question of shaft output power. You can resent
that fact all you want but it won't change it -- unless you publish
the output power.
[Here comes an ad hominem:]
> Lawrence, you can take that accusation and shove it up your Olympian
> posterior.
>
> Joseph Newman says he has total contempt for you and others like
> you.
But does he know what the output power of his engine is?
Please tell us how much output power the engine produces.
[Another ad hominem:]
> And he says you have ZERO common sense.
How much power does the engine produce?
> I just spoke with Joseph Newman about your "questions" and he said
> for me to pass on to you the following:
>
> *"Let's cut to the chase.
The "chase" is the output power. You haven't stated it.
What is the output power?
(Why do you put "question" in "quotes"?)
[OOPS -- here comes the playground tactic!
It's time to play "I-dare-you"!]
> I challenge you (Stephen A. Lawrence)
Don't be silly. The question is what the output power is.
You certainly know it, so state it. What is the output power?
> to come to Mobile and I will match my $10,000 to your $10,000 to see
> if you can bring a CONVENTIONAL MOTOR to my facility and turn a
> 1,265-lb rotary at 100 rpms and power that 375-lb positive
> displacement pump and pump water continuously (as shown in the
> video) at a 5 foot rise --- and do all of the above using even 40
> WATTS input -- which is more than TWICE the input used by my energy
> machine."*
>
[Let me translate: I dare you to jump over the pond, if you don't
you're a wuss!]
> *Come on, Lawrence --- accept the $10,000 challenge .... if you
> have any guts!*
>
[Here comes another ad hominem:]
> I predict that like the Olympian weasel you are, you will not
> accept it.
What's the output power?
Simple question. What's the answer?
>
> Considering that you believe that Joseph Newman is "dodging" your
> questions
He sure is!
But just one question, really: What's the output power?
> by not providing you with engine torque/output power --- even if he
> did provide such numbers, why should I expect you to believe him
> considering your previous statement about him "scamming" someone?
See above -- I already addressed that.
> So, let's take Joseph Newman out of the equation for the moment.
>
> Let's use the_* MANUFACTURER'S OWN FIGURES*_.
>
> And, the manufacturer of that 375-lb positive displacement pump
> specifically states that it requires 10 HP to operate that pump.
> That's 10HP, Lawrence. 10HP = 7,460 watts.
>
> So I'll repeat it for you if it still hasn't sunk in for you:
>
> The manufacturer says it takes 7,460 watts to operate that 375-lb
> positive displacement pump.
It requires 10 HP to operate it *at* *what* *rate*?
You never answered that, either.
Your quoted number is meaningless unless you tell us what the
manufacturer's specified pumping rate is, which you have not said, and
unless you tell us how fast your motor runs the pump, which you also
haven't told us.
> The energy machine is powering that 375-lb positive displacement
> using (less than) 20 WATTS of input.
>
> Run the numbers, Lawrence. You can do it.
>
> Subtract 20 watts from 7,460 watts and see what you come up with.
Tell us the rate at which it pumps water, and the rise, and then tell
us what the rated output and rise of the pump are when driven by a 10
HP motor.
You haven't done that.
