At 12:36 AM 8/16/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
Le Aug 15, 2012 Ã 11:15 PM, "MarkI-ZeroPoint"
<[email protected]> a écrit :
> MuKubre's body language was not good; I think
it reveals some level of reservations about being there.
> -mark
Understood. He may have had reservations about
endorsing what he saw, because there might have
been some error in the measurements, for
example. But knowing what I know now of the
history of the Papp engine and of the later
developments, I would have been nervous simply
being up there at all, regardless of anything I thought I saw in a demo.
Okay, I finally found and watched the McKubre
comments. Fairly typical for McKubre. I don't see
the body language "message" Mark is mentioning.
McKubre knows that the Papp engine is
"impossible." He says so. He also knows that
sometimes what we think of as impossible is real.
His experience with cold fusion, where
"impossible" was the main reason for rejection in
1989-1990, and where he was one of the
independent replicators who supposedly don't
exist (having been retained by the Electric Power
Research Institute to investigate), has led him
to be, perhaps, more credulous than your average energy expert.
He's clearly relying on representations, and
Rohner was reading an email from McKubre saying
things that McKubre explicitly said in the email,
he didn't want revealed publicly. I've seen other
such communications from researchers. They
respond to an inventor assuming that the inventor
is telling them the truth, and has actually seen
what is being reported. It's like an attorney
with a client: the attorney, in advising the
client, will assume that the client is telling
them the truth. That is not a testimony that the client is telling the truth!
McKubre refers to an independent test that was
done. Without specific information about that
test, it's not possible to understand the significance.
What McKubre does with his comment is increase
the credibility of Rohner, and there is nothing
wrong with that, per se. The Papp Engine has a
lot of history that makes the claim of reality of
the Papp Effect seem *possibly* true.
Yet we cannot rely upon this reality until there
is substantially more available. McKubre would
be, with his comment, encouraging Bob Rohner to
continue his work. And he would be encouraging
independent testing. 10:1 COP is impressive.
There are *demonstrations* where the machine ran
with no input, unless there was fraud.
There *was* a kind of fraud involved with the
Papp Engine. Papp took people's money and
promised them returns. The implied assumption
there would be that he would spend their money in
ways that would produce a return for them. He
didn't. He spent much of the money on himself.
And he held on to his secrets and died with them,
apparently. Others may have later figured out
what was necessary (specifically, the formula for the fuel). Or not.
I disagree with McKubre in his comments about
"nuclear" as being necessary. The high energy
density and long operation without refueling or
exhaust does indicate nuclear energy, but, bottom
line, the energy source is unknown, and McKubre
knows that. The assumption of "nuclear" with cold
fusion, before the specific nuclear evidence was
known, caused a lot of damage. If the Papp Engine
is fueled by a nuclear transmutation, we don't
know what the fuel and ash are. With the long
operation, it should be easy to find, if this is
a nuclear reaction. We have no information on this.
It seems so many people want to give a name to
the cause of something, before we know enough.
They vary in that. Some give it the name of
"unidentified error or fraud." Different strokes for different folks.
From the energy density in PdD cold fusion, Pons
and Fleischmann called it an "unknown nuclear
reaction." Fleischmann later wrote that he wished
he'd never mentioned "nuclear," but had only
published in some obscure electrochemistry
journal about high levels of anomalous heat,
observed under such and such conditions. Let some
physicist proclaim that it was nuclear, after
finding specific evidence for that.
(To be fair, Pons and Fleischmann thought they
had observed neutrons. Not enough to explain the
heat, not nearly enough. That was artifact, and
that it was quickly shown to be artifact was one
of the factors that demolished the reputation of cold fusion in 1989-1990.)
It all boils down to a pretense that we know something when we don't.
"Unknown nuclear reaction," without proof of a
nuclear reaction product, is really just "unknown
cause." It might not be "nuclear." It might be
ZPE, it might be gremlins, it might be mass
hysteria, it might be hypnosis, it might be ....
whatever we make up that makes us feel safer
against the unknown. But the unknown isn't a bad thing....
