First, since Papp technology is open source, and intellectual property is not an issue, the lawyers are not going to get very far.
Next IMHO, Bob Rohner is not capable of getting the Papp engine to commercialization. Next, the Papp engine should be rightly feared by LENR advocates because it will make most of the known LENR technology obsolete. In this state of affairs, the LENR community will tend to disparage it; its human nature. Finally, the engine that Feynman saw was self-powered, that is why it ran away. Papp was intent on showing a perpetual motion device and he cross wired the cylinders so they each fed power the other. This feedback setup resulted in an accelerating positive feedback loop and a man was killed by it. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Eric, > > I hope that you would not call that video a ringing endorsement. How many > "ifs" does one need to overlook before a polite comment becomes a bona fide > endorsement? There is a large gap between "taking an interest" in a > technology and investing your life's savings in it - or even in promoting > it > without doing due diligence. I will repeat my comment so that there is no > equivocation: Only a gullible person would invest in Bob Rohner's company > at > this point in time, since there is no proof of concept, and really no proof > of anything - McKubre notwithstanding. > > Can one be an independent endorser if one has a financial interest in the > outcome - such as sitting on the Board, or holding stock in another > Papp-engine company? As you may or may not know, in addition to the two > feuding Rohner brothers and Sabori, there are two other completely > independent groups which have been pursuing the Papp engine over the years. > That makes five groups that are known, and probably a few that are under > the > radar. McKubre is known to have past ties to one of them. That may not mean > anything negative now, and it could be positive if he has jumped ship to > Rohner, but that is not what is being said. > > No group has demonstrated a self-running Papp device to an independent > observer AFAIK, yet they all want to give the impression to investors that > it is possible, but for them only - based more on anecdote than proof. And > almost any engine manufacturer will sign a license agreement to produce an > inventor's advanced engine at some future date and pay the inventor a > commission, but only when the inventor first proves that it is working. > That > license means nothing when there is no upfront money changing hands. > Randell > Mills signed up a half dozen "licensees" to produce grid power from his > invention- but Catch-22: only when he proves it is ready for prime time. No > money changed hands, and no power is being supplied to the grid many years > after he publicized these licenses. Same with Rohner - once he proves it, > he > will be poised to become a wealthy man, yet he has been in this holding > position for many years. > > BTW - "Infinite Horizon" in San Jose is the name of one company which may > have raised the most money from investors IIRC - but information on them is > hard to come by. They were rumored to have a self-runner over a ago but the > lack of a further announcement makes it seem otherwise. Anyway, those > 'other > two' groups not mentioned on Vortex before now, both in Silicon valley, > were > perceived by insiders as having superior technology and superior > credentialed staff - to either Rohner group. For you own edification, you > should ask McKubre if he is still has a financial interest and is on the > Board of one of them - if you want to claim his comments constitute and > independent endorsement of the technology. > > All-in-all ... if anyone succeeds, it will likely be a gold-mine for > attorneys - not investors - since all parties claim to have the one true > grail. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > > 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. > > Agreed. You make many valid points, especially concerning speculation > about > any mechanism. > > The point I'm directly addressing is one suggested earlier by Jones, that > one would be naive and gullible to take interest in the newer Papp models. > To this I would say, to the contrary -- all one needs is prima facie > evidence that there might be something going on, which is what we get with > Michael McKubre's endorsement. > > Eric > > >
