I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least nearly correct. Perhaps that is my hang up!
If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be using the principle to power their space craft? I refer to the ones that are drifting in space, not launch. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration This brings up an interesting side issue. All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit. If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial. Couldn't have been more than a milligram. This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device. Americium perhaps? Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most important ingredient? -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton > There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked had > a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine. Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also: http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm T
