"If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be using the principle to power their spacecraft?"
Because they immediately dismiss the possibility before testing it. that's what sci-drones do. They use theory, and the looooong line of actual scammers and fraudsters to easily dismiss that which starts to cause cognitive dissonance. Or, They tried to replicate (e.g., gravity shielding), but in many instances the rogues were not completely open, and details were not available to replicate. so it too died. Perhaps it was better that way, since the human species was not ready for that level of knowledge. we'd have incinerated the planet! And with the likes of the nut-case in Iran, we may still do so. RE: NASA. Even if one of their scientists went to an Extraordinary Science conference, saw a device that he could not explain, and was allowed to examine it for possible fraud, what are his chances of getting anyone to take it seriously back at NASA? "And you saw this where?". If the conference isn't populated with mostly PhDs, your colleagues aren't going to take it seriously. and look at LENR. its attendees are nearly all PhDs and they couldn't get any serious consideration after the hatchet job done back in 89 -- that effect has lasted for over 20 years. I'll respond to the COE question in a min, but it has been covered by the Collective since BC.. Before the Collective. J -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration 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
