At 12:38 PM 8/16/2012, Jones Beene 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.
Unless the investor knows something we don't know. Maybe. Hey, folks,
if you are thinking of investing in Rohner's company, as such, why
not ask here, telling us what you know? You'll get some wacky and
some pseudoskeptical opinions, but ... you might also get some good
questions to ask.
Of course, if you have information under nondisclosure, you might not
be able to ask here, and you might have to hire your own experts to
do due diligence, or just trust your gut. Just realize that a lot of
people trusted their gut with Joseph Papp, and ended up with a gut
with no shirt over it, since their shirt went bye-bye and wasn't found again.
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.
McKubre's comments were heavily qualified. I trust McKubre, though I
don't agree with everything he 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.
The requirement for a "self-running Papp device" is a *demonstration*
requirement. It is not needed for an evaluation of the *effect.* What
is needed for that is independent replication of the operation of the
engine, specifically, of a single pistion. That toy kit actually
should be adequate, if it works. That doesn't demonstrate commercial
readiness, it's only about the science. It's really the same with
cold fusion. The demand for high output and reliability greatly
confuses the science, which doesn't require such things. They are
required for commerical applications.
Cold fusion is real. We know that. However, being real is not enough
for commercial application. Period. Muon-catalyzed fusion is real,
nobody questions that, but it will probably *never* be ready for any
commercial applications. Pons-Fleischmann electrochemical cold fusion
is real, it actually transmutes deuterium to helium, producing the
right amount of energy from that, but it's a terribly messy and very
difficult to control approach, and will probably never be
commercially useful. NiH, on the other hand ... but with NiH (i.e.,
Rossi et al), we don't have the independent replications and the
clear identification of the ash that we have for PdD.
Basically, folks, don't jump the gun unless you are prepared to shoot
yourself in the foot. When we don't know, we don't know!
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.
That's right. Often these licenses are announced, but they actually
mean almost nothing.
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.
Yes.
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.
Yes. Full employment for lawyers.
The requirement for "self-running" is, from the point of view of the
science, simply a gimmick. The piston either puts out more energy in
pushing against its load, than was input from the spark, or it
doesn't. Presumably, if the thing works, it does this with each
cycle. In this case, there shouldn't be any complicated chemistry to deal with.
(It's possible to imagine some scam where some chemical is inserted
in the fuel, but the cylinder appears to be closed, so such a thing
would only operate for a little while. If we can trust the claims
that it's a closed system. This is why offers of kits are actually
spectacular. This could answer the questions, permanently, and
without some huge investment in building powerful engines. Get the
kits to run, in your own shop, *then* investment in engines would make sense.)
