http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Plasma_Energy_Controls_Plasma_Expansion_Motor
This link shows the Papp engine under a dyno test showing just over 450 HP. They would need to run some heavy cable to power that engine with an electric motor to product that type of power. There is mention of a report of an independent dyno test done by a university. I will look for the reference. Before anyone should invest in the Papp engine, they would want to see a long running dyno test with all the electric power accounted for. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > 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.) >
