If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass.
Oddity and UNCERTAINTY Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote: > > I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown >> powder. >> > > Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a > conclusion from strong evidence. > > > J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process. >> > > And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the process > has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry monkey > typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not true > when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the availability > of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that was, ah, a tad > exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test engines is an > exaggeration if you only have "test engines" that may not have run at all. > He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or claiming to have 2 > MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they are "secret" and his > resume now claims his education is irrelevant. > > Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why did > he claim the running test engines? He says why. He "had to say *something* > or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you think an > investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to maintain > or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect, eventually. > (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements. We have to > remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions. I'm just > saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he says > it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.) > > Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a "popper kit," > which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke > one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and > the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken > from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and > the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and > believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown > even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would > need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a > Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails. > > Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy." At least John is, that's > obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are > true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to > long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are. > > I still don't see any significant evidence for "nuclear." The level of > energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all > that, if established, would show is "not chemical." Some brown powder isn't > evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is. > > Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was > identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we > could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation > between anomalous heat and helium production. It was "fusion." Because I'm > being watched ("they" are under every rock), I'll point out that "fusion" > does not just refer to "d-d fusion," and the correlation value (estimated > at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction > that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what intermediates are > involved. That conversion is called "fusion." Fusion is the term for a > whole class of reactions, not just one. > > However, interesting speculation, perhaps: > > This type fusion does not produce energy in fusing to boron8 atoms. But >> all boron isotopes under B11 will decay by fission. There are two >> conceivable ways in which the excited state in boron-8 could decay by >> emitting one proton, making a brief pit stop at beryllium-7. However, one >> of these ways is energy forbidden and the other does not conserve isospin. >> >> While conserving isospin is not a hard and fast rule, if there is any >> other way for the nucleus to decay, it will jump at that alternative. In >> this case the alternative, one that is both energy and isospin allowed, is >> to decay by emitting two protons in one step to an excited state in >> lithium-6, which is itself an isobaric-analog of the ground state of >> helium-6. Recently, this decay mode was observed for the first time by >> emitting two protons at the same time between isobaric analog states. >> >> To make a long story short, the fusion of 2 He atoms will possibly end up >> with a number of sub atomic particles and one helium atom. >> >> Another energetic path (the triple proton chain) is as follows: >> >> 1. B8 -> Be8 + positron + neutrino (followed by spontaneous decay...) >> 2. Be8 -> 2He4(18.074 MeV) >> >> >> There is some unknowns involving boron 8 decay as follows: >> >> For example, nuclei of boron-8 in the sun decay by spitting out an >> antielectron and an electron neutrino, and theorists can predict the number >> of such low-energy solar neutrinos. >> Researchers measured the actual number in the 1960s, counting rare events >> in which a chlorine nucleus in a tank of dry-cleaning fluid absorbed an >> electron neutrino and emitted an electron. They found only one-third as >> many electron neutrinos as predicted, suggesting that the particles were >> turning into something else during their trip from the sun to Earth. >> >> >> Cheers: Axil >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto: >> [email protected]>a**[email protected] <[email protected]>> wrote: >> Source for your info on boron? If adjusted out somehow, what is the ash >> now? Does it vary with settings? Do we know? How? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Aug 16, 2012, at 9:53 PM, Axil Axil <<mailto:[email protected]>ja** >> [email protected] <[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> The Papp engine produced boron as ash, but it was grossly inefficient. J >>> Rohner improved the timing to eliminate the atomic pollution through >>> nuclear recombination. >>> >>> Cheers: Axil >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto: >>> [email protected]>a**[email protected] <[email protected]>> wrote: >>> At 05:04 PM 8/15/2012, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> The refuel process adds noble gas instead of replacing it. This >>> on-the-fly refuel means that there is no buildup of reaction ash as is >>> normal in all other LENR devices. >>> >>> >>> If this thing works, it doesn't sound at all like LENR. I don't see any >>> basis for "nuclear." So far. >>> >>> >
