Let's try to return this Papp Engine discussion to science, if that is possible.
My apology for being a bit short with James. He may have some science on his
side; and I for one, would like to hear it if he does.
It does not matter if he and Bob are friends, or if he has a financial
investment, or if Bob is a less egregious of a bad actor than is John ...
IF, indeed there is any real science to share. Neither Rohner, in the past,
nor the three other Papp-inspired companies - have shown an inclination to
analyze the implications of the major issue: a machine that should be a heat
engine, but does not act like one. That, my friends, is much bigger than
free energy.
The Papp descendants have always been more focused on luring investors with
promises than reality. The recent twist from Inteligentry - really a
transparent hypocrisy - is saying that "we will demonstrate no engine in
public, only to investors" is just that: an attempted way to defer fraud
charges, since the investor agreement itself attempts to deny recourse to
legal remedies. That scheme with its hypocrisy of a new version of "don't
ask, don't tell" - did not work, apparently.
Anyway, I have presented (in an earlier post to Fran) what I think is an
insurmountably obstacle to the Papp engine (of either Rohner or the other
Papp descendants) from running for very long. If there is a way to get
around the laws of thermodynamics, we need to know this. And yes, it is easy
to get these two brothers confused, since both share the same disdain for
science in dodging this major issue over the years.
We have stated for a long time on this subject of Papp - that if the
original engine did work, it probably employed radioactive emissions to
somehow overcome the Boyle-Mariotte law in a novel and ongoing fashion. Yes,
of course that law is routinely circumvented to a small degree in every ICE
for one cycle, and one cycle only - but we need to know how this can be done
routinely in a sealed chamber. Most scientists say it cannot happen, even if
Feynman was too energetic of a spokesperson.
We need to know if it is possible to produce electrical current from an ICE
that does not require heat or need heat sink to operate. Traditional science
says no way, both the Rohners can be implied to have said: yes we know how
to do this.
Unfortunately, neither Rohner seems to understand thermodynamics well enough
to even see that there is a major problem here. That lack of underlying
science is why it is easy to be convinced that both are scammers cut from
the same cloth, even if one is a far more egregious scammer than the other.
This is not the way real companies operate ... and make no mistake - both of
them have raised millions, and both have had vile things to say about the
other - is only one of them honest?
Jones
From: Jones Beene
Are you a shill for Bob, as it now seems from your admitted
personal relationship?
Are you willing to confront the FBI with your concerns?
If not, then why are you engaging in this kind of mysterious
puppetry, Bowery?
Why not do a technical defense, instead of a personal attack
on Bob's critics?
It is clear you have a slant that goes far beyond science,
logic or common sense. Are you a licensee of Inteligentry? Do you have
another financial interest in this story?
Otherwise, you supportive stance is indefensible. Show us
your facts or get lost.
Jones
From: James Bowery
At this point your apparent inability to
read the difference between the words "Bob" and "John" is beyond plausible.
Why are you engaging in this obfuscation, J.
Beene?
Jones Beene wrote:
Rohner made the claim, but no one is under
an obligation to provide Bowery
with documentation.
Obviously, whoever filed the complaint with
the FBI presented them with
adequate information to make the raid.
If Bowery wants to confront the FBI with his
belief that Rohner is in the
clear, more power to him
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
