(snip)
>
> If this patent is also by Papp, then your comment applies, if the
> patent is not by Papp, then it is erroneous. Papp mentions nothing in
> his patent about radioactive elements. Apples with apples.
* Yes Jerry, it is Papps second and last Patent. Also, I think in time
that it will be revealed that ALL working "free energy" devices relied
on a method to get at the energy of radioactive substances without
getting
into U235 dirty and deadly processes.
* What patent number do you have for the Papp Patent?
Papps patent has remained a secret for many years.
This has also occurred with Gray's second patent.
Why is this?
Don't be so quick to judge me. What will you say if I do
not supply you with proof of the Papp patent? Am I then
not a credible source? What if I tell you the Patent
number? Will you say that you already knew about the
patent?
(snip)
>
> Your research activities and website appear to revolve heavily around
> radioactivity as a source, and I've seen it applied to many past
> researchers.
>
> IMHO, I don't think there is sufficient evidence for these radioactive
> claims to date, mostly because the claims have not yielded a working
> duplication of any prior machine or its power producing abilities.
* I will slowly introduce this proof. These inventions have been
demonstrated
time and times again. I know the hell that Papp must have gone through.
There have been many others too.
>
> The bottomline remains - the winner is the one with a working machine, it
> is this person whose theory I would have the most confidence in, simply
> because they applied it to RESULTS.
* No Jerry, there have been working machines, the inventor has always
been
the loser. Let's change this mentality. We are running out of time!
-ISIS