*Most of all, Papp himself seemed to be the obstacle. In order to have a commercial engine, he needed to disclose how it worked, and he was terrified that if he disclosed it, he'd be cheated.*
Bob Rohner once asked Papp why he was not interested in commercializing the Papp engine. Papp told him that he could get all the money he needed anytime he wanted it and he was living very well with things the way they were.. The SCAM that is based on a real system is far more effective than one that is not. A working prototype is a lifelong meal ticket. If the prototype technology is released, the easy money comes to an end. The inventor is moved out of the picture buy the big money interests. Commersialization means work and worries and keeping stockholders happy. One must not confuse the SCAM with the system; these two things must be considered separately with one not diminishing the other. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > I watched a video interview of Rohner. It was interesting to see his > apparatus, the single cylinder that he fires by pushing a button, and the > method of measuring the force applied by the cylinder firing. If that force > is even over the distance of motion of the cylinder, which was shown and > which would be easily measured, then the energy release involved in the > chamber reaction is calculable. > > The interview was done by a fellow who has a totally new theory of physics > that purports to explain the Papp engine. However, he didn't actually show > or ask the most important questions about the engine. How much energy is > supplied by the spark plugs, with each stroke? And how much energy is shown > by the measurement method? That is, for each cycle, what is the net energy > release? > > There were other imnporant unasked questions. > > It was as if the fact that the piston moved was OMG! AMAZING! That, right > there, served to nail it for me that this joker had no clue. Rohner himself > seemed utterly inarticulate, which doesn't mean much. Lots of people can do > stuff they can't explain in words. > > The history of the Papp engine should put all of us into a very cautious > position. Lots of people, with Joseph Papp, were very, very impressed, and > invested buckets of money. All lost, because of Papp's behavior. > > Papp, is seems very likely, faked his submarine "accident," when he found > that he couldn't do what he'd promised. He apparently later shot himself in > the shoulder, claiming he was kidnapped and shot, when he was having > trouble with a demonstration of the engine. If he would do those things, > which we must consider possible, given his general behavior and > personality, then he could have faked any of it. (people who are very > afraid that others are going to cheat them will then justify whatever they, > themselves, do, because it is necessary in context, lest "they" win.) > > I'm fully aware of the attractiveness of the Papp engine. The story of the > Feynman fiasco lends credence to its reality. Yet there was always > something that stopped Papp from completing his work and coming up with a > real commercial product. Most of all, Papp himself seemed to be the > obstacle. In order to have a commercial engine, he needed to disclose how > it worked, and he was terrified that if he disclosed it, he'd be cheated. > The extremity of this is that even when he was dying from cancer, he did > not disclose the secret. > > We cannot, unfortunately, trust the Rohner claims. However, Rohner is > totally welcome to create a demonstration kit, and apparently he is. If so, > then we should all know very soon about whether or not this thing works. I > have, in fact, suggested that Rossi and Defkalion, even if having problems > creating a reliable system, ready for full commercialization, could patent > and make *demonstration models* that don't have to be large-scale or even > particularly reliable, as long as they are cheap enough and work often > enough. Your kit doesn't work? No problem, return it and we will send you > another. We see this with about 10% of the kits this month. We're getting > better.... > > I'm not going to pony up a few hundred dollars and the necessary time to > buy and build a kit, but there are people for whom that would be > entertainment money. Be careful, though! Remember what happened to the > hapless engineer who got creamed by a piece of the exploding Papp engine. > Messy. > > If the kit is a single cylinder like in the video, maybe it's safe enough. > But I'd still like to have some barrier between me and the cylinder, given > that *we don't really know what's going on in there.* What if it blows up, > seriously overproducing pressure, one time in a thousand? > > But with more experience, that possibility can be ruled out. > >
