RF was delusional. The engine was inspected after the incident and no battery was found and not explosive residue either. That is why RF's employer settled with Papp out of court for big money.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > *From:* Axil Axil > > > > If the Papp engine was not producing over unity power, then with the wall > power removed the Papp engine should have stopped. > > > > Not if there was a battery and other circuitry designed to cause a > catastrophic failure after a burst of acceleration; so apparently you did > not read RF’s explanation either. > > > > Feynman suspected that the engine was intentionally rigged to do what it > did, via an internal battery or capacitor and a small explosive. The > motivation was to avoid having to face certain exposure during independent > testing at SRI, which the investors had already demanded, and which was > scheduled soon after this demo. Testing would have effectively ended the > scam, and Papp’s income stream, according to Feynman. > > > > We know for sure that testing was scheduled at SRI after this demo, so we > must give this hypothesis the same consideration as anything else, as to > motivation. Feynman believed that everything except the fatality itself > actually happened according to plan, and that he was set up as a patsy by a > consummate con artist - to make it all more believable. But not of course > Papp was not expecting that a fatality would occur. > > > > This is what RF thought. But unexpectedly, the engine increased its power > output until it blew apart. This is not the behavior of a scam that RF was > assuming. This is the behavior of a gainful LENR system. > > > > No that is not accurate. You either did not read Feynman’s explanation, or > else you choose to reject it. Everyone knows that Feynman, like Mills was > arrogant due to a superior intellect, but this is not a good reason to > overlook the small fact that he was probably correct in this case, since > Papp was already PROVED TO BE a con artist of the highest order - with his > 300 MPH submarine. You simply cannot overlook this. > > > > There is no doubt of Papp’s lack of credibility, due to the widely > publicized falsehood about the submarine crash in France, and when this is > shown in a court trial, it would have made the verdict fall in Feynman’s > favor. It is absurd to think Papp could excluded that evidence, as it goes > to credibility. > > > > For years, I believed Gene Mallove’s account in IE, too, and posted > several favorable things about Papp here year ago - but now, having thought > about it for many years in the context of probability and believability, > and the lack of any real data favoring Papp, it seems that the weight of > evidence falls on the side of the hated (envied) Feynman. > > > > Heck, I envy that the guy too – he was too damn smart… but geeze get over > it and look at the probabilities. > > > > Feynman was right about many things (not all) and Papp was probably one of > the things he was right about. It does the field of LENR no good –zero- to > support a known con-artist who claimed to have piloted a 300 MPH submarine > to France where he had to scuttle it so the Soviet’s would not get hold of > it. Geeze – this story of Papp’s is hard to rationalize in any other way > that the guy was a pathological liar. > > > > And Feynman can be believed, even if he was wrong about LENR. At least to > my second-rate brain power. > > > > However, one thing that I have learned on this forum - and it never fails > to be true, is this: “all of us are smarter than any one of us.” This > should be the motto of vortex. If we ever reach a consensus on anything, it > is probably correct. > > > > The only problem is that it is never clear how to apply that maxim, other > than to say that “experiment always trumps theory” … which should favor > Papp, but for the little unforgettable incident of the 300 MPH submarine > and what that does to one’s credibility. > > > > Jones > > >
