Papp and the Papp engine

  • Will you please elaborate on why you don't like Papp, and why there must be a purge of "Papp believers"?

    Yes, I don't like Papp because, even if by some incredible mental ability close to Einstein he would have developed an new source of energy, he would have to had an incredible mental abiility next to Buckmeister Fuller to develop in his garage a submarine capable to travel hundred of M/H (with no funds), and piloted it like Lindbergh with no GPS, and had the bad luck to sink after 99.99 of his trip has been completed.


    Why there must be a purge of Papp believers?


    You.

  • Hi Sherlock,


    Yes, I don't like Papp because, even if by some incredible mental ability close to Einstein he would have developed an new source of energy, he would have to had an incredible mental abiility next to Buckmeister Fuller to develop in his garage a submarine capable to travel hundred of M/H (with no funds), and piloted it like Lindbergh with no GPS, and had the bad luck to sink after 99.99 of his trip has been completed.


    I'm taking this discussion out of the thread on Bob Greenyer, so that we can consider your argument about Papp on its merits and not distract from the other thread. Let us acknowledge that Papp claimed to have invented a submarine that could move at 300 miles per hour that he used to travel to France. With that formality out of the way, you'll surely be aware that the submarine is of little interest to "Papp believers." What is most of interest is his claim to a noble gas engine, which Feynman sought to debunk. You will probably find Papp's claim to be dubious. Am I correct in this suspicion?


    Why there must be a purge of Papp believers?


    You.


    Despite appearances to the contrary, I am pretty sure you are an intelligent and perceptive student of history, and that with a little help you will be able to better articulate what it is you have against "Papp believers." Can you elaborate on what you have in mind when you say "you" in this context? What is your hidden and clever meaning in this cryptic reply?

  • Eric Walker ,

    I would like to join the Papp discussion. I have also seen the rough video of the earlier explosion. Also aware of Bob Rohner and Russ Gries using a noble gas popper.

    Assuming that it was nuclear based for a moment how much gas and what ratios were ionized to be useful? Then assume it did not have a nuclear fuel, how did it function?

  • Assuming that it was nuclear based for a moment how much gas and what ratios were ionized to be useful? Then assume it did not have a nuclear fuel, how did it function?


    When it comes to Papp's noble gas engine, I try not to assume anything. I do not assume that the engine worked, and I do not assume that it did not work. I do not assume that the gas mixture was fuel, and I do not assume that it was not fuel. However, what I glean from the hard-to-read patents is that in addition to the gas mixture, about whose ratio of constituent gasses Papp made a big deal, the electrodes that were used had an application of one or more radioactive elements on the surface (e.g., thorium). One possibility: the precise mixture of noble gasses was an intentional or unintentional red herring, and what really was happening was that the arc discharge between the electrodes induced decay in the radioactive element, resulting in prompt particles that ionized the working gas.


    I do not recall Russ Gries ever pursuing the application to the electrodes of the kinds of radioactive elements that were mentioned in the patents, but it would have been nice if he had. (I doubt he has access to such things.)

  • I understand. Making assumptions is how I try to think about things, it is not meant to be anything more than a construct to understand how it could work. your non-assumption regarding 'thorium' is the only way I thought it would be able to work if possible. The red herring I took away was that Russ G. proved that the gasses alone did not work. So to me, I resolved it enough to put it aside and move along.

  • Rigel ,


    I probably worded that more strongly than I intended. Many assumptions are reasonable, and they're always needed for drawing specific conclusions. It's just good to try to be aware of what they are and how much one is willing to budge on any given one. If the Papp device ever worked, I'm quite happy to budge on the notion that noble gasses were the fuel.

  • Axil,

    I would like for this to work. I seek how it could work, then try to understand it. Some of my earlier assumptions had to be revisited then adjusted. As I learned... I was able to discriminate a bit and research a bit. Regarding Papp (for example) if a nuclear source was tried, I would assume that Bob Rohner would be at least aware of it and working that angle. You have mentioned SPP I have also looked at this, and continue to do so. It is still an open question for me. But for me it also matters not if something in theory could have worked, but did the experiment work and was it duplicated. We take this as common knowledge and for granted in chemistry. This has not been the case in our little corner of the alternate energy world. I think it is time for this to happen and that we need this discipline of repeatability and reproducibility of experiments here. Plainly speaking we need a win, and damn fast. I am a bit disheartened today sorry. I will be very happy when an experiment proves otherwise.

  • Sherlock Holmes - we tried to move Papp to another thread. Forgetting for a minute both the sub and Feynman. Come up with a way the Papp engine could work and why it could never work. Whar your deduction b' whar?


    Are you actuallly asking me why an engine that never existed could never work? Either you are a !!!!!!! or a surrealist.


    Sherlock Holmes I deduced that you have posted an insult and removed it. Be careful! Alan.

  • Sherlock Holmes said: "Since I cannot express my sincere opinion of someone who believes in Papp's submarine, I'd rather shut up."


    Sherlock, maybe you misconstrued my meaning. Eric tried to move the you to the playground thread. It (playground) had my full reply try to read it. I will not denigrate you. Maybe you did not follow what we were both trying to get at regarding the Papp engine.

    But first -- Papp absolutely did create an engine (that was proven by Feynman since he blew it up and got sued). My argument in the other thread was going to be that the engine did not work.

    But this argument was related to the use of noble gasses. My quest was to see how possibly it could have worked. Eric Walker was kind enough to provide a reason. So it is clear the sub story is B.S. okay? Lets try again... (in the playground)

    I do not have to believe in magic to enjoy a good show, but my interest is how a magician produces smoke and mirrors. I personally learn from how these scams work, it makes me more aware when I see one. So hopefully you do not get offended by my ignorance.

  • One of my long-lasting 'esoteric research' group travelled to the West Coast 3-4 years ago to see Jimmy Sabori, Papp's old old sparring partner. He has ( he told my friend) Papps 'inert gas energising' apparatus in a workshop near his home, but wanted lots of money for it. I did have photos at one time, I should hunt them out.-


  • Well, Axil, if he was able to build a supercavitating crew carrying submarine (orders of magnitude more difficult than a torpedo) in his garage, what a pity he did not develop an F-16 and get to France faster. I'm pretty sure the Air Force would have been more than happy to refuel him in exchange for the technology. But what am I saying? His magic engine needed no refueling...


    It'd really sad that so much money was spent searching for the "Titanic". when finding Papp's sub would solve all the world's energy needs.

  • Rigel, I have no idea what you meant/said about Papp. Feynman did not want to settle the law suit-- he was forced to by lawyers for Cal tech, He wanted to take the remains of the engine apart to find out how Papp had arranged for an explosion. Papp was a paranoid shizophrenic and a chronic liar and con man. I knew a doctor who once treated him for an obviously self inflicted gunshot wound. He claimed a hit man tried to kill him (apparently a very incompetet hit man). And BTW, there is no theoretical reason or experimental evidence whatever that one could expect to extract energy from so-called noble gases. Papp is sort of a lowest common denominator of gullibility. And so is that crook Rohner who still takes money for pretending to reconstruct Papp's emgines.

  • maryyugo, I meant that Papp was full of bullshaite. Sorry I was mumbling so -- no submarine no noble engine (well he built an engine) but no nothing at all . I wanted to drag Sherlock out of this thread and into the playground. This or another thread would be the place for it. (Sherlock get your assa-pedia) to the playground where we are talking about Papp.


    Speaking rhetorically here. Why do we spend so much time telling the same people the same thing? Why not spend the same time on education?

  • Papp was clearly a charlatan, and according to all accounts the submarine escapade was an absurdly-executed fraud.


    However, there was ample evidence that he was producing some kind of gainful reaction with his motor, and managed to exploit the phenomenon sufficiently to harvest enough speculative investment to keep him going. He was apparently unable or unwilling to bring the technology to market. Some people suspect the presence of an alpha-emitter within the combustion area that rendered the engine commercially nonviable. In any case, the published information is clearly full of red herrings, and the specific details of his claims are mostly useless, to follow or debate. Russ Gries found some interesting effects with his "Popper" replication apparatus, and I suspect much more could be learned from further replication research.

  • Quote

    Papp was clearly a charlatan.. However, there was ample evidence that he was producing some kind of gainful reaction with his motor.



    So was he charlatan or had he real technology in hands? Apparently many people get confused with it.

  • I don't know about the engine, but...


    A useful scammer detector rule is to see how many world-changing but unverified/unverifiable (other than anecdotally) technologies an inventor has made. More than one should set off alarms.

    It is not a perfect rule, but it works far more often than it fails.

  • So was he charlatan or had he real technology in hands? Apparently many people get confused with it.


    It appears that he was a charlatan who also had real technology.

    From what I gather, this is similar to Rossi's story: a kernel of truth is wrapped in voluminous bullshit, effectively confusing enough people who presume an either/or storyline.