Talk:Hans von Ohain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Untitled[edit]

Hans von Ohain. After intensive research by the British Lirary and the Inst.of Mechanical Engineers I am assured that Ohain did not have a patent on jet engines.The two patents he had in 1936 and 1938 did not deal with jet engines and he said that he was annoyed that Whittle's 1931 patent did not allow one.Since he got the idea from Whittle'patent his application was refused.Ohain'contribution to the development of the jet engine was minimal and the German Air Ministry desperate for jet engines in 1938 ignored Ohain design which was extremely bad and would never have served as a jet engine.Whittle development was delayed because until 1936 there were no suitable steel for the turbine. I was on the RAF's Special Duties List from 1940 to1945 doing R&D on jet engines.

        W.BAILEY BSc CEng PEng MIMechE
I'm not sure I can accept any of these statements. For one, the patent in question dates from 1935, not 36 (although it was granted in 1937). The patent was kept secret, and all such records were destroyed during the war. Before you claim it simply didn't exist, note that some of the diagrams from the original did survive, and show a design with real differences with Whittle's design. We also know that von Ohain was presented with a copy of Whittle's patent by the patent examiner after he filed, but was granted a patent anyway as the examiner felt the differences were great enough to be defendable.
I am assuming you are confused by the fact that if you look for a patent with the name "Hans von Ohain" on it, you will instead find a different patent for some sort of electrical gadget. Note that he received 30 patents while working at Heinkel, of which only and handful survive. You can read all about it here:
[1]
[2]
I am very curious how it is that someone at the British Library convinced you otherwise.
But it is really the rest of the statements I have to pick a bone with. You start by claiming that von Ohain developed his ideas from Whittle's. Many British authors make this claim, but let me be clear on this, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.
Nor is there any reason to even suspect this is the case; there were at least five separate teams working on gas turbine engines by 1937, Whittle (centrifugal, Power Jets), Griffiths/Constant (axial, RAE), von Ohain (centrifugal, Heinkel), Wagner/Müller (axial, Junkers and later Heinkel), and Lysholm in Stockholm (don't know). In fact, the article above (on patent law) notes a similar design dating to 1921, and I am aware of eve The idea was clearly "out there", and most of these early efforts appear to be largely or completely independant.
Note that the article above, on patent law, references a 1921 patent on the topic. If you wish to claim that von Ohain simply copied Whittle, I will ask you to explain how it is then that you believe Whittle didn't simply copy this earlier design? Also note that my article on the timeline of jet power points out a number of attempts to build gas turbine engines for industrial use starting in the early 1900s. Someone was going to be first to make a jet engine work, and that someone just happened to be von Ohain.
Let's not forget that Whittle himself was eventually convinced that von Ohain's development was completely independant and the two became good friends and would often go on speaking tours together. I'll accept Whittle's word on this one.
Then you claim "ignored Ohain design which was extremely bad and would never have served as a jet engine", which seems to fly in the face of the obvious fact that his engine did fly, and was the first to do so. There was nothing wrong with the design, and nothing to suggest that it wouldn't have worked fine in production. Work on the HeS 8 was deliberately stopped because the 003 and 004 were considered better long-term bets, as well as politically more acceptable. Hans Mauch wanted all jet development to take place at the major engine companies, and since von Ohain was working at Heinkel, it was seriously frowned upon. Heinkel eventually managed to avoid this via his purchase of Hirth Motoren, but by the time the teams (Müller had recently moved to Rostok as well) were moved to their new location, Schelp had already stopped work on their designs in favour of the HeS 011.
And finally you note "Whittle development was delayed because until 1936 there were no suitable steel for the turbine." Well that's largely beside the point. Whittle's work was delayed primarily for one reason; he had no money. THAT is why von Ohain's engine was the first to fly, because Heinkel took him under his wing and set him up with a complete shop and testing systems, vital parts of any development project that Whittle didn't receive until 1938/39. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that Whittle's design was better than Ohain's, and that had he been given the same level of support his design would be flying first. But he wasn't, and it didn't. It's that simple.
Maury 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Whittle was only accepting of this because Ohain said so to Him personally. Botjh eric brown who intervired Ohains's staff immeduiately after the wasr and Ohain himself in Margaret Conner's book stated that Ohain had read Whittle's patent in the years prior to filing his patent in 1935. Here is the excerpt " 'Ohain's "patent attorney happened upon the Whittle patent in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated". von Ohain himself states that "We felt the it looked like a patent of an idea" "we thought that is was not seriously being worked on."' This is a first person admission that Ohain ahd read the patent prior to 1935 and long before building his own engine.Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Where He Got The Idea[edit]

I once heard from someone who knew von Ohain personally that he told people that he conceived the idea for the jet engine and it's eventual design from dreams he had. Does anyone know about this? Has he ever said anything like that before?

Many people had considered and actively worked on the idea of a gas turbine engines before Whittle (A.A. Griffiths for one) but Whittle was the first to patent, develop and run such an engine. (The myth that Ohain was unaware of Whittle work has been comprehensively debunked.) More about Ohain can be found in Margaret Conner's Book Elegance in Flight. Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001), — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talkcontribs) 22:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Currency[edit]

The deutsche Mark (DM) was not introduced until 1948. I assume the writer means Reichsmark (RM), which was the currency in Germany at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.11.80 (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Whittle invented Jet Engine[edit]

I think the debate is surely about who invented the jet engine concept. That was Sir Frank Whittle. Most people agree with this, and there is archive footage and documents to support this. The only people likely to diagree are either German or argumentative and spiteful. UK children, English children, should be taught this - Frank Whittle basically 'gave' his design to the people (due to lack of funds and perhaps a general lack of ego which resulted in him forgoing the millions he could have earned through patents). His polite, humourous nature is also documented, along with the detrimental affect his struggle for acceptance had on his health.

As for saying 'I fully believe Whittle's design WAS better than Ohain's'....well, it IS better, and I think you'll find it is exactly the same engine you'll find behind each jet plane in the sky. Perhaps you could argue that they are biased but each pilot I meet and each person in the RAF counts FW as the inventor. He may have become good friends with Ohain but that only means that FW acknowledged that Ohain was an engineer who's lifeswork was also jet engineering. It does not mean he patted him on the back and said 'oh yes, you helped me invent it'!

BBC programme on the jet engine (with Jeremy Clarkson) covered it well. As the programme says, had the proper patent been in place, FW would have been richer than is imaginable. Because he invented the jet engine you see?!

Whittle was not the only one to invent the jet engine. The jet engine concept was widely known at the time. Can I make it any more clear than that?
There are real-world physical testbed models of turbine engines that date back to about the turn of the century, almost 30 years before Whittle's first paper. Not papers, real-world working models. There are numerous patents for jet engines that are essentially identical to modern designs, one of the best dating to 1921 when Whittle was 14 years old. Over three years before Whittle's paper or patent, his countryman AA Griffiths was already building his first testbed design. I think you impugn Griffiths' honor more than anyone else's, if anyone can stake a solid claim to the title as the inventor of the jet engine (as opposed to turbine engine), it's clearly AA Griffiths. He was making serious proposals to use turbine engines for aircraft propulsion in 1924, when Whittle was 17 and just entering the RAF.
You also seem to illustrate a real lack of knowledge of jet engine design when you state in your second paragraph that Whittle's is the same engine you'll find today. That's just wrong. The von Ohain design was a centrifugal compressor with a centrifugal turbine, Whittle's had a centrifugal compressor and an axial turbine, Griffith's and Anslem's were axial / axial. Today, the VAST majority of jet engines are axial / axial. Whittle-style centrifugal / axial engines largely disappeared by 1960, and centrifugal stages are seen only as the HP compressors of high/low setups (cf. PWC PT-6). And it's also widely documented that Whittle did credit von Ohain with his developments being independent. Your speculation about his statements is nothing more than wishful thinking.
If you can explain how Whittle went back in time and invented the engine before he was born so that he could inspire the experiments circa 1905 , I'm all ears. If you can demonstrate how his 1930 paper somehow inspired Griffiths' one from 1924, I'll be just as impressed. And given that you claim that "there is archive footage and documents to support this", I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy to present all this evidence. Right? Instead of just making unsupported claims and ad hominem attacks about being German or spiteful? (how FidoNet circa 1985!)
Maury 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalists' debate[edit]

When will you once for all stop a struggle which both (Whittle and Ohain) had settled !? This world will never live in peace with men like you Jaypee1 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Whittle inventing the jet engine is rubish, he didn't even have a working concept until the germans already had a working bird in the air. Why don't you people did deeper and look at "Sir Rubbish's" actually Patent, there was nothing in it to make it a "turbo jet". It's always the winning country that gets to write history the way the see it fit, not actual truth. Bias nuckle heads. I'm going to scribble a disc on a napkin with a crayona nd get it pattented for WORM HOLE TRANSPORTATION technology. Yes I have no working design, nore aircraft, but I have the patent first.. so I invented it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.30.197 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above is unsupportable nonsense. Whittle had his engine running in early 1937, 6 months before Ohain ran his. Please don't post unless you know what you are talking about.Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Creator of first working jet plane[edit]

Article could go further than co-inventor, to state that Whittle created the idea, but that Hans von Ohain created the first working jet plane. Could even have a go at the British authorities, and praise the Nazis, probably one of the few times it would be appropriate to do so. Londo06 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's wrong, you mean? Let me repeat: people were trying to built working turbine engines since 1905. Someone in France patented an axial-flow turbojet for aircraft use in 1921. AA Griffiths was building one in England in the 1920s. Neither Whittle nor von Ohain "created" the idea. Both re-created it, independently. I don't understand why this is so confusing for everyone. Maury 12:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If you consider all the flying systems which German engineers (I'm not speaking about politics) developed during the war (V1, V2, Kramer X4 etc.) and which were "used" by the USA (see Operation Paperclip), Russia and France after the war, this debate is really lowest level. Jaypee1 11:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
AA Griffiths was attempted to design one with a propeller. Londo06 15:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional source[edit]

The book "The jet race and the Second World War", Sterling Michael Pavelec. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. ISBN 0275993558, 9780275993559 http://books.google.com/books?id=dSLBdP22fq0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0275993558&hl=da&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false , courtesy of User:Ferocious osmosis , contains some details of Ohain's efforts. Price of first model is set at 500DM here, not 1000DM (should be Reichsmarks?). Page 20 and 21 shows that around September 1938, Ohain became aware that others had patented similar concepts, and that he was convinced about the viability of his own and the inoperability of others. TGCP (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The above again is unsupportable given Ohain's admission that he had read and critiqued Whittle's work PRIOR to his patent being filed in 1935.Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Whittle's WU[edit]

A new editor has been saying Ohain's work was based on seeing Whittle's patent, and that Whittle WU ran before Ohain's engine, rather than after. We need to straighten this matter out here on the talk page while the article is locked down. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This claim is not supported by the source: "Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001)" → WP:CHERRYPICKING - only when filing his patent, he came across something that "looked like a patent of an idea" (his patent attorney found it during a patent search, but that doesn't mean he started from that idea) → "Von Ohain began development of the turbojet engine in the 1930s while pursuing his doctoral studies at Goettinger University in Germany. He and Frank Whittle worked independently of one another, their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention."[3] This matter has been thoroughly discussed before ↑↑ [4], [5].
A couple of sources, all published within the last three years:
"Heinkel's backing allowed von Ohain to progress rapidly, and by 1937 (though entirely unaware of Whittle's work, as was Whittle of his) he successfully tested an engine in his workshop." Kenneth W. Ragland, Kenneth M. Bryden, Combustion Engineering, Second Edition, 2011 - page 506 [6]
"Von Ohain and his patent attorney were unaware of Whittle's work and of Guillaume's 1921 patent, whose existence, as von Ohain later noted, “should have been the cause for the rejection of practically all further turbojet patents”..." Vaclav Smil, Two Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines, 2010, page 92 [7]
"In 1930, Frank Whittle (UK) submitted patents for a gas turbine engine, which potentially offered much higher thrust than a piston engine. In 1935, Hans von Ohain (Germany) started work on a similar design while completely unaware of Whittle's work..." Thomas A. Ward, Aerospace Propulsion Systems, 2010 page xiv [8]
"Meanwhile in Germany, unaware of Whittle's work, Hans von Ohain had developed his own theory of jet propulsion in 1933, while studying for a doctorate in physics and aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen." Adam Hart-Davis, Engineers, 2012, page 335 [9].
Sources on von Ohain being the designer of the first "operational " jet engine:
"Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain, (born Dec. 14, 1911, Dessau, Ger.—died March 13, 1998, Melbourne, Fla., U.S.), German designer of the first operational jet engine." Encyclopaedia Britannica → [10]
"Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine." Jet Engines - Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle → [11]
"Hans von Ohain of Germany was the designer of the first operational jet engine..." THE JET ENGINE: A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION → [12]
"While Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine, Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent..." J. S. Rao, ,History of Rotating Machinery Dynamics, 2011, page 37 [13]
"...Ohain, the 25-year-old Doktor Ingenieur was able to produce the world's first operational turbojet engine..." Sterling Michael Pavelec, The Jet Race and the Second World War, 2007, page 17 [14]
"...the first operational jet engine was designed in Germany by Hans Pabst von Ohain and powered the first jet-aircraft flight on Aug. 27, 1939." Robert Curley, One Hundred Most Influential Inventors of All Time, 2010, page 237 [15] --IIIraute (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that Ohain was aware of Whittle work because he had read his patent PRIOR to his own being filed in 1935. This is an admission in his own words, not conjecture.Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC) None of the above quotes are supported by evidence. Please supply the source of these quotes otherwise they are hearsay.

This is an opinion not fact. Again from maragaret Conner's book: MOhain

A knowledge of academic rules of evidence would help here, It does not matter when the source was published or the author's opinion. What matters is VERIFIABLE evidence. In this Ohain's own statements trump any other author's opinion...Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In order to deny my edits, IIIraute must be able to discredit Margaret Conner's book, discredit Eric Brown's statements, deny Ohain's own statements, provide proof that Ohain's engine ran before Whittle's and define what 'operational means in aerospace terms..

Unless this can be done all of his assertions are unsupported (regardless of how many times they are repeated by other aurthors)and do not deserve to be in Wiki. That is my challenge. if you can address these I will cease correcting these pages.Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Please also see discussion above↑↑ User Completeaerogeek continues to edit war, removing well referenced, long standing WP:RS content (for example: "Encyclopaedia Britannica"[16], or "The Draper Prize"[17]), in favour for unreferenced claims, such as → [18], [19], [20], or most recently → [21]. Furthermore, the editor chooses to use weasel words, which appear to assert factual/historical accuracy, but which are unsourced → "It has often been said...". etc. [22]. Completeaerogeek's "referenced" claim (without page number) is not supported by the alleged source: "Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001)", but rather is selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says → WP:CHERRYPICKING - as shown below:

Here, the text as edited by user Completeaerogeek:

"It has often been said that Von Ohain independently developed his engine although the original source of this claim is unknown. More reliably, Margaret Conner in her book "Elegance In Flight" [1] describes how Ohain's "patent attorney happened upon a Whittle patent in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated". von Ohain himself is quoted as saying "We felt that it looked like a patent of an idea" "we thought that it was not seriously being worked on." As Ohain's patent was not filed until 1935 this evidence clearly shows that he had read Whittle's patent and had even critiqued it some 2 years before his own engine ran."

and here, what the source really says:

"About Whittle's patent von Ohain said, "We felt it looked like a patent of an idea. You find many idea patents. For an invention, it is not necessary that you build it. We thought it was not being seriously worked on. I had not the slightest idea that Whittle was, at that very time, developing his ideas with great vigor."" [23], Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001, page 34

and, another source:

"When Ohain saw the patents, he was convinced that they were merely "paper" patents, as yet unbuilt. Specifically, he knew that the Swedish patents were not being built; more to the point, he was convinced that the Whittle design was inherently flawed. Ohain saw Whittle's engine as unstable and impractical, and thought that "... the Whittle idea was not being seriously worked on. I had not the slightest idea that Whittle was, at that very time, developing his ideas with great vigor. We were both working along similar lines but with different approaches." The Germans continued with the perception that they were the only viable project under construction, and that they were pursuing the correct theoretically based development of turbojet engines for aircraft." [24], Sterling Michael Pavelec, The Jet Race and the Second World War, 2007, page 21.

This matter has been thoroughly discussed before ↑↑ [25], [26]. Please let me quote the WP administrator Maury on this matter, at the Frank Whittle talk page:

"The article should make it clear that von Ohain and Whittle's developments were in no way related. There is absolutely no reason to believe that von Ohain did not independantly come up with the idea, as did many other people (Franz, Griffiths, Jendasick for sure, more arguably Muller, the BMW team, etc). von Ohain did not see Whittle's patent until he attempted to file his own, and the patent examiner showed it to him. The two designs are somewhat different, and the examiner felt they different enough to grant von Ohain a patent anyway. Let us not forget that AA Griffiths had already built his testbed engine in 1927, but I don't see anyone claiming either of these guys ripped off his idea." [27]

Peroration:

"Whittle was totally unaware of von Ohain’s work. Von Ohain was conscious of other efforts to patent a jet engine, but did not draw upon any of the available knowledge. His preferred operating style was to work out his own ideas first, then see what others had done. The two men had three things in common: initial governmental failure to recognize the immense potential of their experiments; totally inadequate rewards for their great invention; and extravagant exploitation of their efforts by others." (Walter J. Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum, Washington) Air Force Magazine, The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, Vol. 89, 2006 [28]. --IIIraute (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"It has often been said that Von Ohain independently developed his engine although the original source of this claim is unknown. More reliably, Margaret Conner in her book "Elegance In Flight" [1] describes how Ohain's "patent attorney happened upon a Whittle patent in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated". von Ohain himself is quoted as saying "We felt that it looked like a patent of an idea" "we thought that it was not seriously being worked on." As Ohain's patent was not filed until 1935 this evidence clearly shows that he had read Whittle's patent and had even critiqued it some 2 years before his own engine ran."

This is exactly correct,.Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"About Whittle's patent von Ohain said, "We felt it looked like a patent of an idea. You find many idea patents. For an invention, it is not necessary that you build it. ( However Whittle had!Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)) We thought it was not being seriously worked on. I had not the slightest idea that Whittle was, at that very time, developing his ideas with great vigor." [29], Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001, page 34

You have truncated the quote to suit your ends. The actual quote is as I have posted. Ohain's opinion is not relevant. he admits having read and critiqued the patents.Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC) You cannot simultaneously say he read the patents and then say he had no knowledge.Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the actual text "Ohain's "patent attorney happened upon the Whittle patent in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated" ( i.e. BEFORE his 1935 filing). von Ohain himself states that "We felt the it looked like a patent of an idea" "we thought that is was not seriously being worked on."

So here is absolute proof that Ohain had seen the patents PRIOR to 1935. His 'impression was clearly wrong' yet you continue to argue that he was unaware of Whittle's work Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you claim Ohain was unaware and then state that he had read the patents?????Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute seems to have an absolute absence of understanding of evidence. He simultaneously claims that Ohain was unaware of Whittle's work and then admits Ohain had read Whittle's patents. This is untenable and perpetuates a significant falsehood in the history of aviation. Further, I have supplied references that show Capt Eric Brown [1](The Man who Shrunk the Globe BBC Productions)had interviewed Ohain's staff after the war as part of his review of enemy aircraft and Ohains workers had stated that they had referred to Whittle's drawings while Ohain's engine was being designed. This is historical fact not supposition. I have challenged IIIraute to provide the ORIGINAL source evidence for the claim that Ohain was unaware but he has failed to do so. he essential fact is that Ohain admits that he read Whittle's patents prior to hi patent application in 1935 and long before his engine ran. This in itself explodes the myth that he was unaware. This is empirical evidence and supersedes and vague claims of ignorance.Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC) I submit that he is deliberately perpetuating an unsupportable myth and damaging the reputation of Wiki as a reliable source of information.Completeaerogeek (talk) Further IIIraute has completely failed to provide ANY original source evidence that would counter anything I have written. I have lodged a dispute against this substandard myth making.Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Further in IIIrautes re-editing, he states that Ohain's engine was the first operational engine. This is factually untrue. Ohain's engine was never operational in any correct sense. it was an experiment that flew a few times and was shelved. Also he tries to give the impression that Ohain's engine ran first when this is incorrect. it was bench tested using an electrical motor to drive the compressor but did not run as a gas turbine until 6 months after Whittle's engine. gain he is attempting to perpetuate a falsehood that is in direct contrast to known historical facts. I have postgraduate qualifications in aviation science and am a researcher and University lecturer in this area. It does all of us in the industry a disservice to see this kind of biased construction.Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have refactored your talk page edits which wrongly inserted in between parts of IIIraute's discussion. Please keep your own talk page entries together in the future.
My position here is in agreement with IIIraute. I do not consider your changes to be neutrally worded or in line with reliable sources. I think you are slanting the sources in your summaries of them. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The debate above hinges entirely on a single word who's veracity is not being independently or directly supported.
In my reading of the available sources, Ohain leaned of Whittle's patent when he filed his own in 1935. Completeaerogeek's debate about this point rests on Brown's turn of phrase "in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated". I read that to mean the years between 1935 and 1937, Completeaerogeek (apparently) reads that to mean the years before 1935. However, only one of these meanings is directly and independently supported, 1935, a year that appears in many, many references. We can debate what Mr. Brown "really means" but that would always be our interpretation of the statement, unless someone were to contact Mr. Brown (who continues to demonstrate his superiority to all of us) for clarification. In the meantime there is nothing that could possibly serve as the basis for a claim of fact.
But the argument doesn't end there. Further support is claimed in a quote of Ohain's, "we thought that is was not seriously being worked on", which is given weight because it is a "first person admission" that Ohain "read the patent prior to 1935". Of course, no such claim is made in the statement, it simply illiterates what we all agree on, that Ohain saw Whittle's patent. It is not entirely clear why this is even mentioned, but I suspect it is because we also have direct statements from both Ohain and Whittle saying the exact opposite.
What's happening here is that Completeaerogeek is taking two statements that are essentially unrelated, and using them to construct a new position that neither source actually states, that Ohain admits he saw Whittle's patent prior to 1935. Do you see how that works? This is called synthesis, and such arguments are to be ignored out out of hand.
So, Completeaerogeek, if you do wish to support this position further, you will need to provide a direct quote from a good reference that clearly states the year in which Ohain became aware of the Whittle patent. Any further edits without such a reference, one we can all see and read, are fair game for removal.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I know I'm not supposed to drop this in but in the name of academic integrity, I couldn't resist Completeaerogeek 06:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC):

VON OHAIN: Our patent claims had to be narrowed in comparison to Whittle’s because Whittle showed certain things." (clearly this was during the preparation of his patent that was later filed in 1935).

"When I saw Whittle’s patent I was almost convinced that it had something to do with boundary layer suction combinations. It had a two-flow, dual entrance flow radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after all though it gave some minor instability problems."[2]

Thank you! You just did provide the proof that von Ohain did not draw upon Whittles' design - otherwise, why did he only find out about the similarities when trying to patent his own design. Ergo: von Ohain did not know about the Whittle engine before filing his own patent in 1935. ("Their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention." [30]) --IIIraute (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________________

Okay gentlemen: Here we go: I will take this point by point.Completeaerogeek (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

::In my reading of the available sources, Ohain leaned of Whittle's patent when he filed his own in 1935. Completeaerogeek's debate about this point rests on Brown's turn of phrase "in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated".::In my reading of the available sources, Ohain leaned of Whittle's patent when he filed his own in 1935. Completeaerogeek's debate about this point rests on Brown's turn of phrase "in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated". I read that to mean the years between 1935 and 1937, Completeaerogeek (apparently) reads that to mean the years before 1935. However, only one of these meanings is directly and independently supported, 1935, a year that appears in many, many references

Exactly: You confirm that the patent was filed in 1935. The years when the patent was being formulated must by definition be PRIOR to the filing. QED. How you can assert that the patent was being formulated between 1935 and 1937 is unfathomable since it was filed in 1935 and MUST have been formulated beforehand. Further, from the Cambridge University timeline shown below: 1931: Germany- Copies of the British turbojet patent are purchased by the German Trade Commission in London and distributed amongst German aeronautical research establishments as well as aero-engine and airframe manufacturers.” Unless von Ohain was the most inept academic in history (and I do not suggest for a minute that he was) he would have read these papers as part of his research. As a Masters qualified University lecturer and researcher in aerospace science, I can assure you this is an absolute requirement. In any case he states that he did read and critique it.

As von Ohain’s patent was filed in 1935 and Conner states that his attorney had come across Whittle’s patent “while the von Ohain patent was being formulated” i.e some time before his application was filed. PRIOR to his patent being filed that MUST mean prior to 1935 as it takes some time do an international patent search (and particularly so in 1935 before email when everything would have been done by letter). This is unequivocal. He read the patent PRIOR to filing and that mean PRIOR to 1935. Unless von Ohain also invented a time machine, I don’t know how to make this any clearer.

From Conner’s book: - "The patent attorney happened upon the Whittle patent in the years that the Von Ohain patents were being formulated" (i.e prior to filing. You don’t formulate a patent after a filing…) In any case this demonstrates prior knowledge which invalidates the claim that von Ohain was unaware of Whittle’s work. Von Ohain’s own statements then continue, Upon reviewing Whittle’s patent, he offers his own critique. “We felt it looked like a patent of an idea. You find many idea patents. For an invention it is not necessary that you build it." "We thought that is was not seriously being worked on."

There it is. von Ohain had read the patent prior to filing his own. What he thought of the patent is irrelevant as he was demonstrably incorrect. Whittle was deep into developing his engine at the time. This categorically destroys the ‘unaware’ assertion.

Next point: "When Ohain saw the patents, he was convinced that they were merely "paper" patents, as yet unbuilt. Specifically, he knew that the Swedish patents were not being built; more to the point, he was convinced that the Whittle design was inherently flawed. Ohain saw Whittle's engine as unstable and impractical, and thought that "... the Whittle idea was not being seriously worked on. I had not the slightest idea that Whittle was, at that very time, developing his ideas with great vigor.

The above source (Sterling Michael Pavelec, The Jet Race and the Second World War, 2007, page 21.) is self contradictory. First of all – all patents at the time were ‘paper patents’. Secondly it proves that von Ohain had read the patents immediately invalidating the ‘unaware’ claim. Thirdly- von Ohain was utterly incorrect in assuming that Whittle was not building his engine, so his assumption is irrelevant. Lastly: he was convinced that Whittle’s ideas were ‘inherently flawed? What a remarkable statement. It demonstrates a detailed knowledge of Whittle’s patent years prior to him building his own engine Ironically, it was in fact von Ohain’s design that was inherently flawed and was never produced except in experimental form. I don’t know how many ways to prove this… But just for fun, here is more,

Famous and accomplished test pilot Capt. Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown [3](The Man who Shrunk the Globe BBC Productions) was appointed to head a team researching German WWII engineering achievements. He flew and reported on almost all of the captured aircraft and associated technology for the British Air Ministry and the Royal Aircraft establishment during this process. Being a fluent speaker of German he interviewed virtually all of the significant players in the aeronautical arena. He states that during this process he interviewed Ohain's staff as part of his review of enemy aircraft and Ohain’s workers had stated that they 'had copies of Whittle’s documents and referred to Whittle's drawings' while Ohain's engine was being designed. Another first person quote from an unimpeachable source.

::What's happening here is that Completeaerogeek is taking two statements that are essentially unrelated, and using them to construct a new position that neither source actually states, that Ohain admits he saw Whittle's patent prior to 1935. Do you see how that works? This is called synthesis, and such arguments are to be ignored out out of hand.

This is a fallacious argument for the following reasons: 1: We know the year of the patent filing-1935. Conner states that von Ohain came in possession of the patent “while the von Ohain patent was being formulated”. By definition this is prior to filing. You don’t formulate a patent after filing it…. Ergo von Ohain (in his own words) read and critiqued the patent prior to filing his own. It is not necessary for his to say the exact date as it is limited to before his patent filing. This utterly invalidates the objection above.

I could go on and on but here are the essential verifiable facts:

1- Ohain confirms that he read Whittle’s patent prior to filing his own.[4] "The patent attorney happened upon a Whittle patent during the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated"

His patent was filed in 1935. Ergo he read the patent in 1935 or earlier.

2- Eric Brown states that he personally interviewed von Ohain’s engineers who stated they referred to Whittle’s patent during development.

3 – As von Ohain read Whittle’s patent prior to building his engine- the ‘unaware’ claim is fully debunked.

4 – von Ohain’s engine DID NOT run in March 1937. It was bench tested using an electrical motor to turn the compressor. In order to ‘run’ a gas turbine engine MUST be capable of completing a Brayton Cycle. That is, the compressor MUST be powered by a turbine. Von Ohain’s engine (a sheet metal experiment-not a proper engine) did not achieve this until September 1937, some 6 months after Whittle. This falsehood should be removed from the Wiki article as it is demonstrably untrue.

5: The article claims that von Ohain created the first ‘operational’ turbojet engine. This is incorrect and relies on an incorrect use of the word ‘operational’. An engine or aircraft is not technically operational until it has been cleared for service. (IOC) Ohain's engines were never cleared for service and in fact were technical dead ends that were never developed into an operational engine. If by operational you mean that it ran successfully, then Whittle again was first by 6 months but this is not the correct description which is why I edited it to say’ the first turbojet to power an aircraft’ which is technically correct.

Now to the crux of the matter:

In order to support the ‘unaware’ claim you MUST do the following:

1 -Prove that Conner fabricated von Ohain’s statements that he had read Whittle’s patent prior to filing his own in 1935. 2- Prove that Eric Brown fabricated his technical reports (to the British Air Ministry) and also the interviews with von Ohain’s engineers regarding von Ohain’s work. 3- Find the original PROOF that von Ohain was unaware of Whitle’s work, this cannot be a citation from a publication that does not cite an original unimpeachable source.

I can find lots of books that claim that Bigfoot is real or that God is real or that Nessie is real. I can cite all of these sources but it does not make them true unless there is direct evidence of existence. Citing sources based on their ’stature’ is called ‘proof by eminence’ and is not a valid form of verification. If Encyclopaedia Britannica makes an erroneous citation it is still wrong. Also citing numerous sources who cite each-other is called ‘citation stacking’. In the absence of direct evidence from an originating source the statements are unsupported. By the way - von Ohain cannot be used as a source for the ‘unaware claim’ because he admits he had read the patents prior to filing his own.

If the above cannot be achieved then the ‘unaware’ assertion cannot stand and if Wiki is to have any integrity the article must be amended.

  To illuminate this discussion, following is a document from an extremely credible source regarding the timeline of jet engine development:

Cambridge University Department of Engineering: A Simplified Chronology of Early Turbojet Development

1929- Britain - Frank Whittle tenders his turbojet proposal to the Air Ministry. The Ministry ask Dr Arnold Griffith at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) to make an assessment. Griffith advises his mentors that the proposal has little merit. It is rejected without further research and not placed on the Secret List.

1930- Britain January. Whittle makes a successful application to patent his turbojet. (The Air Ministry are advised of this but again fail to apply secrecy.)

1931- Britain April. The turbojet patent is published and thereafter becomes available to all interested parties from the National Stationary Office. Germany- Copies of the British turbojet patent are purchased by the German Trade Commission in London and distributed amongst German aeronautical research establishments as well as aero-engine and airframe manufacturers.

1935- Britain Whittle is encouraged by his friends, Williams and Tinling, to join them in a private venture to develop the jet engine.

Germany- Dr. Herbert Wagner initiates research at the Junkers Flugzeugwerke (JFA) to assess the gas turbine for shaft or jet power. (Focussing on the use of the axial compressor.)

At the Aeronautical Research Division (AVA) at Göttingen, Dr. Hans von Ohain conceives a unique form of gas turbine and plans to apply this to aeronautics as a jet engine.

1936 Britain - Power Jets Ltd formed. Turbojet development begins. Whittle patents his proposals for turbofan (high-bypass) turbojets and the use of reheat for thrust augmentation.

Following (and as a result of) the establishment of Power Jets, the RAE is directed to re-activate aeronautical gas turbine research (dropped in 1930) as a means to develop shaft horsepower – focussing on the axial compressor.

Germany Secret development of the Wagner turbojet begins at JFA. Secret development of the Ohain turbojet begins at Ernst Heinkel AG (HAG).

1937: Britain April. Using diesel oil, the Whittle Unit (WU) is run for the first time at Power Jets.

Germany: September. Fuelled by Hydrogen, a sheet-metal experimental model of the Ohain unit is run for the first time at HAG.

Herman Oestrich considering turbojet designs at Siemens (date unconfirmed)

1938 Germany March (unconfirmed). The Ohain engine is first run using liquid fuel.

Unaware of the jet project at HAG (but probably aware of the JFA project) the Air Ministry (RLM) encourages engine manufacturers to develop the turbojet. (The axial compressor is specified.) Bramo, BMW & (later) Daimler Benz take up turbojet research and development.

1939: Britain - June. The Air Ministry finally recognise the potential of the turbojet and begin funding the development at Power Jets. The RAE abandons turbo-shaft research in favour of the turbojet.

Germany Under Anselm Franz, Junkers Motorenwerke (Jumo) assumes development of the turbojet in place of JFA. The Wagner team (led by Max Müller) migrate to HAG to continue with their project there.

August/November. First flight of a jet powered aeroplane: The Heinkel He.178, powered by the Ohain unit achieves two six-minute flights – the first in August, the second in November.

1941 Britain May. The Gloster E28/39, powered by the Whittle (W1) engine, begins a series of flight trials – accumulating 25 hours of bench tests followed by ten hours of in-flight use before a check of the engine was undertaken.

End of Citation.Completeaerogeek (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Enjoy!

"Whittle was totally unaware of von Ohain’s work. Von Ohain was conscious of other efforts to patent a jet engine, but did not draw upon any of the available knowledge. His preferred operating style was to work out his own ideas first, then see what others had done. The two men had three things in common: initial governmental failure to recognize the immense potential of their experiments; totally inadequate rewards for their great invention; and extravagant exploitation of their efforts by others." (Walter J. Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum, Washington) Air Force Magazine, The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, Vol. 89, 2006 [31].
Got that? von Ohain was conscious of other efforts to patent a jet engine, but was unaware of Whittle's "work", i.e that Whittle was actually trying to "build" an engine → Von Ohain: "You find many idea patents ... I had not the slightest idea that Whittle was, at that very time, developing his ideas with great vigor."
"Von Ohain was conscious ... but did not draw upon any of the available knowledge. His preferred operating style was to work out his own ideas first, then see what others had done." → Von Ohain: "We thought that the Whittle idea was not being seriously worked on ... We were both working along similar lines but with different approaches."
Vaclav Smil, Two Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines, 2010, page 92: "Von Ohain and his patent attorney were unaware of "Whittle's work" and of "Guillaume's 1921 patent", whose existence, as von Ohain later noted, “should have been the cause for the rejection of practically all further turbojet patents”... [32]
Do you get it? "work" ≠ "patent"!
Ergo: Who cares about 1935 - you have misinterpreted the primary sources and, more importantly, not provided a single secondary WP:RS in support of your claims. Not one of the secondary WP:RS listed above → Talk:Whittle's WU [33], (several specialized books, that were all published within the last three years!) agrees with your own, flawed, original research theory. But it doesn't even matter, because von Ohain already had developed his "own theory" of jet propulsion in 1933 - maybe a year or two later, he took notice of Whittle's patent (among many others) - who knows! → "Meanwhile in Germany, unaware of Whittle's work, Hans von Ohain had developed his own theory of jet propulsion in 1933, while studying for a doctorate in physics and aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen." Adam Hart-Davis, Engineers, 2012, page 335 [34]. --IIIraute (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________

Your argument is unraveling before my eyes... Kind of fun to watch. Anyway here we go.

The above is pure speculation unless you can find the original source evidence.

If not, you must withdraw the opinion in favour of von Ohain's and Brown's first person evidence. Its as simple as that.


Von Ohain was conscious of other efforts to patent a jet engine, but did not draw upon any of the available knowledge"

What is the source evidence for this statement? Ohain's own staff say otherwise. You can cite all of the biblical scholars you like but that is not evidence of a god... My first year BSc students understand this principle. It should not be that hard for you


"Von Ohain and his patent attorney were unaware of "Whittle's work

This is absolutely unsupportable speculation unless you are saying Conner is lying. None of the above are original sources. They are OPINIONS NOT EVIDENCE. Find the ORIGINAL source of the 'Unaware' statement Do you get it?????


Desperation tactics here: :Got that? von Ohain was conscious of other efforts to patent a jet engine, but was unaware of Whittle's "work"

If von Ohain had read and critiqued the patent as he claims then he was more than 'conscious', he was FULLY informed of all of the design parameters and principles, contained within including the design drawings and layout of the engine and in this day and age he would have been successfully sued for patent infringement by Whittle..

The essential undisputed facts is:he had the plans for Whittle's engine more than 2 years prior to building his own.

(By the way, I notice you have modified you claim from 'unaware' to'conscious of'. Very telling...)


“should have been the cause for the rejection of practically all further turbojet patents”...

Apart from being an unsupported and unqualified opinion of a non-lawyer (Ohain) This is pure irony as his also should have been disallowed by this premise! The British Patent Office DID legally award the patent and distributed the proof in 1931., before Ohain had even received his doctorate


'His first design ran in March 1937' (from your Wiki entry)

I notice that you have avoided addressing this error. His engine did not run until September 1937. This is a deliberate attempt on your part to give the impression that he ran his engine before Whittle. A complete untruth.


'designer of the first operational jet engine'

His engine was NEVER 'operational'. This is another untruth and an example of your attempt to mislead people. There is a VAST difference between an EXPERIMENTAL unit and an OPERATIONAL unit. I have provided the correct, referenced definition of this but you continue to avoid the truth.


Who cares about 1935 - you have misinterpreted the primary sources and, more importantly, not provided a single secondary WP:RS in support of your claims. Not one of the secondary WP:RS listed above → Talk:Whittle's WU [35], (several specialized books, that were all published within the last three years!) agrees with your own, flawed, original research theory

Who cares about 1935???? It is essential to the argument and a sign of a very weak hand that you try to discard it. This is not a theory, and it is not original research. I have cited TWO FIRST HAND accounts of von Ohain's prior knowledge. von Ohain and Brown - one of the most eminent test pilots in history and someone who had FIRST HAND ACCESS to Ohain's staff and technical documents. This is DIRECT EVIDENCE.

If you can somehow convince yourself that hearsay or opinions given by authors, no matter how recent, has primacy over FIRST HAND QUOTES you are really out of your depth and should perhaps tackle an easier subject. And whatever you do, do not try to defend yourself using this kind of evidence if you should ever end up in court. The judge would laugh their head off. This is akin to prosecuting someone via newspaper articles rather than using actual evidence of their guilt... "Ahh we have the accused fingerprints on the weapon, video of them at the scene, hair and fibre matches and the victims DNA under their fingernails but heck he says he is not guilty and so does his best mate, so I guess we'll let him off..." Hysterical!

Also I have not MISINTERPRETED von Ohain's statements. I have not interpreted them at all. I have simply quoted them as he offered them and put them in to historical context... Your argument is with von Ohain not me. So enough of the ad-hominem kindergarten tactics. It doesn't work with grown ups much less academics with 30 years of aviation experience and who specialize in aerospace science...


Now- back to the essential point: Who said he did not draw on the work? What is the proof of this? This is Boyne's and Smils OPINIION-that is it is either derivative of something or is pure hypothesis. FIND THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.. Who does he cite as the source??? If you cannot cite the original source your assertion is unsupportable. Simple as that...

The challenge remains: Unless you can do the following you have NO EVIDENCE to support any of the above claims.

1 -Prove that Conner fabricated von Ohain’s statements that he had read Whittle’s patent prior to filing his own in 1935. 2- Prove that Eric Brown fabricated his technical reports (to the British Air Ministry) and also the interviews with von Ohain’s engineers regarding von Ohain’s work. 3- Find the original PROOF that von Ohain was unaware of Whitle’s work, this cannot be a citation from a publication that does not cite an original unimpeachable source.

Unless you achieve the above you have no valid argument for your hypothesis and you must amend your incorrect Wiki entries.. EnjoyCompleteaerogeek (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have not modified any claim. I have posted the "Walter J. Boyne" quote already several days ago ⇒ 04:14, 19 July 2013‎ [36]. You just didn't comprehend the content. I think you still do not understand how the WP works - I do not have to prove anything. You are the one who has to provide secondary WP:RS that are in support of your claims. So far you have failed to do so.
Joseph J. Ermenc, Interviews with German Contributors to Aviation History, Meckler, 1990, page 57:
VON OHAIN: "It was a fantastic discovery. You know an invention may depend upon whether you look at it objectively or whether you look at it subjectively. One may not have known that there were certain ideas which had already been thought of before and one may reinvent them all." ... VON OHAIN: "Yes. I was entirely unaware of Whittle's work. I was entirely unaware of the Nernst turbine. I was practically unaware of radial flow compressor technology. We were very innocent technically and had to reinvent many things." [37] --IIIraute (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________

VON OHAIN: "Yes. I was entirely unaware of Whittle's work already disproven (von Ohain and Brown) but here it is again, just for fun.

"The patent attorney happened upon the Whittle patent in the years that the Von Ohain patents were being formulated" (i.e prior to filing. You don’t formulate a patent after a filing…) In any case this demonstrates prior knowledge which invalidates the claim that von Ohain was unaware of Whittle’s work. Von Ohain’s own statements then continue. Upon reviewing Whittle’s patent, he offers his own critique.

VON OHAIN: “We felt it looked like a patent of an idea. You find many idea patents. For an invention it is not necessary that you build it." "We thought that is was not seriously being worked on."

OOPS! Looks like von Ohain has been hoist on his own petard!

And yes you did modify your position. You have gone from ‘entirely unaware’ to ‘Conscious of’ but the truth is he had detailed knowledge before 1935 and long before he made his engine…

I have provide 2 FIRST PERSON SOURCES von Ohain and Brown as for von Ohain’s statement, he is undone by his own statements and by Brown’s interviews with his staff. It is also simply unbelievable that an academic doing research would not read a patent that directly precedes his research but of course we know he did.

"Honest copper-when I confessed I didn’t mean it…"

I am going to show this conversation to my students tomorrow night to show them how not to cite sources. Should get a laugh….Completeaerogeek (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________

Oh look, here are some more gems from von Ohain. It just gets better and better!

VON OHAIN: Our patent claims had to be narrowed in comparison to Whittle’s because Whittle showed certain things."

"When I saw Whittle’s patent I was almost convinced that it had something to do with boundary layer suction combinations. It had a two-flow, dual entrance flow radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after all though it gave some minor instability problems."

[5]

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark!

And the truth shall set you free...Completeaerogeek (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I can send you a scan of the page if you like... :)

Your quote → "VON OHAIN: Our patent claims had to be narrowed in comparison to Whittle’s because Whittle showed certain things." ⇒ Thank you! You just did provide the proof that von Ohain did not draw upon Whittles' design - otherwise, why did he only find out about the similarities when trying to patent his own design. Ergo: von Ohain did not know about the Whittle engine before filing his own patent. ("Their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention." [38]) The latter is in full consistence with the following Ohain interview:
Joseph J. Ermenc, Interviews with German Contributors to Aviation History, Meckler, 1990, page 57:
VON OHAIN: "It was a fantastic discovery. You know an invention may depend upon whether you look at it objectively or whether you look at it subjectively. One may not have known that there were certain ideas which had already been thought of before and one may reinvent them all." ... VON OHAIN: "Yes. I was entirely unaware of Whittle's work. I was entirely unaware of the Nernst turbine. I was practically unaware of radial flow compressor technology. We were very innocent technically and had to reinvent many things." [39] --IIIraute (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________


IIIRAUTE: "Thank you! You just did provide the proof that von Ohain did not draw upon Whittles' design - otherwise, why did he find out about the similarities when trying to patent his own design. Ergo: von Ohain did not know about the Whittle engine before filing his own patent."


Uhhh okay. (somebody call a doctor) Did you read your comment before you posted it???

By demonstrating that von Ohain had read and critiqued Whittle's patent in very fine and specific detail, specific enough that he could see some potential problems with the reverse flow configuration while preparing his own patent application PRIOR to 1935, I have proved that von Ohain did not know about Whittle's engine???????

Put another way: You are asserting that despite reading an extremely detailed technical document showing Whittle's design for a centrifugal gas turbine engine, von Ohain did not know about this engine when he filed his own application for a centrifugal has turbine engine????

Did he slip and hit his head on the toilet and get amnesia? Or did he invent the Flux Capacitor too?

I think you have lost it... Perhaps time for a lie down... :)Completeaerogeek (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Oh no I forgot the best part!

VON OHAIN: I was practically unaware of radial flow compressor technology. (Liar-liar pants on fire!)

VON OHAIN "It had a two-flow, dual entrance radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after all though it gave some minor instability problems."

I guess he learned all he needed to know about how to design a radial flow compressor (like the one he later put in his engine) from Whittle!!

It just keeps getting better!Completeaerogeek (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for providing even more evidence:
VON OHAIN: I was practically unaware of radial flow compressor technology.BEFORE
VON OHAIN "It had a two-flow, dual entrance radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after all though it gave some minor instability problems." and ⇒ AFTER ⇐,
he did find out about the similarities when trying to patent his own design in 1935.
Ergo: von Ohain did not know about the Whittle engine before filing his own patent. ("Their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention." [40]) The latter is in full consistence with the following Ohain interview:
Joseph J. Ermenc, Interviews with German Contributors to Aviation History, Meckler, 1990, page 57:
VON OHAIN: "It was a fantastic discovery. You know an invention may depend upon whether you look at it objectively or whether you look at it subjectively. One may not have known that there were certain ideas which had already been thought of before and one may reinvent them all." ... VON OHAIN: "Yes. I was entirely unaware of Whittle's work. I was entirely unaware of the Nernst turbine. I was practically unaware of radial flow compressor technology. We were very innocent technically and had to reinvent many things." [41] --IIIraute (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Okay now you're just getting weird. It should make the umpire's decision easy.

Thank you for providing even more evidence:(I think you need help)Even more evidence that von Ohain was well informed on Whittle's work prior to commencing his own practical efforts?

VON OHAIN: I was practically unaware of radial flow compressor technology.BEFORE ⇐ (before what?
VON OHAIN "It had a two-flow, dual entrance radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after all though it gave some minor instability problems." and ⇒ AFTER ⇐, (After what?)

IIIRAUTE: Ergo: von Ohain did not know about the Whittle engine before filing his own patent. Huh????

So let me get this straight: You claim that although he read and critiqued Whittle's patent BEFORE he filed his own he didn't know about Whittle's work before filing his patent???

That just makes my head fuzzy. How do you do that? I was going to say that is circular logic but it contains no logic at all.

Just to be clear on your point von Ohain clearly states that he read Whittle's patent BEFORE he filed his own and that he modified his patent application as a result before filing it and all this at least two years before he built a test engine and you think this somehow proves that he was unaware of Whittle's work before he filed his patent???

You either have an inability to comprehend linear timeframes or you are a Troll just writing incredibly stupid things to get a rise out of people.

Oh well, either way I am not going away. I have passed this link on to some academics and aviation historians at other institutions so that they can laugh along with this absurdity.

Thanks for providing the entertainment.:) Completeaerogeek (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please notice the vague description of "patents" → {pl}. The quote does not indicate what specific von Ohain design/part of the design/patent we are talking about. "The patent attorney happened upon a Whittle patent during the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated." only indicates that the process of more than one patent being formulated, took more than one year; it doesn't provide any specific date or exact timespan - nor does it indicate whether the attorney did take notice of the Whittle patent, before the pre-grant prosecution, which involves negotiation with a patent office for the grant of a patent, or the post-grant prosecution, which involves issues such as post-grant amendment and opposition - or, since more than one patent was being formulated, what patent had already been granted at that time. Therefore the quote isn't really of any value for this discussion. I suggest that we do not continue this discussion until you have provided some reliable secondary WP:RS that do support your claims. End of debate. --IIIraute (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

'No it's not the end of the debate and who are you to say so? That smacks of hubris. I will not stop until I see this article reflect the historical reality.

You are fundamentally incorrect in all aspects. You are intentionally perpetuating a series of falsehoods and damaging Wiki in the process.

1 - von Ohain ''did not run an engine in March 1937. This is a complete fabrication. "On 12 April 1937, Frank Whittle became the fist person to successfully start and run a turbojet engine." [6]

2 - von Ohain specifically describes the patent details he examined:

VON OHAIN "It had a two-flow, dual entrance radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after all though it gave some minor instability problems." Nothing vague about that.

This is an exact description of a Whittle engine that he could not have known about unless he read the patent PRIOR to filing his own patent. Your assumptions about the patent process are not evidence and are immaterial.

3 - von Ohain states clearly that he modfied his patent application after reviewing Whittle's patent. .

4 - Secondary sources: Conner, Brown and Gundermann (as cited) all corroborate von Ohain's prior knowledge.

You simply cannot sustain the fantasy that von Ohain was unaware of Whittle work. It is fundamentally dishonest.

You're starting to sound like the David Irving of jet engines. If you submitted your arguments for peer review I can assure you that they would be rejected most thoroughly.Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugg[edit]

Completeaerogeek has added several pages of brain dump to this talk page, yet not a single one of the statements provides a direct quote from a good reference that clearly states the year in which Ohain became aware of the Whittle patent. As such, it has done nothing to support the argument, it simply repeats the SYN.
To the other participants Please don't post your own SYN arguments, all you're doing is adding fuel for further posts like these. The only cogent addition to this thread at this point is a direct quote from a good reference that clearly states the year in which Ohain became aware of the Whittle patent. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed 5 kb of such material from my own talk page. All of it was about analyzing primary sources to synthesize the "truth" of the matter, so none of it was appropriate to Wikipedia. I recommend Completeaerogeek write up an article for some aviation magazine and get it published. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

Completeaerogeek has added several pages of brain dump to this talk page, yet not a single one of the statements provides a direct quote from a good reference that clearly states the year in which Ohain became aware of the Whittle patent.

This is fundamentally incorrect. What kind of references do you want?

Conner is quoted waaay up the page as a reference before I quoted her. So it's good enough to support one part of the argument (however incorrectly) but not another? This is disingenuous in the extreme. Once you have submitted a source as a reference you cannot then cherry pick it to support yourself and deny it to others.

Sources: Ohain via Conner - von Ohain modified his patent application prior to submission on the basis of reviewing Whittle’s patent. This makes a date before 1935 self-evident.

To deny this is like denying a statement from the Russians saying 'we cancelled our plans for a moon landing after the Americans successfully achieved it. The EXACT date is irrelevant as it MUST have occurred after July 20th 1969.

This evidence would be accepted in any court.

If nothing else the information I have provided completely debunks the original argument is that von Ohain was unaware of Whittle’s work oh and and the falsehood that von Ohain ran his engine in March 1937.

This statement has been demonstrated to be fundamentally untrue.(Ohain via Conner, Brown and Gundermann via BBC productions) .(Golley)

What you are practicing here is censorship not review. very unfortunate stuff...

I am using this debate as an object lesson to my students as to why Wiki is not a reliable source. Oh and thanks for the suggestion.

I am going to write a paper for peer review debunking the von Ohain unaware myth.Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As to that last sentence, excellent! When it is published, please drop us a note here and we can include it in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Whittle never invented the jet engine..Von Ohains engine had nothing to do with Whittle's design, two men met in the US in 1978 and Whittle confirmed that Von Ohains oncept was entirely different. All these conspiracy theories are created by the British because the couldn't digest the fact that Germany were the first in the air...Whittle applied for patent in 1928, granted in 1930, run in 1937, and flew in 1941...Von Ohain applied in 1935, granted in 1936, run in 1937 and flew in 1939 !!! What Whittle achieved in 13 years Von Ohain did it in 4.. Its clear who should take the credit of inventing the jet engine..Whittle's 1930 patent would never work it was seriously flawed...Even the Whittle engine sent to the US with Tizard mission didn't work until GE engineers redesigned many parts to make it run properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duplex2411 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jet engine invention .[edit]

Neither Frank Whittle nor von Ohain didn't invented the jet engine from scratch or something. Gas Turbine principles existed long before them .In 1921 ,the Frenchman Maxime Guillaume applied for a patent and it was far more advanced design with axial flow compressors but he couldn't build it.. No government support, no money, no facility.. Also even the suggesstion Von Ohain might have copied Whittle is ridiculous, simply because not only the patent office would have rejected it but also Whittle would have sued Von Ohain after the war and had his patent cancelled..He didn't do it because he couldn't , he realized that Von Ohain didn't copy his patent .. Germany beat Britain in jet race,this is the fact and no matter how this hurts some feelings, its the reality. Germans sent the first man made object to space, they were working on ballistic missiles, a technology that was decades ahead of jet propulsion.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumper7146 (talkcontribs) 15:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans von Ohain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sj29x
  2. ^ Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc.), 2001,
  3. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sj29x
  4. ^ Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001)
  5. ^ "Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001)
  6. ^ Golley Genesis of the Jet Airlife publishing 1996