Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!RP%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA
From: RP%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: The Mississippi Perpetual Motion Machine
Message-ID: <16532@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 06:38:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.16532
Posted: Wed Feb  8 06:38:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 06:45:27 EST
Lines: 23

From:  Richard Pavelle <RP%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA>

    Return-path: <Mailer@SCRC-TENEX>
    Received: from MIT-MC by SCRC-TENEX with CHAOS; Wed 8-Feb-84 04:12:05-EST
    Received: from Rutgers.arpa by sri-unix.arpa with TCP; 7 Feb 84 13:10-PST
    Date: 7 Feb 84 16:10:26 EST
    From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
    Subject: The Mississippi Perpetual Motion Machine
    To: physics@SRI-UNIX.ARPA

    Newman's Impossible Motor
     [a condensation of the article in Science, 10 Feb 84, v223#4636]
    ...

    ...

It is my understanding that the PTO will no longer consider Perpetual 
Motion Machines, rejecting them outright. They have always applied their
own standards to patent applications. For example, several years ago,
sexual aids were rejected automatically whereas now they are acceptable.
Last century working models were required and for many years have not been.
I think they got sick of looking at PPMs and this person is in for years
of frustration if he wants them to look at his device.