Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!bob
From: bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.physics
Subject: The "Perpetual Motion" Machine
Message-ID: <493@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 13:43:30 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.493
Posted: Fri Mar 22 13:43:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Mar-85 02:24:00 EST
Reply-To: bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan)
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.misc:7631 net.physics:2297

First of all, if a machine gets its energy from magnetism or the rotation
of the earth, then it's not a perpetual motion machine. No one claimed that
it was a perpetual motion machine.  So arguments of the sort "It can't work
because perpetual motion is impossible" tend to fall flat.

I've never seen a demonstration of the machine, and I don't know whether
it works or not.  What bothers me is the indignant and arrogant attitude
of all those who appeal to the "fundamental laws of physics" to ridicule
any theory or device which does not fall within the current scientific
paradigm.

Knee-jerk skeptics who dismiss ideas that don't happen to correspond to
their own beliefs would probably have laughed at Copernicus for suggesting
that the earth was not the center of the universe, or Columbus for suggesting
that the earth wasn't flat.
-- 
Bob Kaplan

"Where is it written that we must destroy ourselves?"