Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.physics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machine (Honest!)
Message-ID: <307@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 10:31:32 EST
Article-I.D.: mnetor.307
Posted: Mon Mar 18 10:31:32 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 11:21:17 EST
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 24
Xref: utcs net.misc:7253 net.physics:2191 net.sci:290

The idea of gathering electrical energy in this fashion is not new.
Tesla himself claimed feasibility for such a system (1890's?).  Sorry,
I don't have a reference for it, but it is frequently brought up in
various semi-(or completely) crackpot/conspiracy magazines (eg: the 
Peach-pit, runless nylons etc. types).  Not that I read 'em, but
sometimes the cover catches you eye.  Tesla's idea probably would
work, but I think that it was impractical unless you had Sinclair
Molecules/tethered satelites - and didn't mind ozone/severed tethers 
in your air.

The "inventors" experience with the patent office is typical.  A couple
of years ago a one-man electric radiant-heater company was forced out of
business.  He claimed 100% efficiency - one of our government departments
took exception to this - because it was "impossible".  I always thought
that the loss of efficiency in electrical devices was due to some
of it being wasted as heat (eg: wiring resistance etc).  What if 
the desired product IS heat (and you don't let any of the light escape?).
I suppose that even then it wouldn't be 100.000000000%, but isn't
it close enough?
-- 
Chris Lewis, Motorola New Enterprises
SNail: 560 Dennison, Unit 9, Markham, Ontario, Canada, L3R 2M8
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321