Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.physics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion & oil companies (perpetual motion? Horse puckey!)
Message-ID: <694@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 16:59:16 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.694
Posted: Tue Mar 19 16:59:16 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 06:27:10 EST
References: <261@eneevax.UUCP> <634@houxa.UUCP> <2059@sun.uucp>, <9288@brl-tgr.ARPA> <867@ecsvax.UUCP> <274@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.misc:7576 net.physics:2260 net.sci:296

>  > I've heard of this before, that it's being suppressed, and no wonder, you
>  > think the oil companies want it manufactured?
> 
> The same thing happened in Britain, several people came up with excelent
> ideas for battery powered cars that would have a good milage rate, without
> the need for millions of car batterys to hold the charge. Their ideas were
> patented and then *bought* by the large oil companys.

    While it may or may not be true that oil companies have bought up and filed
patents for worthwhile inventions, I hope none of you net-readers actually
think that they've done this with a perpetual motion machine.  The definition
of a perpetual motion machine (it puts out more energy than it takes in)
precludes its actual existance, *unless* the law of conservation of mass and
energy turns out to be just a suggestion.  This seems *very* unlikely.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
     "What sheems to be the problem, Ossifer?"- T. Kennedy