Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site looking.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.research,net.misc
Subject: Why people are skeptical of the Newman machine
Message-ID: <441@looking.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 22:37:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: looking.441
Posted: Fri Oct 18 22:37:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 04:28:22 EDT
References: <175@tulane.UUCP>
Reply-To: @looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 69
Xref: watmath net.physics:3389 net.research:274 net.misc:8707

In this debate, there's a lot of talk about suckers and closed minds.
Let me explain why most people feel this machine is a (perhaps unintentional)
fraud.  It has little to do with closed minds.  For example, the law of
conservation of energy is, like most physical laws, an observed property
of the universe that has never been seen to be violated.  A reasonable
scientist will freely admit that it doesn't have to be impossible to
violate this rule, but he will state that it is unlikely.  This is not a
"closed mind", but a reasonable conclusion from a lifetime of observation.

On the other hand, attempting to violate such a principle using the
other principles of physics will be met with rejection.  This is because
essentially all these principles were derived from assuming the law of
conservation of energy.  This isn't an observation, it's a definition.
So if somebody says it's impossible to break the law of conservation of
energy using things like Newtonian mechanics, they're right.

Now the Newman machine doesn't claim to break C of E, (Church of England?)
but it calls upon the well-awed power of the atom to reach effectively
the same result.  Why doubt from the original report?  One reason is that
I know, as a man with scientific training, that if I really did have such
an effect, I would not be setting up fishy sounding demonstrations.  I
would design an experiment that would look like (and be) a deliberate
attempt to show there is no trickery.  If I didn't have such training, I
would consult with scientists to do this.  You could go up to any scientist
and say, "Pretend I have a machine that puts out more than you put in.  What
would I need to do to convince you it really did this?"

But Newman doesn't do this.  He makes a demonstration that people can poke
holes in just from a brief description.  Flourescent bulbs, well known for
having 5 times the light/power ratio of regular bulbs, are one sure telltale.
Why use these bulbs when they have all sorts of special voltage and current
requirements, since regular bulbs are trivial to use?  Why can't the
machine power itself?  The electricity that powers a bulb and the electricity
that comes out of a lantern battery are one and the same.  If the output
power isn't electricity as we know it, why not say so, since this is also
an amazing discovery, especially if it can't be converted into normal energy.

The *science* of physics involves careful experimental control.  No special
arbitrary conditions are allowed.  Anybody who insists on them is suspect,
and certainly not a scientist.

Now one might almost tolerate such attitudes from psychic types, because
there is a small grain of truth in the concept that observers affect
experiments.  There is, however, no excuse for this in a simple physical
experiment involving well understood concepts like power and electricity.

If you had said:

The device was placed in a special lab chosen secretly by a group of
trained independent testers.  This lab was located in a randomly selected
town in North America.  The owner of the device was allowed to instruct in
setup but did not participte, nor was he allowed to touch the machine after
handing it over.  He was searched for any special devices on his person.
Input power measured by independently calibrated and connected meters
was 10 watts.  Output power was 100 watts.  This was watched by an
independently provided computer for a period long enough to well exceed
the energy storage of any known battery or storage unit. 
The area around the unit was checked for the presence of unusual electromagnetic
fields both before and during operation.  The temperature of various sides
of the unit was graphed on a chart recorder.  Geiger counters recorded
levels of general and cosmic ray radiation.  Assuming Newman's permission
the experiment was duplicated inside radiation proof rooms.


*Then* the world would sit up and take notice.  Even these conditions may
not be enough, but they are enough to have more people come in and design
even better conditions.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473