Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site talcott.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!tmb From: tmb@talcott.UUCP (Thomas M. Breuel) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.research,net.misc Subject: Re: Newman's Energy Machine (2) Message-ID: <534@talcott.UUCP> Date: Sun, 20-Oct-85 15:24:37 EDT Article-I.D.: talcott.534 Posted: Sun Oct 20 15:24:37 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 04:42:42 EDT References: <175@tulane.UUCP> Organization: Harvard University Lines: 75 Xref: watmath net.physics:3402 net.research:282 net.misc:8725 FLAME ON I am getting tired of seeing this. Either explain how the machine works or stop posting this garbage. This is not net.fairy.tale, net.astrology, or net.grandmothers.recipies. A great invention is worth nothing unless it is reproducible. This means revealing how it works. If you don't reveal, you don't get credit, it's that simple. It doesn't suffice for 1000 experts to look over your shoulder while you perform your trick, the 1000 experts have to be able to do it themselves. If you don't understand that, you are not a scientist. FLAME OFF Below you will find some comments about your most recent posting and some of your ideas about physics. Without knowing the principle by which that machine is supposed to operate, it is, of course, hard to assess its usefulness. It seems to me, though, that either: -- the machine is a hoax -- the machine is nothing more than a conventional chemical battery -- the machine is a nuclear reactor (in principle you could indeed get more than just chemical energy out of copper by a nuclear process, under conditions, however, that probably require slightly more than a coil of wire). -- the machine operates by a different principle (e.g. pair annihilation). Given the kind and amounts of energy released in such processes, or the setups to prevent such releases, this is ridiculously unlikely. Call me old-fashioned and simple-minded, but so far, the machine sounds like a hoax to me. In any event, everything that you have described does not sound any more revolutionary than a (rather bulky and unwieldy) battery to me. Thomas. ----------- In article <175@tulane.UUCP>, kpc@tulane.UUCP (Kevin Centanni) writes: > machine. First, this is NOT a perpetual motion machine... the output > cannot be re-directed into the input and the machine run iteslf! Clearly, > anyone who knows about Newton's laws of conservation of energy will realize > that things like that are just not possible. In reality, the machine does This is pure non-sense. There is absolutely no reason why the output could not be used to power the input. Conservation of energy has nothing to do with it since, you claim, the energy comes from the conversion of copper into energy. > Very Large INTERNAL Energy (released via a conversion of matter to energy > in accordance with Einstein's equation of E=MC^2) All batteries work that way. I can see absolutely nothing revolutionary about that, unless your inventor has found a way to convert whole copper atoms into energy. Please note also that making copper metal requires a large amount of energy. If your inventor only uses the chemical energy (loosely speaking) stored in the copper, then you end up putting in more energy than you are getting out, as it is true for any flashlight battery (and in fact for any other generator in general). > here is some more facutal data that was found in Newman's book: > "On September 19, 1985 the motor was operated at 1,000 and 2,000 volts > battery input, with output powers of 50 and 200 Watts respectively. Input > power in these tests were 7 and 14 Watts, yielding efficiencies of > 700% and 1,400% respectively." Wow. The batteries in my WalkMan are infinitely efficient by that argument. I put nothing in and I get out some power. Clearly there is something revolutionary going on here :-). Altogether: any generator, any battery are nothing but energy conversion machines. If the law of conservation of energy is correct, no machine can be more than this. Joseph Newman's machine would only be revolutionary if it implemented a more efficient or an entirely novel conversion process. From your description there is no reason to believe that it does either.