Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.research,net.misc Subject: Re: Newman's Energy Machine (2) Message-ID: <471@iham1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 14:40:54 EDT Article-I.D.: iham1.471 Posted: Tue Oct 22 14:40:54 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 06:24:48 EDT References: <175@tulane.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 95 Xref: watmath net.physics:3411 net.research:286 net.misc:8736 This is a response to a recent posting by K. Centanni concerning the responses he received about an original submission dealing with an energy conversion machine. It is unfortunate to note the cynicism that has become rampant in our culture ("...a sucker is born..."), but I would like to restrict myself to several technical points concerning this recent article. To retract a previous submission of mine, my first exposure to Newman's machine was an article in a recent SCIENCE DIGEST magazine, not SCIENCE NEWS. I am somewhat suspect of SCIENCE DIGEST as a reliable source due to their emphasis on the sensational and lack of critical review. > Clearly, > anyone who knows about Newton's laws of conservation of energy will realize > that things like that are just not possible. Unfortunately, the present concept of conservation of energy was formulated about one hundred years after I. Newton. A statement about the conservation of energy gradually evolved and many individuals contributed to its understanding, but the individual attributed with formulating the statement was J. Joule in 1853. Newton had a concept of energy conservation but it applied only to dynamics (particle motion). > In reality, the machine does > produce "greater external energy output than external energy input." A good operational definition for a perpetual motion machine is a device that has greater energy output than energy input. It remains unclear what prevents the output of Newman's machine from being connected to the input to the machine for some truly spectacular energy amplification (several orders of magnitude). Perhaps a better explanation why the machine cannot be looped back on itself lies somewhere in Newman's book. The description that the energy source for the Newman machine is mass conversion appears to me to be fraught with pitfalls. As someone in this group has already pointed out, only a small amount of mass needs to be converted to energy in order to realize the gains claimed for the machine (c^2 is a big number). A direct weighing measurement to check this hypothesis would not seem very practical. However, mass conversion is accompanied by a characteristic electromagnetic spectrum mostly in the gamma ray region. Evidently, no one has bothered to measure the electromagnetic radiation that might be emitted from Newman's machine to check for this sign of mass conversion. In terms of radiation and heat, a practical Newman machine may compare to a nuclear reactor (note how much shielding is required to operate a reactor safely). I would not sleep peacefully with such a device in my basement. > .... 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." While the description provided here is understandably incomplete, it it not clear what restricts the batteries from providing more than 7 milliamps. I had thought that most batteries (including dry cells) were capable of greater currents than this. Also, at 1 or 2 kilovolts, a regulated power supply is a more reliable source for voltage and current than a battery of batteries. Is there some reason that the batteries cannot be replaced by a power supply? For this demonstration, it does not appear to me sufficient to measure only the voltages involved. Voltage, current, and the phase between them should all be measured in order to accurately monitor the power going in and coming out. Phase measurements can be omitted if the electrical power is guaranteed to be DC. > ....in a room with 1000's of scientists and other skeptics,... It must be a very large room indeed to hold thousands of people, scientists or otherwise. And as for careful observers, scientists are poorly qualified to detect fraud or subterfuge. They accept that nature is "...subtle, but not malicious..." and expect nature to be comprehensible and reliable. Magicians are better qualified to first review psychics and complicated machinery which are accompanied by claims sounding too good to be true. A recent PBS program showed a British physicist and amateur magician who enjoys challenging other scientists to discover how his "gadgets" operate. The particular instance I recall is how the freshman physics majors at Caltech failed to correctly describe the operation of a model ferris wheel. They were allowed to make any external observations and measurements they wanted, but could not disassemble the machine. To be charitable, it is not clear that J. Newman understands the operation of his machine. With the sensitivity of the detection equipment and the prominent position played by electromagneticism in contemporary physics, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that an interaction between magnetic fields and matter that can annihilate mass would be overlooked. Does the text by Newman include photographs of the interior of his machine? Are there instructions for building one so that I might test his machine out for myself? Where must a detailed description of a device or machine stop in order to still be able to patent it? These are the questions that trouble one's soul... Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!ihwld!gjphw