🚀 go-pugleaf

I hope that I haven't misremembered the news group in which discussion
of Newman's invention (if, indeed it is one) took place recently.  If
it wasn't here, I apologize to readers of net.research.

For those interested, there are two articles about Newman and his work
in the January 1986 issue of IEEE's The Institue.  The first is
entitled "Controversial inventor speaks to IEEE New Orleans Section."
The second is "The history of Newman's ongoing fight for recognition."
Together they include well over a page of text.

For those who haven't read the series of USENET articles on the
subject, Newman claims to have invented a new energy converter but who
was refused a patent on it.  Depending upon whose claims you believe
(read the two articles cited above) the refusal may or may not have
been justified.

Judging by the amounts of money (both the taxpayers' and Newman's)
that appear to have been wasted on legal proceedings, etc. perhaps the
patent should simply have been granted.  Even if the thing is totally
useless, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a patent had
been granted on a useless invention.  Oh well...
-- 
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer,
the government or your favorite deity.

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa