🚀 go-pugleaf

harti@ddd.snafu.de (Stefan Hartmann) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>check out the latest news about the mechanical/magnetic
>
>Perpetuum Mobile from the inventor Mr. Finsrud from Norway !
>
>Finally it has been invented!
>
>http://www.overunity.de


The entire URL is an embarassment.  It isn't EVEN wrong.
It is a fatuous grandiloquent cow flop not even protected from 
criticism by complexity.

The devices do not work.  They don't even come close to working.  If any 
of them appear to work, look for the hidden battery.

The nicest hoax I've seen is a digital clock with no power supply.  All 
there was was a big coil of many turns of very fine wire, a full 
wave bridge rectifier, and the solid state LCD Clock.  Energy from the 
vacuum!  Or from inductance with local electric wiring or EMF pollution 
re radio and TV.
 
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz  
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com  ("zero" before @)
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL!  Hazardous to children, Liberals, and most mammals.)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In <4og421$m10@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>The nicest hoax I've seen is a digital clock with no power supply.  All 
>there was was a big coil of many turns of very fine wire, a full 
>wave bridge rectifier, and the solid state LCD Clock.  Energy from the 
>vacuum!  Or from inductance with local electric wiring or EMF pollution 
>re radio and TV.

Hey, that's still kinda neat though.  An actual useful (sort-of) application
of broadcast power.  I'll have to build one of these.

-- Rob 


===============================================================================
Robert McDermid     (Hummingbird Communications Ltd.)
mcdermid@hcl.com     Unless otherwise stated above, all opinions are my own
                     and do not reflect the views of Hummingbird Communications
===============================================================================

On 29 May 1996 22:29:02 GMT, mcdermid@hcl.com wrote:

>In <4og421$m10@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>The nicest hoax I've seen is a digital clock with no power supply.  All 
>>there was was a big coil of many turns of very fine wire, a full 
>>wave bridge rectifier, and the solid state LCD Clock.  Energy from the 
>>vacuum!  Or from inductance with local electric wiring or EMF pollution 
>>re radio and TV.
>
>Hey, that's still kinda neat though.  An actual useful (sort-of) application
>of broadcast power.  I'll have to build one of these.

Even better if you can build in a receiver that picks up time signals from
one of the various places that transmit them, so it is self correcting. 
-- 
John Wright

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so - Ford Prefect (Ix)

mcdermid@hcl.com wrote:
>In <4og421$m10@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>The nicest hoax I've seen is a digital clock with no power supply.  All 
>>there was was a big coil of many turns of very fine wire, a full 
>>wave bridge rectifier, and the solid state LCD Clock.  Energy from the 
>>vacuum!  Or from inductance with local electric wiring or EMF pollution 
>>re radio and TV.
>
>Hey, that's still kinda neat though.  An actual useful (sort-of) application
>of broadcast power.  I'll have to build one of these.

It was a litle LCD clock.  Add a small capacitor to store a little more 
oompgh between digit changes, and you have it all!

-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com  ("zero" before @)
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL!  Hazardous to children, Liberals, and most mammals.)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Reminds me of the guy in Canberra Australia, who had a *HUGE* coil in the roof of 
his house. A rectifier and voltage regulator then connected to large capacity 
batteries (forget the total voltage). These in turn powered almost everything in his 
house. Got away with it until the Navy did a polar diagram (check of the pattern of 
radiation of the VLF transmitter concerned) and found a black hole in the direction 
of the guy's house.......True story.

In article <4oij3e$879@news.hcl.com>, mcdermid@hcl.com wrote:

> In <4og421$m10@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
<uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >The nicest hoax I've seen is a digital clock with no power supply.  All 
> >there was was a big coil of many turns of very fine wire, a full 
> >wave bridge rectifier, and the solid state LCD Clock.  Energy from the 
> >vacuum!  Or from inductance with local electric wiring or EMF pollution 
> >re radio and TV.

>Does anyone have a idea of how much fine waire this project would take
and how close to the in house electric wire does it have to be?

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

 > The devices do not work.  They don't even come close to working.

Oh, you have studied them in detail, have you?


Isak

--
ilytting@dk-online.dk
ilytting@datashopper.dk

mcdermid@hcl.com wrote:

: Hey, that's still kinda neat though.  An actual useful (sort-of) application
: of broadcast power.  I'll have to build one of these.

I used to know people interested in what I think they called
"self-powered radios" - not crystal sets, but amplified using broadcast
power. The real challenge, of course, was in the power supply and
avoiding distortion in the audio signal.

Ian

Isak Sebastian Lytting (ilytting@dk-online.dk) wrote:
: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

:  > The devices do not work.  They don't even come close to working.

: Oh, you have studied them in detail, have you?


Perpetual Motion is impossible.  Therefor if the device works, it is
not PM, it is tapping an unknown energy source.

If there are any ways to tap nuclear energy via low-energy pathways, I
don't think mainstream physics will find them.  They are too close to
"Perpetual Motion," and will definitely attract ridicule rather than
interest.  Look at "cold fusion," where there are recent claims of massive
heat output (no proportional neutrons though,) and many papers being
published in little-known journals.  But the whole subject is treated with
contempt by the mainstream.  Doesn't matter how many kilowatts an
electrochemical cell produces, or for how many hours it runs at a time. 
We all "know"  that CF was disproven, and so we ridicule the current
sucesses, "know" that the researchers must be crackpots, and give venemous
reviews to any papers seeking publication.



-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page

jsw@isise.rl.ac.uk (John Wright) wrote:

>On 29 May 1996 22:29:02 GMT, mcdermid@hcl.com wrote:

>>In <4og421$m10@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>The nicest hoax I've seen is a digital clock with no power supply.  All 
>>>there was was a big coil of many turns of very fine wire, a full 
>>>wave bridge rectifier, and the solid state LCD Clock.  Energy from the 
>>>vacuum!  Or from inductance with local electric wiring or EMF pollution 
>>>re radio and TV.
>>
>>Hey, that's still kinda neat though.  An actual useful (sort-of) application
>>of broadcast power.  I'll have to build one of these.

>Even better if you can build in a receiver that picks up time signals from
>one of the various places that transmit them, so it is self correcting. 
>-- 
>John Wright

>Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so - Ford Prefect (Ix)

I'd like to see that.  

Le

On 31 May 1996 03:23:05 GMT, jonese@twdl03.a1.nt.gov.au wrote:

>Reminds me of the guy in Canberra Australia, who had a *HUGE* coil in the roof of 
>his house. A rectifier and voltage regulator then connected to large capacity 
>batteries (forget the total voltage). These in turn powered almost everything in his 
>house. Got away with it until the Navy did a polar diagram (check of the pattern of 
>radiation of the VLF transmitter concerned) and found a black hole in the direction 
>of the guy's house.......True story.
>
The same thing happened in Wellington in the 40s, when NZBC first
erected their transmitting towers in Titahi Bay. A farmer initially
found out the hard way (*zap*) that his electric fence was more than
somewhat lively and later arranged to run fluorescent lights in his
hose and cowshed. He was also supposed to have been able to run a
heater. Whatever it was he used, he too put a local dent in the field
strength pattern and was eventually discovered. I believe they wanted
to throw the book at him but they found no pages which applied.



Eric Stevens


There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into 
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article <DsC3FC.B9L@eskimo.com>, billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) wrote:
->Isak Sebastian Lytting (ilytting@dk-online.dk) wrote:
->: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
->
->:  > The devices do not work.  They don't even come close to working.
->
->: Oh, you have studied them in detail, have you?
->
->
->Perpetual Motion is impossible.  Therefor if the device works, it is
->not PM, it is tapping an unknown energy source.
->
->If there are any ways to tap nuclear energy via low-energy pathways, I
->don't think mainstream physics will find them.  


The only known low-energy pathway to nuclear energy, muon catalyzed fusion, was, 
in fact, discovered through mainstream science.  Please give credit where credit 
is due.


->They are too close to
->"Perpetual Motion," and will definitely attract ridicule rather than
->interest.  


Where are the examples of "Perpetual Motion" or "close to Perpetual Motion" 
where interest rather than ridicule is due?


->Look at "cold fusion," where there are recent claims of massive
->heat output (no proportional neutrons though,) and many papers being
->published in little-known journals.  But the whole subject is treated with
->contempt by the mainstream.  


To the contrary, the subject has been actively investigated by competent 
researchers, and the preponderance of the evidence shows the methodologies to be 
faulty.  This is not Peter Pan's Never Never Land -- wishing doesn't make it so.


->Doesn't matter how many kilowatts an
->electrochemical cell produces, or for how many hours it runs at a time. 


Open your eyes, Bill.  There have been no reputable kilowatt-level 
demonstrations that lasted for micro-seconds, let alone for many hours at a 
time.


->We all "know"  that CF was disproven, and so we ridicule the current
->sucesses, "know" that the researchers must be crackpots, and give venemous
->reviews to any papers seeking publication.


Again, open your eyes, Bill.  There are neither current nor past successes. 
Given the track record of ENECO/CETI, a characterization pathological science is 
generous. We "know" the that the ENECO/CETI "sucesses" amount, at best, to 
intellectual bankruptcy.  You're investing your personal integrity in a dog that 
won't hunt.

tripe

I've been told there was a radio station that wanted to open in LA, but
couldn't get the licensing.  They opened in a neighboring county and were
planning on beaming their signal to LA.  Guy in a house in the path rigs up
his attic with loops of wire, drives whole house, etc., etc.

Beginning to sound like an urban legend.  Anybody have facts?

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up

On Sun, 02 Jun 96 12:10:45 GMT, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
>Where are the examples of "Perpetual Motion" or "close to Perpetual Motion" 
>where interest rather than ridicule is due?

The Atmos clock.  Not electric, and it's been in my family for ~30 years and
has never been wound (and, in fact, has no way to wind it).  Oh, yeah - it's
been running all that time.

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up

In article <31b497ae.340263462@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>I've been told there was a radio station that wanted to open in LA, but
>couldn't get the licensing.  They opened in a neighboring county and were
>planning on beaming their signal to LA.  Guy in a house in the path rigs up
>his attic with loops of wire, drives whole house, etc., etc.
>
>Beginning to sound like an urban legend.  Anybody have facts?
>
I remember hearing about a similar case in Israel, some 20 years ago.  
No hard evidence though, sorry.

Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> 
> I've been told there was a radio station that wanted to open in LA, but
> couldn't get the licensing.  They opened in a neighboring county and were
> planning on beaming their signal to LA.  Guy in a house in the path rigs up
> his attic with loops of wire, drives whole house, etc., etc.
> 
> Beginning to sound like an urban legend.  Anybody have facts?
> 


FACT:  This is nonsense!  Loops in the attic will not do anything but act as
a super antenna, which he probably didn't need.  Got any documentation?

Often radio stations in outlying areas try to play to the big city market.
I once worked for a super-powerful AM radio station outside of San Francisco,
beaming it's 250,000 watts effective radiated power at The City.  The 
transmitter was near Valley Home, CA.  Residents of Valley Home could hear
the station in their telephones, musical instruments, bathroom plumbing,
and just about anything else capable of resonating to frequencies in the
audio range.  It was an engineering nightmare!!  Frequently  enough
audio power can be de-modulated from radio signals to produce an audible
sound without electronic amplification.  But enough to drive an entire house??
It's gotta be urban legend.
-- 
BossJock
Now heard over more home radios than any other household appliance!

In article <31b4987a.340467316@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
   kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) wrote:
->On Sun, 02 Jun 96 12:10:45 GMT, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
->>Where are the examples of "Perpetual Motion" or "close to Perpetual Motion" 
->>where interest rather than ridicule is due?
->
->The Atmos clock.  Not electric, and it's been in my family for ~30 years and
->has never been wound (and, in fact, has no way to wind it).  Oh, yeah - it's
->been running all that time.
->

A clock with an *external* energy source provided by changes in barometric 
pressure?  Can this by any stretch of the imagination be seen as giving any 
comfort to the ENECO/CETI cold fusion TBs?  Good try -- no cigar.

Nevertheless, we can expect to find a bellows on the next version of the 
Patterson cell.

This is rediculous;

>>Where are the examples of "Perpetual Motion" or "close to Perpetual Motion"
>>where interest rather than ridicule is due? 
> The Atmos clock.  Not electric, and it's been in my family for ~30 years
> and has never been wound (and, in fact, has no way to wind it).
>  Oh, yeah - it's been running all that time.

This is not perpetual motion. The atmos clock is wound from atmospheric
pressure changes. This is kind of like mechanical self winding wrist
watches. They arent perpetual motion either.

-- 
CUL8ER
Duane C. Johnson
Red Rock Energy
1825 Florence St.
White Bear Lake, MN 55110-3364
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/
redrok@pclink.com

BossJock  <bossjock@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>> 
>> I've been told there was a radio station that wanted to open in LA, but
>> couldn't get the licensing.  They opened in a neighboring county and were
>> planning on beaming their signal to LA.  Guy in a house in the path rigs up
>> his attic with loops of wire, drives whole house, etc., etc.
>> 
>> Beginning to sound like an urban legend.  Anybody have facts?
>
>FACT:  This is nonsense!  Loops in the attic will not do anything but act as
>a super antenna, which he probably didn't need.  Got any documentation?

No Sh*t!  A "Super Antenna".  Yup...  Kind of like a transformer?  Kind
of like hooking a neon bulb between your antenna and the ground during a
lightning storm?  Kind of like putting a flourescent light in a microwave
oven?  Kind of like powering a cat's whisker radio set with any external
power source?  Yep... strictly assinine to think one can get power from
a loop in the attic.

>Often radio stations in outlying areas try to play to the big city market.
>I once worked for a super-powerful AM radio station outside of San Francisco,
>beaming it's 250,000 watts effective radiated power at The City.  The 
>transmitter was near Valley Home, CA.  

Charlie...  That you?

>Residents of Valley Home could hear
>the station in their telephones, musical instruments, bathroom plumbing,
>and just about anything else capable of resonating to frequencies in the
>audio range.  It was an engineering nightmare!!  Frequently  enough
>audio power can be de-modulated from radio signals to produce an audible
>sound without electronic amplification.  

You contradict yourself...  now you say it *is* possible to get power
out of the air...

>But enough to drive an entire house??

Here, I do agree with you...  it is insane to think that one can
power an entire house from a radio station's signal... surely the
station engineers would notice the drastic change in their coverage
contour as you turned on the dishwasher.

>It's gotta be urban legend.

Depends what *it* is.  I never heard this associated with a radio
station.  I have (in HS Physics class) heard it associated with
someone whose house was under the right of way for some high tension
power lines, and the coils received the electricity via induction.

Still, there seems to be a bit of doubt in my mind, having to do with
the distance between phases, and might the field be nulled out by the
closer proximity to the other phase than the distance to the coil in
the attic.  [I'll let the sci.energy folks battle this theory]

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 02 Jun 96 12:10:45 GMT, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
> >Where are the examples of "Perpetual Motion" or "close to Perpetual Motion"
> >where interest rather than ridicule is due?
> 
> The Atmos clock.  Not electric, and it's been in my family for ~30 years and
> has never been wound (and, in fact, has no way to wind it).  Oh, yeah - it's
> been running all that time.
> 
> --if it's the same as I have seen, it runs from athmospheric pressure variations, thus 
solar energy at last


- Andreas Haffner

On Wed, 05 Jun 96 01:27:22 GMT, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:

>In article <31b4987a.340467316@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>   kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) wrote:
>->On Sun, 02 Jun 96 12:10:45 GMT, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
>->>Where are the examples of "Perpetual Motion" or "close to Perpetual Motion" 
>->>where interest rather than ridicule is due?
>->
>->The Atmos clock.  Not electric, and it's been in my family for ~30 years and
>->has never been wound (and, in fact, has no way to wind it).  Oh, yeah - it's
>->been running all that time.
>->
>
>A clock with an *external* energy source provided by changes in barometric 
>pressure?

No, actually is powered by changes in temperature.  But the question was
"close" to perpetual montion, and this clock is as close as you're going to
get.  Which makes it interesting.

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 15:28:11 GMT, tweek@netcom.com (Reverend Tweek) wrote:

>BossJock  <bossjock@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>But enough to drive an entire house??
>
>Here, I do agree with you...  it is insane to think that one can
>power an entire house from a radio station's signal... surely the
>station engineers would notice the drastic change in their coverage
>contour as you turned on the dishwasher.

The story I had heard involved a beamed signal and a house on a rise.  Yes,
the station figured out what happened (particularly when their signal didn't
make it to LA), and couldn't force the guy to cease and desist, and ended up
going out of business.  Again, this is purely a story - no documentation.


>>It's gotta be urban legend.
>
>Depends what *it* is.

The idea that (something very much like this) has happened (next door).

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up

billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) wrote:

>Isak Sebastian Lytting (ilytting@dk-online.dk) wrote:

 >: Oh, you have studied them in detail, have you?
 >Perpetual Motion is impossible.  Therefor if the device works, it is
 >not PM, it is tapping an unknown energy source.

Yes. It is tapping ZPE. "Uncle Al" claimed to have visited the website and
immediately concluded that the machines did not work. I merely asked him
if he had studied them in detail (I already know the answer). I never claimed
they were PM.

Isak

--
ilytting@dk-online.dk
ilytting@datashopper.dk

In <31b75faa.504355@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>No, actually is powered by changes in temperature.  But the question was
>"close" to perpetual montion, and this clock is as close as you're going to
>get.  Which makes it interesting.
>

I suppose that depends on your definition of "close".  To me, "close to perpetual
motion" would mean a device with very close to 0 energy loss while moving.
I don't think this clock qualifies, since it could be arbitrarily inefficient, as long
as the power system was able to generate enough power to keep it going
despite the inefficiency.  Consider a wristwatch powered by a steam engine
attached to a generator.  Even with a total energy conversion efficiency
of .01% the generator could keep that small a load going.

Of course, I imagine the Atmos clock _is_ pretty efficient to work from just
temperature changes, but I'm sure you could do better.

The best I can come up with is a top spinning on a diamond point in a vacuum.
It would help if the surface it was sitting on was made of diamond too, I
suppose.  Best if it was made of something non-conducting too, so stray
magnetic fields didn't affect it.

I imagine that would keep going for a pretty long time.

Another good one is a closed loop of superconductor with a current flowing
through it.  That'd probably keep going for quite a while too.

-- Rob
===============================================================================
Robert McDermid     (Hummingbird Communications Ltd.)
mcdermid@hcl.com     Unless otherwise stated above, all opinions are my own
                     and do not reflect the views of Hummingbird Communications
===============================================================================

Forgive me for joining in late on the topic, but are we discussing
Joseph Newman's energy machine?

Is anybody familiar with Joe's machine.

According to Joe his machine utilized the electromagnetic flow around
the earth to produce electricity. It's kicked of with a battery which
is then charged as the machine rotates, while at the same time
powering up your house.

He's even built a car utilizing the machine as a power source, it was
heavy, went slow, and real jerky, but it drove.


###########################################################

Chris X.
Wokaholic: Someone who's favorite entertainment
is Monday mornings

mcdermid@hcl.com wrote:
> 
> In <31b75faa.504355@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
> >No, actually is powered by changes in temperature.  But the question was
> >"close" to perpetual montion, and this clock is as close as you're going to
> >get.  Which makes it interesting.
> >
> 
> I suppose that depends on your definition of "close".  To me, "close to perpetual
> motion" would mean a device with very close to 0 energy loss while moving.
> I don't think this clock qualifies, since it could be arbitrarily inefficient, as long
> as the power system was able to generate enough power to keep it going
> despite the inefficiency.  Consider a wristwatch powered by a steam engine
> attached to a generator.  Even with a total energy conversion efficiency
> of .01% the generator could keep that small a load going.
> 
> Of course, I imagine the Atmos clock _is_ pretty efficient to work from just
> temperature changes, but I'm sure you could do better.
> 
> The best I can come up with is a top spinning on a diamond point in a vacuum.
> It would help if the surface it was sitting on was made of diamond too, I
> suppose.  Best if it was made of something non-conducting too, so stray
> magnetic fields didn't affect it.
> 
> I imagine that would keep going for a pretty long time.
> 
> Another good one is a closed loop of superconductor with a current flowing
> through it.  That'd probably keep going for quite a while too.
> 
> -- Rob
> ===============================================================================
> Robert McDermid     (Hummingbird Communications Ltd.)
> mcdermid@hcl.com     Unless otherwise stated above, all opinions are my own
>                      and do not reflect the views of Hummingbird Communications
> ===============================================================================

Both systems you describe seem to be an energy storage, but not an engine in usual 
sense. And making energy storages 100% efficient is not so hard as long as it is 
mechanical work you are storing: a spring for instance.

- Andreas Haffner

On Wed, 05 Jun 1996 20:25:49 +0200, Andreas Haffner <ahaffner@aft.sn.no>
wrote:
>> --if it's the same as I have seen, it runs from athmospheric pressure variations, thus 
>solar energy at last

Temperature, according to the brochures.  And it's as "near" to perpetual
motion as anyone is likely to get.

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
Permission to add this email address to any mailing list is refused.

In article <31b75faa.504355@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
   kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) wrote:
->On Wed, 05 Jun 96 01:27:22 GMT, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
->
->>In article <31b4987a.340467316@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
->>   kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) wrote:
->>>On Sun, 02 Jun 96 12:10:45 GMT, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
->>>>Where are the examples of "Perpetual Motion" or "close to Perpetual Motion" 
->>>>where interest rather than ridicule is due?
->>>
->>>The Atmos clock.  Not electric, and it's been in my family for ~30 years and
->>>has never been wound (and, in fact, has no way to wind it).  Oh, yeah - it's
->>>been running all that time.
->>>
->>
->>A clock with an *external* energy source provided by changes in barometric 
->>pressure?
->
->No, actually is powered by changes in temperature.  But the question was
->"close" to perpetual montion, and this clock is as close as you're going to
->get.  Which makes it interesting.
->


You will find that the Atmos clock is 'powered' by changes in atmospheric 
pressure if you care to check your facts.  That's what the bellows is for. 

*Obvious* external power sources, even though interesting, don't fall into the 
'come close' category for perpetual motion gadgets.  You need at least a little 
bit of trickery or deception.

In article <31B88D41.F95@aft.sn.no> Andreas Haffner <ahaffner@aft.sn.no> writes:
>From: Andreas Haffner <ahaffner@aft.sn.no>
>Subject: Re: Perpetuum Mobile invented !
>Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 22:12:49 +0200

>mcdermid@hcl.com wrote:
>> 
>> In <31b75faa.504355@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>> >No, actually is powered by changes in temperature.  But the question was
>> >"close" to perpetual montion, and this clock is as close as you're going to
>> >get.  Which makes it interesting.
>> >
>> 
>> I suppose that depends on your definition of "close".  To me, "close to perpetual
>> motion" would mean a device with very close to 0 energy loss while moving.
>> I don't think this clock qualifies, since it could be arbitrarily inefficient, as long
>> as the power system was able to generate enough power to keep it going
>> despite the inefficiency.  Consider a wristwatch powered by a steam engine
>> attached to a generator.  Even with a total energy conversion efficiency
>> of .01% the generator could keep that small a load going.
>> 
>> Of course, I imagine the Atmos clock _is_ pretty efficient to work from just
>> temperature changes, but I'm sure you could do better.
>> 
>> The best I can come up with is a top spinning on a diamond point in a vacuum.
>> It would help if the surface it was sitting on was made of diamond too, I
>> suppose.  Best if it was made of something non-conducting too, so stray
>> magnetic fields didn't affect it.
>> 
>> I imagine that would keep going for a pretty long time.
>> 
>> Another good one is a closed loop of superconductor with a current flowing
>> through it.  That'd probably keep going for quite a while too.
>> 
>> -- Rob
>> ===============================================================================
>> Robert McDermid     (Hummingbird Communications Ltd.)
>> mcdermid@hcl.com     Unless otherwise stated above, all opinions are my own
>>                      and do not reflect the views of Hummingbird Communications
>> ===============================================================================

>Both systems you describe seem to be an energy storage, but not an engine in usual 
>sense. And making energy storages 100% efficient is not so hard as long as it is 
>mechanical work you are storing: a spring for instance.

Sorry, but a spring (or *any* mechanical energy storage system) has internal 
losses which result in <100% efficiency.

>- Andreas Haffner

Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *

Kevin D. Quitt (kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: The story I had heard involved a beamed signal and a house on a rise.  Yes,
: the station figured out what happened (particularly when their signal didn't
: make it to LA), and couldn't force the guy to cease and desist, and ended up
: going out of business.  Again, this is purely a story - no documentation.

Most full-size broadcast stations tend to run between 50 and 100Kw
transmitter output.  Most houses can run quite happily on between 3 and
5Kw, most of the time (unless the AC is on :-).

If this did happen, the signal would not be interrupted enough to make
it inaudible in the target area anyway.

I won't get into the theory of whether the signal would be drawn down
by the interception in the first place, since I can't quote cites.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                        jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Member of the Technical Staff                    Junk Mail Will Be Billed For.
The Suncoast Freenet     "The world will remain dangerously unstable
Tampa Bay, Florida        as long as it is populated."  --me   +1 813 790 7592

Bob Casanova wrote:
> ... some history deleted which is not important in this context...

> >Both systems you describe seem to be an energy storage, but not an engine in usual
> >sense. And making energy storages 100% efficient is not so hard as long as it is
> >mechanical work you are storing: a spring for instance.
> 
> Sorry, but a spring (or *any* mechanical energy storage system) has internal
> losses which result in <100% efficiency.
> 
> >- Andreas Haffner
> 
> Bob C.
> 
> * Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *

Well, well... I will not argue here too strong but imagine: If there was any loss in a 
spring it would not return to its original position after being depressed. So I guess 
the efficiencey is at least some 99.99999% or more. How long would your car engine run 
if  the valve springs had losses?

What about the energy stored in the velocity of a planet orbiting in (theoretically) 
absolute vacuum the sun?

But okay, maybe I overlook something... Any corrections from the net?

- Andreas Haffner

Andreas Haffner wrote:
> 
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > ... some history deleted which is not important in this context...
> 
> > >Both systems you describe seem to be an energy storage, but not an engine in usual
> > >sense. And making energy storages 100% efficient is not so hard as long as it is
> > >mechanical work you are storing: a spring for instance.
> >
> > Sorry, but a spring (or *any* mechanical energy storage system) has internal
> > losses which result in <100% efficiency.
> >
> > >- Andreas Haffner
> >
> > Bob C.
> >
> > * Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *
> 
> Well, well... I will not argue here too strong but imagine: If there was any loss in a
> spring it would not return to its original position after being depressed. So I guess
> the efficiencey is at least some 99.99999% or more. How long would your car engine run
> if  the valve springs had losses?
> 
> What about the energy stored in the velocity of a planet orbiting in (theoretically)
> absolute vacuum the sun?
> 
> But okay, maybe I overlook something... Any corrections from the net?
> 
> - Andreas Haffner

Some additions: I think the point is: no serious problem to build a 
(nearly) loss free storage but what does it help: the conversion is the 
problem - charging and discharging gives the losses.

- Andreas Haffner

Andreas Haffner (ahaffner@aft.sn.no) wrote:

: Well, well... I will not argue here too strong but imagine: If there was any loss in a 
: spring it would not return to its original position after being depressed. So I guess 

Huh? Why does the spring returning to it's original position imply anything
about loss? Loss is an energy balance and has little to do with the
physical position.

Consider throwing a ball up into the air. I think that you will agree
that there is "loss" involved ( the ball slows down by colliding with
and warming up air molecules ) and yet it will return to you nonetheless.

The spring warms up when you compress it. This is "loss" in that the
mechanical energy is being converted to heat. The spring returns
more-or-less to it's original position nonetheless.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Bischof   Hewlett Packard Company   707-577-3994  stanb@sr.hp.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin D. Quitt (kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:

: Temperature, according to the brochures.  And it's as "near" to perpetual
: motion as anyone is likely to get.

 this is possibly misleading ( at least to me) 
Perpetual motion, at the very least, would be 100% efficient. So are you saying
that this clock is closest to 100% efficiency or that the energy source is the
most inconspicuous?                                               
 
Or am I scoring touchdowns in a baseball game?
"TM"


: -- 
: #include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
:  _
: Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
: Permission to add this email address to any mailing list is refused.

Stan Bischof wrote:
> 
> Andreas Haffner (ahaffner@aft.sn.no) wrote:
> 
> : Well, well... I will not argue here too strong but imagine: If there was any loss in a
> : spring it would not return to its original position after being depressed. So I guess
> 
> Huh? Why does the spring returning to it's original position imply anything
> about loss? Loss is an energy balance and has little to do with the
> physical position.
> 
> Consider throwing a ball up into the air. I think that you will agree
> that there is "loss" involved ( the ball slows down by colliding with
> and warming up air molecules ) and yet it will return to you nonetheless.
> 
> The spring warms up when you compress it. This is "loss" in that the
> mechanical energy is being converted to heat. The spring returns
> more-or-less to it's original position nonetheless.
> I agree, I missed the point! See my own follow up. What I meant is: once the energy has 
been pushed - with losses - into the storage, there exist storage systems which have no 
significant losses over time (no selv discharging). When you take the energy out again 
there are new losses.

- Andreas Haffner

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stan Bischof   Hewlett Packard Company   707-577-3994  stanb@sr.hp.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
- Andreas Haffner

Please stop cross-posting this thread.
It's making some useful newgroups too noisy to be useful.

In article <31BC3A96.FCE@aft.sn.no>,
Andreas Haffner  <ahaffner@aft.sn.no> wrote:
>Bob Casanova wrote:

[...]
 
>> Sorry, but a spring (or *any* mechanical energy storage system) has internal
>> losses which result in <100% efficiency.

>Well, well... I will not argue here too strong but imagine: If there was any loss in a 
>spring it would not return to its original position after being depressed. So I guess 
>the efficiencey is at least some 99.99999% or more. How long would your car engine run 
>if  the valve springs had losses?

All springs have hysteresis losses. They must: they get warm when
flexed and heat (energy) is lost that is not available for mechanical
uses. But they still return to neutral. To understand this you must
use an empirical energy/displacement plot for a real spring.



-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

On Fri, 07 Jun 96 22:38:55 GMT, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
>You will find that the Atmos clock is 'powered' by changes in atmospheric 
>pressure if you care to check your facts.  That's what the bellows is for. 

There is no bellows, there's a large drum.  According to the factory
brochures, it contains a long bimetal spring and runs off temperature changes.

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list

On Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:37:36 GMT, cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>Sorry, but a spring (or *any* mechanical energy storage system) has internal 
>losses which result in <100% efficiency.

There is something very special about the spring used to suspend the pendulum
on the Atmos clock.  Some super whiz-bang alloy.  I see if I can find the
brochures and I'll post the info.

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Chris X. Guldi wrote:
> 
> Forgive me for joining in late on the topic, but are we discussing
> Joseph Newman's energy machine?
> 
> Is anybody familiar with Joe's machine.
> 
> According to Joe his machine utilized the electromagnetic flow around
> the earth to produce electricity. It's kicked of with a battery which
> is then charged as the machine rotates, while at the same time
> powering up your house.


My house?  And I am still paying NYSEG!

> 
> He's even built a car utilizing the machine as a power source, it was
> heavy, went slow, and real jerky, but it drove.
> 
> ###########################################################
> 
> Chris X.
> Wokaholic: Someone who's favorite entertainment
> is Monday mornings

It's irrelevant whether the car drove.  Did the car travel so that the
energy expended in driving it was way more than the energy needed to 
kick of [sic] the process (not driving down hill, not powered by hidden
springs, not solar powered, not pedalled, etc.)?

Chris X. Guldi (xguldi@mail.ameritel.net) wrote:
: Forgive me for joining in late on the topic, but are we discussing
: Joseph Newman's energy machine?
: 
: Is anybody familiar with Joe's machine.
: 
: According to Joe his machine utilized the electromagnetic flow around
: the earth to produce electricity. It's kicked of with a battery which
: is then charged as the machine rotates, while at the same time
: powering up your house.
: 
: He's even built a car utilizing the machine as a power source, it was
: heavy, went slow, and real jerky, but it drove.

Mr. Newman's "energy machine" was simply a generator with a twist (a bad
one it turns out) and nothing more. A complete write-up on this machine
was in Discover Magazine a few years back as an example of crackpot science.
I had the opportunity of "discussing" this machine with Mr. Newman on camera
( WDAM channel 7 in the Hattiesburg viewing area ); he spouts more drivvel
per second than anyone I have ever heard - congressman included. His "theory"
was that he was tapping not the earths field but the "gyroscopic" motion of
certain field particles (only he knew what these were; I could never get
him to tell me their properties - he didn't seem to understand the concepts
of mass, charge, angular momentum etc., indeed he denied vehemently that
Newton's second law was valid!). In honor of the "importance" of this
gyroscopic motion, he named his first born son "Gyromas" Newman.
Mr. Newman sued the patent office when his "machine" was denied a patent
(for obvious reasons). The judge forced him to turn over a "working model"
of the machine which he did. It was tested by competant engineers who
pronounced it an ordinary generator (with a slight technical adjustment)
with ordinary properties which conserved energy and had the usual efficiency
for devices of that type. Lastly, some wealthy southern investors lost
their "shirts"investing in his automobile drive - the car actually "ran" on
a large number of car batteries; when "tested" in the New Orleans Superdome
the car never did run; the usual excuses were given.

-- 

Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 

On 10 Jun 1996 18:12:45 GMT, rmarkd@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Mark Rajesh Das)
wrote:

>Kevin D. Quitt (kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
>
>: Temperature, according to the brochures.  And it's as "near" to perpetual
>: motion as anyone is likely to get.
>
> this is possibly misleading ( at least to me) 
>Perpetual motion, at the very least, would be 100% efficient. So are you saying
>that this clock is closest to 100% efficiency or that the energy source is the
>most inconspicuous?                                               
> 
>Or am I scoring touchdowns in a baseball game?

Actually, it is extremely efficient.  The pendulum runs at 1/60 Hz, spinning
suspended by a special spring (I don't remember why the metal is so wonderful
but I remember an entire section of the brochure discussing it).

And I considered it interesting because the energy source *is* so
inconspicuous.  That, coupled with a 400 day spring, would make it very
difficult indeed to prove in a lab that this isn't a perpetual motion device.

The original question asked about interesting "near" examples; I felt this
clock qualified by being so subtle about it.

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Kevin D. Quitt (kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:

: No, actually is powered by changes in temperature.  But the question was
: "close" to perpetual montion, and this clock is as close as you're going
: to get.  Which makes it interesting.

Closer than a windmill?  Which has the advantage that you can get useful
work out of it for zero energy input (minus, of course, the energy it
takes to build it).

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                      tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel       fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
               --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992

DaveHatunen wrote:
> 
> In article <31BC3A96.FCE@aft.sn.no>,
> Andreas Haffner  <ahaffner@aft.sn.no> wrote:
> >Bob Casanova wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> Sorry, but a spring (or *any* mechanical energy storage system) has internal
> >> losses which result in <100% efficiency.
> 
> >Well, well... I will not argue here too strong but imagine: If there was any loss in a
> >spring it would not return to its original position after being depressed. So I guess
> >the efficiencey is at least some 99.99999% or more. How long would your car engine run
> >if  the valve springs had losses?
> 
> All springs have hysteresis losses. They must: they get warm when
> flexed and heat (energy) is lost that is not available for mechanical
> uses. But they still return to neutral. To understand this you must
> use an empirical energy/displacement plot for a real spring.
> 
> --
> 
>     ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
>     *               Daly City California                  *
>     *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
>     *******************************************************test