Michael,

   If you are offering to show up and help (probably for free), it's only fair
that he be open to your input and let you know what is happening in advance.
    As a seasoned skeptic, I can guarantee you that if he does the old FE con
man trick of hours of political ranting followed by a few seconds or minutes
of demonstration (which could easily be able to go off stored power), then you
will be chewed up.  Ironically, because Newman has made claims that went flat
years ago, he would need skeptics to help validate something to get real
attention now.
    If Newman really does have something, then he should welcome investigation
from people in a position to make an assessment.  I'm trying to give you ideas
up front how to make it a valid demonstration.  Of course if it really doesn't
work, then you would be party to a fraud for forgiving a poor demonstration
for some lame excuse like "not enough time" or "this stuff is secret" or "I
don't like skeptics".  Try to push him to run it for a long time, with
significant output (maybe in the form of light bulbs, with very small hidden
areas and open before and after independent measurement of any stored power
sources.  The long history of abject fraud among FE claimants more than merits
openness.
    In any event, I would like to get a copy of the video.  I haven't heard
back from my friend in AZ and still urge you to also do a demo in CO (how much
effort can it be?)  I wish you the best and would be happy to part with my
money if it could be step 1 of the biggest positive discovery for mankind in
2000 years.

eric krieg

Michael Cook wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
> When it comes to the demo, it looks as if Joe is running the show & we are
merely
> observers. He apparently has a demonstration in mind that will surprise all of
us (even
> the currently involved individuals such as myself). I'm all for the media
attention that
> will be provided at Phoenix (it will provide some free advertising for the
marketing leg
> of our company). By the way, Joe is currently back in Colorado wrapping things
up before
> the demo, so you might want to call him. I'll be video taping the event on the
12th so
> if you happen to miss the news coverage, then I'll have the video.
>
> Michael
>
> Eric Krieg wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> >   I would love to be there - please let me know if you will ever demo it
> > at all near Philadelphia (I could line you up press people).  Also let
> > me know if you will demo in CO - I know a number of people there who
> > would likely be willing to have a look.
> >
> >   May I recommend a capacitor instead of a battery?  - it is easier to
> > confirm that the power would be more limited.  If you have to use a
> > battery, use one as small as possible, and allow an independent person
> > to measure it's voltage before and after.  I think it would be good
> > to have the thing run up on a sheet of Plexiglas or Plexiglas blocks.
> > If you have the demo run long enough and the external (or pre stored)
> > power low enough, the dynamometer would not be necessary - it would be
> > obvious from the turning stuff, friction and inefficiencies that you
> > would have excess power.  May I ask how long you will run it, how
> > big the batteries and how much net power you expect to produce?
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Michael Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > In all actuality, the machine DOES feed power back into itself, & will not
require
> > > more than the motor/generator/batteries. As for the power debate, there
will be a
> > > manufacturers dynamometer at the demo to measure both horsepower & rpm
ratio's.
> > > Once the exact location is set, I'll send you an email to give you the
address.
> > > Hopefully we'll see you there!
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > > Michael Cook
> > >
> > > Eric Krieg wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > >   I have seen the Newman promise of an open demo at:
> > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~josephnewman/
> > > >  I recommend that you convert the device to have NO EXTERNAL POWER
> > > > CONNECTIONS.  For about 30 years, scores of FE claimants have claimed to
have
> > > > something but in actuality just had mismeasured power. How much extra
effort
> > > > would it be to just take some of your output energy and feed it back as
input
> > > > energy. I'd be happy to pay up for a real demo which doesn't rely on
> > > > measurement debates and power factor obfuscation.  I would consider it
an
> > > > honor to pay $5000 and $1000 of travelling expenses if you demo it
working
> > > > here.  Milton Rothman has pledged another $5000 to anyone passing my
test.
> > > > Please give me details of the exact place of the AZ demo so I can try to
get a
> > > > few qualified engineers or physicists to check it out - if they tell me
that
> > > > it works as claimed, I'll be willing to fly somewhere myself to measure
it
> > > > myself for the prize.
> > > >
> > > >    best wishes,
> > > >
> > > >    Eric Krieg     eric@...  fax (215) 654-0651
> > > >                   http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis.html
> > > > ===============
> > > > Michael Cook wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know if you've been following your claims, but on Sept. 12,
> > > > > 1998, Joe Newman will be doing a public demo of the prototype that we
> > > > > plan on manufacturing. Skeptics are wise in debunking what are usually
> > > > > considered outrageous claims of machines that are suppose to provide
> > > > > unlimited "free energy", but such is not the case with the Newman
> > > > > motor/generator. If your offer is STILL open, then now is the time to
> > > > > pay up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Michael Cook
> > > > >
> > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~josephnewman/
> > > >
> > > > --
> >
> > --
> >    best wishes,
> >
> >    Eric Krieg     eric@...  fax (215) 654-0651
> >                   http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic

--
    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg     eric@...  fax (215) 654-0651
                   http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic

Folks,

   I got the following from Alan who has been really struggling
trying to make a living from a small solar niche market.  He
certainly shares a lot of my sentiments:

=====================
Hi,

  Came across your site by accident and it fascinated me - why?  - well I am a
borne again environmentalist approaching 50 and  living in the Middle East and
am a genuine Ph.D. which are few and far between here - in fact there are
probably more Dr.'s than Mr.'s. locally.

  I have seen so many claims to "Free Energy" devices, all of which were proven
false over the last 40 years, so I am now an absolute skeptic on such devices.
I recently set up a Solar PV business which many people regard as "Free
Energy" but in effect Photo voltaic technologies are locally several times
more expensive then conventional generated electricity,
but in remote areas without a power grid, they are the most economic solution
to small power needs.

          I am regularly told that the Oil Companies, Saudi Arabia etc. have
bought up all the "Free Energy" technologies - my opinion is that  there was
never anything to buy!!

          I am also regularly told that Photovoltaics should be so cheap as
they are made from sand (Silicon) - in which case so would the computer I am
currently working on.

          True, the multinational oil and electric companies have most patents
in solar power, but if they had the power the "conspiracy theory" groups claim
then oil would never have reduced in price.  Basically due to competition they
are unable to control the price of Oil as OPEC was able in the 1970's. Also
the price of TV's and mobile phones keeps
  coming down despite only a few multinationals having control of the patents.

          "Where Two or Three are gathered together in the Name of Profit -
there shalt be competition! - especially if there be four, five six or moreth"

          I never quite understood how Cartels always seem to collapse but have
come to the conclusion that Greed which originally brings them together is
also the cause of their inevitable failure - eventually.

          Similarly Photovoltaics (my personal passion) have reduced from over
$100,000 per peak watt nearly 40 yeas ago to under $4  now and they are set to
reduce further in a manner similar to "Computing Power" has since the first 8
bit PC with 0.5 KB memory became available at $10,000.

          I have also seen the power of "Religious Cults" on their followers
and cannot believe how nice so many individuals are including several of my
previous friends. I always remember Erlich Von Daniken of the 1960's  -
"Chariots of the Gods" etc. and his false claims and religious following
(which I nearly joined). He made $millions from false claims and contributions
from followers - seems like religion (Erlich lives again in Scientology) or
politics to me.

          Anyway liked the site especially the way you included the oppositions
sites.

          Keep up the good work.

          Alan

----------------------
  you can review more of Eric's slow email lists from:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/more.htm

Michael,

   I have seen the Newman promise of an open demo at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~josephnewman/
  I recommend that you convert the device to have NO EXTERNAL POWER
CONNECTIONS.  For about 30 years, scores of FE claimants have claimed to have
something but in actuality just had mismeasured power. How much extra effort
would it be to just take some of your output energy and feed it back as input
energy. I'd be happy to pay up for a real demo which doesn't rely on
measurement debates and power factor obfuscation.  I would consider it an
honor to pay $5000 and $1000 of travelling expenses if you demo it working
here.  Milton Rothman has pledged another $5000 to anyone passing my test.
Please give me details of the exact place of the AZ demo so I can try to get a
few qualified engineers or physicists to check it out - if they tell me that
it works as claimed, I'll be willing to fly somewhere myself to measure it
myself for the prize.

    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg     eric@...  fax (215) 654-0651
                   http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis.html
===============
Michael Cook wrote:
>
> Eric
>
> I don't know if you've been following your claims, but on Sept. 12,
> 1998, Joe Newman will be doing a public demo of the prototype that we
> plan on manufacturing. Skeptics are wise in debunking what are usually
> considered outrageous claims of machines that are suppose to provide
> unlimited "free energy", but such is not the case with the Newman
> motor/generator. If your offer is STILL open, then now is the time to
> pay up.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Cook
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~josephnewman/

--

Dear Jim Lippard,

   This message is also copied to the good people of free energy
email list.  Based on your excellent investigation of Scientology
and other of your writings, I thought you could be a good person
to take a look at the following claim of demonstration of Free
Energy in your city of Phoenix Arizona.  I think it could make for
a fascinating article.  My SI article of my investigation of Dennis Lee's
purported Free Energy demonstration in Philadelphia was very popular.  I can
give you background information on what I consider fair standards of evidence
for free energy at:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/freetest.html
Some extra background on Joe Newmans 2 decades of FE (free energy)
can be found in back issues of SI and:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic/newman.htm

   I hope you realize that if Joe real does have a machine that can make energy
out of thin air, you could have the chance of a lifetime to help herald in a
golden new age for all mankind.  I feel in my heart that you can envision the
positive impact on planet earth brought by such technology and would be
willing to help bring the proper attention to bear.  Of course (and forgive me
for being negative) if you find there is inadequate evidence of FE - that
could be useful information to Joe's unending stream of investors.  So anyhow,
I hope you or other local kindred souls you pass this on to can try to be on
hand for such a memorable demonstration.
    Thanks in advance for any help uncovering truth,


    Eric Krieg     eric@...  fax (215) 654-0651
                   http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis4.html



Subject:
              *********ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEMONSTRATION!********
  Resent-Date:
              Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:34:56 +1200
    Resent-To:
              eric@...
         Date:
              Fri, 28 Aug 1998 21:26:30 -0600
         From:
              josephnewman@... (Evan Soule)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*********ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEMONSTRATION!********
*********ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEMONSTRATION!********
*********ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEMONSTRATION!********

      NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
2050 Vineyard Dr. * Castle Rock, Colorado 80104
                 (303) 814-3403
        email: josephnewman@...
       Also, for info, call: (504) 524-3033

            **********************
            A PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION
                      OF
               JOSEPH NEWMAN'S
            NEWEST MOTOR/GENERATOR
            **********************

Joseph Newman has stated that this demonstration
will feature his most advanced Motor/Generator &
will show MORE Power (in Horsepower)  coming out
on the shaft of the  Newman Motor/Generator than
Power going into the Newman Energy Machine!

Joseph Newman  has  stated  that he will provide
indisputable  proof  that  the technology works!

The Newman Energy Machine  can and will run your
home, business, & farm;  provide the inexpensive
energy to turn salt water into fresh water and a
desert  into an  oasis;  eliminate  the need for
pollution-causing  conventional energy  sources,
reduce the cost of all produced goods,  and turn
the cost of your  monthly  electric bills from a
deficit into  a  profit.  This  technology  will
totally decentralize  our access  to  energy and
literally change the world for the better.

         *****************************
         COME AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELF!
         *****************************

  Date: ***** SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1998 *****
  Time:           2:00PM (Pacific Time)
Place:             PHOENIX, ARIZONA

      Specific site location in Phoenix:
As  of the time of this  announcement, the site
details are being arranged; the purpose of this
advance  announcement  is to provide sufficient
time for people to make  airline  reservations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
              www.josephnewman.com




--

There is a great page reviewing Jeane Manning's book,
"The Coming Energy Revolution" at:
http://prisoner.soe.bcit.bc.ca/rjw/pers/EnergyRev.htm


Ben,

   I did pass your notes along to Tom Napier.  The usual thing before
requesting such high investment money is to do a cheapest possible proof of
concept first.
     You should look through Don Lancasters pages. People having wrongly been
told that some things are impossible in the past does not mean that every
thing (or one particular thing for example) is possible now.  I believe it is
possible to prove some things impossible.  The following books described by
Milton Rothman are highly recommended for better physics background:



THREE BOOKS ON SCIENCE AND SKEPTICISM


Milton A. Rothman has written three books which together cover the physics and
philosophy
underlying the practice of skepticism with regard to the paranormal,
pseudoscience, UFOs,
faster-than-light travel, psychic experiences, and other manifestations of
popular
culture.  These books may not change the minds of those who are already "true
believers,"
but they are helpful in pointing students who have not yet made up their minds
in the
direction of critical thinking.

DISCOVERING THE NATURAL LAWS was first published by Doubleday & Co. in 1972.
It was
reprinted by Dover Publications in 1989. (ISBN 0-486-26178-6)  This book deals
with the
fundamental laws of nature as understood by an experimental physicist.  It
answers the
age-old question "How do we know what we know -- and how accurately do we know
it?"  It
discusses both the classical and modern experiments verifying the law of
gravitation, the
laws of motion, the conservation laws, the principle of relativity, and so
on.  In all
cases it seeks to bring out how accurately all of these laws are known.  A new
chapter,
added in the 1989 edition, applies this knowledge to the field of skepticism.

A PHYSICIST'S GUIDE TO SKEPTICISM was published by Prometheus Books in 1988.
(ISBN
0-87975-440-0)  This book is a thorough application of the laws of physics to
topics of
interest in the field of skepticism.  How do we know perpetual motion is
impossible?  How
do we know you can't make energy out of nothing?  We learn that the laws of
nature are of
two kinds:  Laws of  Permission and Laws of Denial.  Laws of Permission tell
us what kind
of actions nature allows.  Laws of Denial tell us what kind of actions nature
does not
allow.  We find that it is easier to say what is impossihle than what is
possible.  We
learn about verification and falsification, and we learn what is a proper
theory.

THE SCIENCE GAP:  DISPELLING THE MYTHS AND UNDERSTANDING THE REALITY OF
SCIENCE was
published by Prometheus Books in 1992.  (ISBN 0-87975-710-8)   This book is
more
philosophical in nature than the other two, and contains no equations.  Each
chapter has
a title that describes a myth -- a belief that considered true by many people,
but which
are in reality quite false.
"Nothing exists until it is observed."
"Nothing is known for sure."
"Nothing is impossible."
"Whatever we think we know now is likely to be overturned in the future."
"Advanced civilization on other planets possess great forces unavailable to us
on earth."
"All theories are equal."

etcetera, etcetera.

While you may think it is obvious that all the above statements are nonsense,
some famous
scientists have subscribed to a few of them, so it is not a waste of time to
think
seriously and critically about them.




Ben Grubb wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>    I reluctantly,humbly acknowledge the error of my ways...The electric field
in a conductor certainly is zero whilst the magnetic field is a funcion of the
current and relative permeability of the material.  I must have confused my
aluminum disk with a superconductor in which case the mag field is also zero
inside the conductor.  This does seem to throw a wrench into the potential
willingness of investors to give me money but let this not be the case.
>    Mr. Napier made a comment:::
>
> >"no back EMF" is a
> >contradiction, it would have no output voltage. To achieve over-unity you
> >would have to prevent
> >the load current from generating an opposing torque. (Which is impossible
> so don't waste time trying.) "
>
> This is exactly how my machine works!
> My question is:  Where do these opposing  torques act on each other?  Both
Faraday and Depalma had set ups where the magnet was attatched to, and moving
with the conductor.  The only opposing force the generated mag field could act
against is the fabric of space itself.  This may well be the case but think
about it.....it sure is bazzare.  Also maybe there is a back EMF generated but
there is no place for the opposing fields to cause an opposing torque??  This
would be equivalent to eliminating back EMF.
>    I would be incredibly enlightened with satisfactory answers to my
questions.
>
> These questions certainly warrant further tests and I have an excellent design
to test that simply requires $50,000.
>
> I don't have the Don Lancaster article on homopolar welders-----how are they
constructed?
> By the way, if Edison was told it was impossible to try and put light in a jar
"so don't waste time trying" we would all still be in the dark!!  All I need is
50 grand.........Thanks,  Ben
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

--
    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg     eric@...  fax (215) 654-0651
                   http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic

Hello folks,

A general announcement, if you would like to be on my slow email list giving a
smattering of info on various areas of science, you can sign up from:
http://www.onelist.com/archives.cgi/science

There is a very questionable "human location device" which would violate
laws of physics advertised from:
http://www.dklabs.com/

   I got the following from Adam.  If you want to respond, his email address
is:
adamli@...
Since he forwarded me this, there has been an upset in the management of the
"company" he reports on at:
www.splitcycle.com.au/
They may not exist anymore.  I tend to agree with young Adam on this one.
  A number of people have tried mixing water with fuel -
it works (with out increasing power) up to the point the engine starts to miss
badly, but sorry, water can't be a fuel.   Oh, some jets have added it to get
pushed out the back for just extra thrust on take off.

================ Adams writing:      ========

Hi.  My name is Adam Lieziert, and I am a mechanical engineering student
at the University of Portland(Oregon).  I  first want to say I read most
of your page- and loved it.  Great work!

Now on to a more pressing issue.  From the yahoo automotive engineering
links, I stumbled onto a page about a new miracle "split cycle" engine
that's being "developed" in Australia.  The guy sounds like a total
quack, and I think they are selling stock in their corporation.  It
sounds much like Dennis Lees engine that puts out a ton of torque, but
very little power (OK, this engine is better than that, It should put
out at least a little power).  He basically found a way to gear down the
engine speed between the piston and the crankshaft so the piston can
fire twelve times for every crankshaft revolution.  You might as well
take any old two stroke and gear it down until you get the appropriate
output speed.

   What's more is the compression ratio is extremely low- on the order of
1.5:1.  He even talked about how much power he could make make with his
new engine with a 1.047:1 compression ratio!!!  Anybody who has studied
thermodynamics knows that the higher your compression ratio, the more
efficient your engine..  The formula works like this

                                                         1
                 thermal eff. = 1  -  ------------
                                                      (k-1)
                                                    r^

Where r is the compression ratio and k is the specific heat ratio.  The
higher r gets, the higher the efficiency gets.

He is also experimenting with a water injection system.

Here is a list of quotes I took from an interview of him on his page.
Being a fellow engineer, you should find the interesting and/or funny.

" No stress on the engine, no stress on the compression stroke,
everything is simple and unstrained. "
Does he know the difference between stress and strain?  How can an
engine have no stress?

"That means you put a small amount of fossil fuel into a combustion
chamber, fire it and then you inject atomized water that will turn to
steam and push the pistons down. There is four times as much power in
water as in fossil fuel."
A fine point is that atomized water IS steam.  A course point is that
there is NO energy in water.. it is in its lowest energy state!

"This engine is all about time, and to answer the question about high
exhaust pressure coming out it's the best thing in the world for a turbo
charger."
What the hell!  High exhaust pressure is CAUSED by high heat, and heat
ALONG WITH a pressure difference is what drives a turbo.  Turbos run on
waste heat!

"There is four times as much power in water as in fossil fuel."
Wow!  Now we know how much more powerful water is than gasoline...I'll
have to write that down.

"When we overloaded the engine with water we started to get hydrogen
bangs in there and we just melted our pistons and crystallized the bolts
to the alloy and we made a real mess of one end of the engine."
Water dissociates into hydrogen at around 1100 degrees.  Adding too much
water would make the engine run very cool, if it would even fire.  All
the energy from the "hydrogen bang" was originally heat from the fuel.

"For each pound of its weight, an aircraft requires 3 pounds of fuel to
lift and support it in the air
or 300% more."
I happen to know the fuel fraction on most fighter jets is about 30% of
total weight..NOT 300%.  These things would never get off the ground.
Even in a transport I can't imagine it carrying more than 60% of it's
dry weight in fuel.  Also, how does adding fuel weight to a plane help
to lift and support it?

"A 24 cylinder output shaft is made up of 12 little cranks and can
control and operate anywhere between one and 24 cylinder modules.  For
the very first time remember by adding these extra modules you are not
adding friction."
I got to get some of these frictionless piston cylinder devices for a
perpetual motion machine I'm working on!

"The steam train that in earlier times ran between Glasgow and London
could spin its wheels at zero RPM and was capable of pulling over 100
carriages. It also had a theoretical top speed of 200 mph yet it was only
around 75 horsepower! But the torque was massive.  The Split-Cycle
Engine is all about torque. "
Wheel spin from a still engine?  200 mph potential in a 75 hp train.  I
think this guy purchased a math book from Dennis Lee!

My lunch break is now over.  I have no time to proofread, but you get
the idea.  I was thinking of sending this critique to this quack, but
that would just give him more time for rebuttals.  Let me know if you
want to do anything.

-Adam Lieziert
--
    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg     eric@...  fax (215) 654-0651
                   http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic

Hello people,

   on the whole back emf discussion, physicist Tom Napier has jumped
into the fray.  There is a wide range of people claiming stuff like
electricity not really being used used up and that motors can consume
less electrical energy than mechanical energy they produce.  The
following is Tom's response :

The homopolar guy is getting a lot of things wrong. Yes, Faraday demonstrated
the homopolar
generator, it's in all the textbooks. Since the voltage generated is a
function of the number
of turns, the field strength and the speed at which the conductor moves, the
holopolar
generator, having a "one-turn" winding, puts out a low voltage. If you can
make a good enough
contact to a low resistance disk you can get hundreds of amps from it. They
are used for
applications such as welding. Don Lancaster wrote them up in Electronics Now a
few months ago.
There's no reason why they won't work as motors except that the generated
torque may be much
less than the friction from the brush.  By the way, rotating a conducting disk
in a magnetic
field generates eddy currents which oppose its motion but otherwise do nothing
useful except
heat up the disk. This is the principle of the widely used magnetic damper.
This effect reduces
the efficiency of homopolar generators.
Electric fields do not generate magnetic fields unless the charges are moving,
i.e. a current
is flowing. In a motor the applied voltage is opposed by a back EMF generated
by the motion of
the conductors in the armature. The net driving voltage is the difference
between the two so if
the motor is loaded it slows down, the back EMF falls and more current is
drawn by the motor.
In a generator the "back EMF" <is> the output voltage. If the generator is
unloaded no current
flows and no back torque is generated. It then takes little input power to
drive the generator.
The load current you take generates a torque which opposes the driving force,
thus reflecting
the output electrical power back as input mechanical power. A generator with
"no back EMF" is a
contradiction, it would have no output voltage. To achieve over-unity you
would have to prevent
the load current from generating an opposing torque. (Which is impossible so
don't waste time
trying.)
Magnetic fields do penetrate and exist inside conductors. For that matter,
most magnets are
made from conductors. What must be confusing the guy is that a moving magnetic
field, e.g. RF,
can induce a current in a conductor which partially cancels the applied field.
Moving fields
thus tend not to penetrate conductors. Yes, you can pass this on or post it to
PhACT.

================ end of Tom's response,  dialog with "homopolar guy" follows:

> Judy wrote:
>
> Ben says:
> Eric----I'm glad you guys are discussing this so I can make clear the
> mystery of my ways.  I'm sure that after I make myself clear y'all will be
> chomping at the bit to give me money.  I will try to clarify the individual
> misconseptions.......
>    First---noone has metioned this yet but Faraday first made this homopolar
> generator in 1830----so this is nothing new.  But like I said earlier it
> wasn't pursued because the design is soooooooo inefficient and it's only
> recently that we can make magnets strong enough to do something useful.
>
> First Chuck:::
> "His conductor is moving through the earth's field. Just the thing to
> generate a few mv!
> Chuck"
> Ben says:
> I'm pleased to announce that I spun the disk before the magnets were
> attatched to verify that no voltage was generated.  Although I don't recall
> if the aparatus was parallel or perpendicular to the earth's field!!  Also
> Faraday already did these test.  And yes, whether perpendicular or parallel
> to the earth's field I get the same readings.
>
>
> Second Chris::::
> "Eric,
> I think your objections are valid. Especially the bit about the magnetic
> field permeating a conductor. Any electric field generates a magnetic
> field, so naturally a conducting conductor results in a magnetic field."
>
> Ben says:
> This was some tricky reading---I couldn't find an argument to rebutt.
>
> Further Chris::::::
> "Now if this guy will send me the specs, a scaled drawing etc. I will put my
> engineering staff onto the problem. I feel certain we can up with a quote
> substantially lower than the 50,000 bucks he says he needs. "
>
> Ben says:
> The cost is in the magnets themselves---like I said only Daido Steel of
> Japan makes the size and shape I need for the "High Efficiency" design.  But
> I would be glad to send drawings.  dxf,dwg????
>
> Further Further Chris:::
> "        Still, I would refer him to Stokes theorem. This states that
> magnetic fields, whether the arise from rare earth magnets or alien probes
> do no work.  There may be something to this back emf idea."
>
> Ben says:
> NO argument here...And yes there IS!!!  Not that I recall stokes theorem.
> Back emf is what makes conventional motors efficient.  A 99% effecient motor
> means that it generates almost as much power as it uses-----so it doesn't
> use very much.  Only on start up do motors have very large "in rush"
> currents but as the motor starts spinning it acts like a generator to try
> and push the current back out. (FYI)
>
> Third Eric::::::
> === the following was from me to Chris and Chuck==
> >Guys,
> >
> "he forgets that it is the magnetic FIELD moving past the conductor
> >to induce voltage NOT just the magnet moving.  Hence if the magnet
> >spins with the conductor attached, it could induce some current in the
> >attached wire IF the field changed during rotation due to passing through
> >material with different emistivity?"
>
> Ben says:
> How could I forget that?  The point is there must be RELATIVE motion.  The
> field must be still and the conductor move or the field move and conductor
> hold still.  MOST importantly Faraday already proved the system
> works---Depalma verified MANY amps(as opposed to my 5mA).  Depalma didn't
> reach over unity----he just made a generator.  But I believe he was still
> working with Disk magnets and that is extremely inefficient.  He was getting
> closer to a better design (mine) with the Quadrapole machine.  I don't
> believe he actually made something like my design. (investors please)
>   Once again I state  !!!The system DOES generate electricity!!!  This is
> NOT an issue.  Faraday proved it and Depalma showed it.  I hate to kick a
> dead dog but I need to let y'all know that this dog was dead back in
> 1830!!!!!!!!
> The issue is back EMF.  If I crowbar the system will it pull down like an
> alternator on a car when you turn the lights on??? That is the question.
> Further, all motors act as generators when they run and all generators could
> be run as motors---The homopolar generator with the magnets attathched WILL
> NOT run as a motor.  There is no place for the field generated by the
> current flowing in the conductor to act against the external field of the
> magnets!!!!!!  If the magnets are not attatched then the homopoloar
> generator will act as a motor OR a generator just like any other
> motor/generator.
> >ONce again-------the system is already proven to generate
> electricity----TRUST ME..I just want your money----and Faraday proved it and
> Depalma proved it-----and I proved it!  Even if it only was 100mV and 5mA.
> The issue is "Back EMF" look it up----study it---see what it does.......Give
> me money....Ok maybe I don't need 50 grand but that would be a nice down
> payment on a plane I could use to fly to Japan and pick my magnets up in.
> Although they did mention toolling for magnets at 20 grand.  This is not
> volume production here.
>
> Further Eric:::
> "  If think his other big gaffe is that a magnetic field can't permeate a
> >conductor - not true, it's a Electric field doesn't permeate a conductor."
>
> Ben says:
> Finally an argument that applies to my machine and the Back EMF issue.  Now
> I have to reach back in my head......Electric field is what is on a
> capacitor right??  In fact the positive terminal on your car battery has a
> positive electric field and the negative terminal has a negative field.
> It's also what is used to move the picutre on your computer monitor left or
> right.  Light travels as a magnetic field with an Electric field 90 degrees
> to it.  I honestly don't know what the difference is between an electric
> field and a magnetic field-----Einstein was trying to "Grand Unify" all that
> stuff.  But I can tell you for damn sure that the magnetic field inside a
> conductor is ZERO.  Current flowing in a wire generates a magnetic field
> OUTSIDE the wire but none on the surface OR inside----there is NO place for
> Back EMF to act!!!!!!  Show me the Money!!!!!!!!   Ok......I'll get my Emag
> book out and verify this------but I didn't take all those tests and do all
> that math for my health damnit.
> Soooooooooo more arguments against Back Emf but please PLEASE no more on
> wether the system generates electricity----IT DOES  Faraday proved it in
> 1830!!!!!!  I hope a lot more people are reading this than just 4
> people----I need a larger investor base.....
> Thanks for the thoughts.........Ben

--
    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg     eric@...  fax (215)-654-0651
                   http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic

E wrote:
>
> I e-mailed you a while back on the controversial questions as to what is to be
> done with "free energy technology". I wanted further advice on giving, more or
> less, the technology to the world and what goes along with that option. I have
> a few questions.
>
> Are you saying that the inventor should start a small business producing the
> product and start a trend, other businesses will start making them too etc…? I
> like that idea of everyone making them and developing the technology but what
> about the inventor how do they claim any kind of "credit" for their discovery?
> Is patenting the answer? At least if you patent it there aren't as many
> questions as to the origin of the technology. I don't know?
>
> Another aspect is what about your personal protection? Once this technology
> got out many several utilities empires would be destroyed. Wouldn't there be
> lots of angry people w/ vendettas directed at the technology creator? Would
> you have to have some type of security? And if you are not trying to get rich
> quick then how could you support that?
>
> I guess these are my main concerns. I think it would be wonderful to bring
> about an energy revolution but how do you get simple recognition w/o patents?
> I would like to hear your details on this entire issue. Thanks
>
> E

--
Dear E,

    One of my biggest points is that FE wannabes put the cart a light year
ahead of the horse by fixating on how to bring out technology.  It's a fun
fantasy, but the first order of business is the detail of succeeding where
1000's have been consistently failing.  I'm saying get me to prove you
really have it, then I'll be the first of many people to throw money at
you.
   I think no industries would need to be destroyed.  Smart power companies
would pay for rights to make and distribute the technology.  It may be
cheapest for central power stations to make power the new way and distribute
it over existing power lines.  (the cost per watt of a generator in every
house is silly).  Only Arabs may want you dead - the vast majority of American
businesses are energy consumers not producers.  Dead or alive (and hell,
you'll
eventually die anyhow), your name would be on high schools across the country
-
you'd be a hero like GrahamBell, Westinghouse, Einstein, Ford and others.  I
consider it far more likely that I be killed by psychotic FE schizo's who
don't
like their delusions challenged than for a inventor to be killed.  Personally,
I'd bring out a FE device even if I knew I'd get killed because I'll die
anyhow, and an early death for a positive impact is a great trade. It's normal
a new invention like a car to be a set back for an old invention like a
horse. - but the majority of the world would profit.




best wishes,

    Eric Krieg   eric@...
get on more of my lists from:

                 http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/more.htm

I got the following responses:

   Skeptic Chuck said,

"Eric,

His conductor is moving through the earth's field. Just the thing to
generate a few mv!

Chuck"

====================
and Skeptic Chris responded to me with:


Eric,
I think your objections are valid. Especially the bit about the magnetic
field permeating a conductor. Any electric field generates a magnetic
field, so naturally a conducting conductor results in a magnetic field.
Now if this guy will send me the specs, a scaled drawing etc. I will put my
engineering staff onto the problem. I feel certain we can up with a quote
substantially lower than the 50,000 bucks he says he needs. HEll I will
build the thing myself in our machine shop and he can stick the magnets in
it later.       With people looking to make a mark in physics, I find it
surprising that he can't find some grad student to champion his cause
(caveat: he could if he looked, even if he's wrong)
         Still, I would refer him to Stokes theorem. This states that
magnetic fields, whether the arise from rare earth magnets or alien probes
do no work.                                     There may be something to
this back emf idea. A back emf is the justification for a variety of over
unity devices so I am thinking it must be much like whole life insurance.
Sure it sounds okay and the math is neat but ity's still the biggest scam
since amway.
Chris
=== the following was from me to Chris and Chuck==
>Guys,
>
>  I think he has the following flaws, but I wanted to run it by
>you two before making myself to be an idiot:
>
>
>he forgets that it is the magnetic FIELD moving past the conductor
>to induce voltage NOT just the magnet moving.  Hence if the magnet
>spins with the conductor attached, it could induce some current in the
>attached wire IF the field changed during rotation due to passing through
>material with different emistivity?
>
>
>  If think his other big gaffe is that a magnetic field can't permeate a
>conductor - not true, it's a Electric field doesn't permeate a conductor.
>
>--  eric
--
===== ben (the FE claimant) wrote: ================
>============
>
>Ben Grubb wrote:
>>
>> Erick!!!!
>>
>>   Thanks for the kind words in support of my incredible inexplicable
>>machine.  I even more appreciate the international broadcast for
>>$100,000.  Also I didn't realize how well the "homo" in homopolar fit
>>Depalma.
>>    All this aside.  I feel painfully obligated to educate you on the
>>concept of back EMF and how it's ellimination is related to Over
>>Unity.....
>>     When you turn on the headlights on your car this will actually slow
>>your engine down because of "magnetic friction" from your alternator.
>>This is back EMF working.  The more lights and power you draw from your
>>alternator the harder your engine would have to work to keep all that
>>energy coming out.
>>    But what if you could turn on all the lights you wanted and your
>>engine didn't have to work any harder than if they were all off????
>>That's a violation of the law of conservation of energy---if you want
>>more out you better put more in!!!!
>>     This is the holy grail behind the homopolar device.  The problem is
>>the design is sooooo inefficient that current magnet technology hasn't
>>caught up to the theory-----or has it??????
>>    To further shine light on the inexplainable part of my
>>prototype....Current wisdom is that there must be relative motion between
>>the magnetic field and conductor in order for a voltage to be produced.
>>On my prototype the magnets and conductor are permanently attatched to
>>each other.  Therefore there seems to be no relative motion between the
>>conductor and magnetic field so there should be no voltage
>>generated-----but there is.(investors please...) But to save conventional
>>wisdom I believe it is true that the field created by the magnets is
>>holding still whilst the magnets themselves turn.
>>    So how does this eliminate back EMF?? I thought you'd never ask!!!
>>When the current is drawn from the conductor it generates it's own
>>magnetic field that opposes the magnets' field.  This is back EMF.  But
>>the clincher is that the magnets are attatched to the conductor and what
>>is the field inside or at the surface of a conductor???????  ZERO!  Yes
>>it's a fact ZERO I say.  There can only be a field OUTSIDE  of a
>>conductor but since there is no space for the two opposing fields to act
>>in there can be no "magnetic friction".  SIMPLE!! (more investors please)
>>Why wasn't it done sooner???  Rare earth magnets were only invented 10
>>years ago and only they approach the useful flux densities to do anything
>>in this kindof design.  My investors will be pleased to hear that I now
>>believe it's possible to do my next prototype for only $50,000.  This all
>>depends on what Daido Steel is willing to make a prototype for.  I do
>>believe in the lemming affect so, Erick, if you would kindly!
> invest
>> $10,000 I believe others will follow suit---or at least say you did.....
>>    I'm glad to have had this chance to enlighten you and others.
>>    You mentioned the unibomber and capitol shooter but you didn't say
>>anything about sheep???  My dad was a sheep rancher....Yours only for
>>money,  Ben
>>

Folks on the free energy email list:

   I offer a response to the below anonymized email to me:
Ben,

When referring to DePalma's homopolar generator, emphasis is on the word,
"homo".
I suppose it's too bad he's dead, but I thought he was totally nuts and still
don't
understand how he got disciples.  Eliminating back emf (which I doubt is
possible)
will not break unity.  2 hp in is 1500W, and 100mv at 5 mA is .0005 watts out
- so it
is a machine that reduces power by a factor of 2 million.  Actually, you could
make
a unity energy machine by just having a cylindrical shaft:
  I call it the Krieg World Record Over Unity Machine - it would be more
efficient than any other over unity machine because it would be 100% efficient
or just .000001% away from being over unity.  It's a major break through with
a simple design.  Unfortunately, the
free energy men in black will probably come by and beat me up or buy the
patent and
then store it behind the box with the ark of the covenant.

    But anyhow, if anyone wants to invest $100,000 in Ben's invention rather
than
mine, let me know so I can work out putting you in touch with him.  In Ben's
defense,
I must admit that if I has discovered some effect that is inexplicable by
existing
laws of physics, then it would be useful apart from practical application.
Keep in
mind that his Montana EE degree comes from the same state is the unibomber and
the
capital shooter.

"may you be free with your own energy"
eric


=====================original note from Ben ==================
Eric

   I get a contant stream of people who feel they are close.

Almost.....I spent $1000 on some magnets and got 6.5uW out of my free energy
device while being powered by a 2 hp motor....Ok the 2 hp motor was
overkill.....

    The machine is based on Bruce Depalmas homoplar generator.  The main idea
is that the magnets move with the conductor.  This is supposed to eliminate
back emf.  I
can get 100mV and 5 mA out of the system.  Not bad for something that should
not produce anything at all.  I refined my argument to one professor in
college and got him
to finally agree that something might happen unusual.   Then I showed my $12
prototype to another professor who was amazed to see it produce 30mV......
      I have the ultimate magnet design figured out-----Diado Steel makes the
size and shape of what I want but they only do a minimum of 100 pieces.  I
think they will be
over $1000 a piece.  What I'm saying here is that I'm out of my financial
range----so if you have another $100,000 you want to blow or if you can
convince Diado Steel to
do a prototype run that would be great!!!  I just got my electrical
engineering degree from Montana State Universtiy in spring 96 and my friends
got sick of hearing about
my motor.  It was only after I got a job that I could actually put some money
into it.......But I need a lot of pay raises to go any further...  I have
prototypes that show the
concept I just need to go bigger to get Over Unity.........If one throws
enough money at it it's bound to work!!!!!!
      If you could point any people with money my direction that would be
great.....I hit Zynergy up----thanks for that link..........Ben  PS  please
respond to _____

People,

   there is a great job debunking claims of a conspiracy of death
camps in America at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/8320/report2.html


There is a conference on energy management at:
http://www.mectronic.com/scripts/newsletters/feb98/wescon.asp

there is a truly amazing revolutionary computer storage claim at:
http://www.accpc.com/tcapstore.htm
excuse me for being skeptical until I see some credible source
confirm that one - but hey, who knows


   Every now and then, people in the FE community consider some
possible but really far out ways of getting power.  The following
is such a discussion:

seibold@... wrote:
>
> Eric,
>         I didn't have to read too far or too deeply to spot an error.
> Unlimited output of energy from the space born solar collectors, whatever.
> The sun doesn't put out unlimited energy, the amount of energy transferred
> to the earth is roughly 1 wat per square meter, While tis would be higher
> out in space I'll stick with this number because it's easy to work with. if
> we're gonna get enough energy out of this configuration it's going to have
> to be really really big, maybe we could stick one over australia and one
> over bolivia plunging those places into a permanent night. We could beam
> the energy back as microwaves and then reconvert it, of course the loss of
> power would be noticeable. In short while I pay a few cents per kilowatt
> hour now, I'd be paying some serious coin for hot coffee in the future.
> >Patrick,
> >
> >  sorry, I barely have enough time for one proposal per person, but I
> >forward this to Chris.
> >
> >  In short, the cost of a cell here is expensive - the lifting cost
> >to such a high orbit would be prohibitive and the transfer efficiency
> >would be pretty bad too (not to mention dangers of such power going
> >through our atmosphere.  Things in space don't last that long because
> >of nasty particles whizzing by
> >
> >eric
> >
> >pfleet wrote:
> >>
> >> Eric,
> >>   Thank you for your response. I expected something along the lines
> >> you described. I'd like to believe in the effect of re-inforcement
> >> or cancellation but I don't expect that would give much ROI.
> >>
> >> If you have the time, I do have another one for you to consider.
> >> This one is a lot more ambitious so it may not cover all 6 points.
> >>    high energy storage per pound
> >>    low cost
> >>    low loss during charge and discharge
> >>    high number of charge / discharge cycles possible
> >>    no dangerous materials
> >>    high rate of instantaneous power xfer
> >>
> >> (: back to that 6/49 :)
> >>
> >> OSC - Orbiting Solar collectors...
> >>
> >> > Basically, enough solar collectors in geo-sync orbit that
> >>   can charge each other and provide unlimited output.
> >>
> >> First, an individual collector.
> >> Limited to exposure.Minimum of 4 collectors.
> >> The OSC would have the surface area of at least a football
> >> field per collector panel. These would have independent motors to
> >> maximize exposure to the solar rays as they passed through the
> >> sun's light. They would also be specially coated with a substance
> >> able to withstand any (recorded+) solar outbursts due to sunspots
> >> and stray cosmic rays. Ideally, a magnified layer that would
> >> amplify the available light. The cells would be able to concentrate
> >> this energy into existing technology for our use.
> >> The OSC would be outfitted with mirrors to keep a stream of light
> >> pointing to any other collectors currently on the darkside.
> >> All mirrors would also require motors for maximum exposure.
> >> The output may be lower but still available.
> >> Now we get to the gain. Each OSC would send the extracted energy
> >> via a ray channel back to the planet. This channel raises an
> >> interesting problem. If certain rays are generated then this could
> >> be detrimental to the environment. (: Don't get near that Xray!!! :)
> >> Once you have the electrical output from the OSC's then it
> >> becomes semantic on how you forward that energy to collectors
> >> within the orbital path. Again with the motors.
> >>  It boils down to what you will do to the earth in the process.
> >> If the concept holds, you collect solar energy and use a generator
> >> on earth to collect it. Hey, if you want a lot of rain, use
> >> electrical discharge to transmit. Once you have the energy it
> >> becomes a matter of movement. I like to think a low gamma emission
> >> would do the trick, less likely to hurt anything.
> >> Keep in mind the maximum output of the OSC devices. If you have
> >> enough then they always generate. Each one feeds the other.
> >> To broaden the scope, surrounding the planet, based on photon
> >> collection and distribution, able to generate X amount of usable
> >> energy per earthbound collector. (Or spacebound...)
> >> Anyway, to conclude, we have the technology and this free energy
> >> has always been available. Outside the current is the future.
> >> It comes to a simple equation, yes or no. I still like to think
> >> that the yes comes out on top. If matter is generated via the
> >> matter/antimatter process (+1 .0n billions) then I expect with the fact
> >> that this holds, so does extraction of that extra. At least
> >> enough for our use. After all, we only take up very little space,
> >> a little extra fuel wouldn't hurt. If you ever find that elusive
> >> free then please let me know. If for nothing more than interesting
> >> info. Like it was free to you or something :_)
> >>
> >> Maybe Buck Bill would be interested. To project cost, look at
> >> least 14 mill per unit, add at least 6 for continuous exposure
> >> to rough around 84-90 mill for free energy. Keep in mind you'll
> >> want around 100 so you'll be looking at 1.4 bills per 100.
> >> If you think the gov won't be there, dream on. Push 25% min.
> >> Each one capable of limited to exposure time depending on the other,
> >> the window is open for a only a certain amount of time, see?
> >> What you have or can have....
> >>
> >>          Everything costs...(: well... :)
> >>
> >> So tell if another equates. I look past, so does...
> >>
> >> L8R,
> >> Patrick.
> >
> >--
> >   best wishes,
> >
> >
--
    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg   eric@...  (215) 646-3553   fax (215)-654-0651
                 http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/krieg

Hi folks,

   I got the following admonition.  I probably should tone down my FE pages
because I get a lot of letters just like this one:

------------ letter start -------------
  It seems to me that a man of your intelligence or rather self proclaimed
intelligence, would not be so skeptical of a device that produces free energy.
It is possible, it just isn't figured out yet. In my opinion, the people that
are working on the devices are people, like your self, with the same theories
and knowledge of science taught at the same colleges at the same schools with
the same books.  Maybe you should open up use a few of your own ideas,  and
not be so gullible on what people have told you. If Einstein would have
listened to people like yourself,  There would not be any nuclear energy.
   Let me ask you this,  do you know how to hook up a VCR, can you change the
spark plugs in your car with out a service manual, can you hook your
computer up with out looking at the instructions, If you answered yes to any
of these questions you are unlike any other renowned scientist. Point at hand,
It takes more than brains to complete a task it also takes a little savvy, and
mechanical inclination, and most of all common sense, which are
characteristics that most people, and I said most not all with IQ's over 125
lack.
-----------  letter end ------------

   Actually, my IQ is over 125 and I can do all those tasks.  I don't think
that's enough to have a breakthrough. Many big names in science were just
lucky to have stumbled on something first. As a child, I wanted to invent
something big and get famous.  Since then, I've felt happy enough to make a
number of minor contributions.  I feel Einstein's theories were a natural
outgrowth to questions floating around at the time.  I think if he wouldn't
have stumbled on it, someone else would have.  No one really tried to stop
Einstein, when it was found that there was evidence of where his theory
predicted experimental evidence better than the prevailing theory - the
prevailing theory changed (or I should say was extended).  To me, that example
shows who status quo scientists are willing to change in the face of good
evidence (continental drift is another example of science coming around).
Another interesting point about Einstein:  his pretty much puttered away his
last 20 years trying to go down the wrong track.  To me that shows if you are
exploring a road less traveled, it probably will lead no where inspite of your
gifts or who much the world would need a break though.  I believe physics does
tell us that some things are plain impossible - if any such cases are actually
wrong, then the scientific method gives a way to prove it.  I consider my
intrusion into the world of FE to be primarily to flush out the frauds and
help show a way where by any successes could be brought to the publics
attention.
    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg   eric@... fax (215)-654-0651
                 http://www.voicenet.com/~eric

Patrick,

   I believe the real storage of energy would be the kinetic
energy of a rapidly spinning mass.  A spinning magnetic would only
lose power as it induces eddy currents in the containment shield. I didn't
quite understand all the geometry. But there is already something like what
you describe.  For years people have been working on the ideal energy storage
device :  one with the following attributes:
    high energy storage per pound
    low cost
    low loss during charge and discharge
    high number of charge / discharge cycles possible
    no dangerous materials
    high rate of instantaneous power xfer

There are many solutions with up to 4 or 5 of the above goals but none
with all 6.

It's a quest that has gone on for more than a hundred years and billions of
research dollars (few fringe inventors get into that holy grail effort).  The
biggest market for this stuff is for hybrid cars - then you could have
regenerative braking.  They have these things which have around a 100 kilo
weight that spins around 30,000 rpms.  Some people worry that such a storage
mechanism could be dangerous if it rips through the containment mechanism.
frictionless rotation is a challenge as is getting power in and out.  You get
power in and out by having it act as a motor of sorts.  I think it works with
out any brushes.

   Now as far as free energy.  In a word, No.  Such a device only trades energy
between inertial energy and electromagnetic energy.  There is no way to come
out ahead - only ways to come out behind.  For the last century, there have
been 100's of people reworking every combination of wires, magnets, bearings,
and rotors looking for a free lunch.  I think they would have found it if it
were possible.  For some reason on almost every reversible reaction involving
energy transfer there have been people hoping to come out ahead.

   I have started building a response to the over unity claims of Joe
Newman at:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic/newman.htm

keep thinking science.


Eric

============= original question ========

Eric,
  I browsed your web site and found it very informative. I have been
interested in free energy for quite some time and it is good to see
someone exposing the frauds for what they truly are. Thanks.

I have had an idea that might present a possible source of cheap
and free energy. It requires confirmation and initial conditions
which I can't fulfill. I do not expect anything more than for you
to consider the possibility of output based on the device.
Even if only as an intellectual puzzle.
As an engineer and scientific critic I am sure that you would be
able to prove/disprove this idea using existing technology that
you may have at your disposal. I do not nor do I expect to have
the actual device I will attempt to describe below. (: 6/49? :)
If nothing more, this should be interesting reading fodder.

Kinetic Storage Battery...
   > This device is basically a super conducting magnet enclosed
   > in a magnetic container spinning at a high rate of speed.
The magnet itself is rod shaped and has a series of single metal
protrusions sticking out all around the rod. Each of these
metal actuators must be placed at the correct angle and distance
to provide the proper current fluctuations depending on the speed
of the spinning magnet. The higher the spin, the wider the distances
between the protrusions.
The container must be capable of containing a vacuum seal.
This in itself is to prevent molecules from slowing down the
magnet as it is spinning. Of course, some slow down will occur anyway.
Inside the walls of the container there are a series of dual
protrusions that are connected externally to wires. The internal
dual actuators are to be on opposing sides to provide AC current.
I believe it was Faraday that told me that one.
The bottom row must be able to charge a magnetic field in a pattern
determined by the rate of spin generated on the magnet.
In essence, this row is to start the magnet spinning. Each set
of actuators on the bottom row of the container is pulsed briefly
which attracts the magnet by the single actuators and begins spinning
the magnet.
As the spin increases, the pulses must match to continually increase the
rate of spin.
Once the magnet is spinning at the desired rate then these pulses can be
stopped.
The energy input of your initial startup is the required part.
The magnet will spin but not on it's own.
The container must also contain magnetic poles that are shaped to
hold the magnet itself in suspended space. N to N, S to S.
This is the basic design of the battery. In theory anyway.
This brings us to the other actuators. The ones on the magnet will
pass through the ones on the container and should create a current.
The current output will depend on the rate of spin and the placement
of the actuators. The limit of actuators is the size of the magnet.
The potential free energy comes from the output of the actuators.
The magnet is merely there to provide the necessary mechanical means
of generating the current. If a super conductor is used, a slow
down should only be due to the friction of the magnetic fields.
I am not suggesting a purpetual machine here. What I am proposing
is a potential energy increase. Based on my understanding of magnetism
and electricity, this battery should work. As the spin slows down
the other actuators start to generate less current obviously.
With correct placement, a spinning magnet should continue within
a suspended field for a long time. The potential output makes
for interesting thought. The true output would be tied to the number
of actuators on both the magnet and it's container. If there are only
4 rows then there are only 3 outputs. (one for the input...)
I have toyed with the idea that some of the output gets sent back
to the input but I am still unsure of the entire process and
whether or not it will actually work.
This does imply a perpetual motion and I refrain from the thought.
In my mind I can actually see the kinetic storage battery in action.
I hope I have adequately described the battery to you and have planted
the necessary seeds for further discussions amongst people that
can prove/disprove this concept. I would be delighted to see
such a device for real. I do not have the means to prove this myself
but if my thinking is correct, this is a doable thing.
Anyway, I do not claim to be correct here. I am just someone who
had an idea and presented it to a critic. It just happens to be
someone that can actually knock holes into it. I can't. To me, this
device could run a lot of things. Then again, the magnetic fields might
just cancel each other out and leave you with a stupid idea. I
can't prove one way or another until I actually see it.
L8R...
Patrick.



--
    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg   eric@... fax (215)-654-0651
                 http://www.voicenet.com/~eric

Larry,

   glad you like my page - a few responses:

there are nano motors that work on static attraction.
200V per meter is a lot - you may be off a few orders of magnitude.
The problem is not as much the conductivity of air as the amount of
current available - if air were more conductive, then the charge would
dissipate quicker.  I think we are agreed that there is FE (free energy)
in static electricity in the air - just not enough to be economically
viable. Other forms of "non-cost-effective" free energy at:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/realfree.htm

  - hope you don't mind me posting this to my FE email list

    best wishes,

    Eric Krieg   eric@... fax (215)-654-0651
                 http://www.voicenet.com/~eric

Larry   wrote:
>
> Hi Eric
>
> I like your page.
>
> I can make a neon lamp flash.  Most days.  Not my invention.
>
>  People have made static electric motors from this technlogy before the
> invention of "Current motors"
> (very low power but they do move)
>
> There seems to be a difference of potential as you go up into the air.
> About 200 volts per meter.
>
> The problem is air in not very conductive.  -- that is why the difference
> can be there and also why it is hard to tap.
>
> A charge builds on an antenna and reaches the point wher is can get through
> the neon then discharges making a flash.
>
> To get more than fractions of a watt you would have to find a way To make
> air more conductive.
>
> I noticed during the Mount St Helens explosion in video of the ash coulds
> over Yakama Washington a lot of lightning.  I think the ash made the air
> more conductive.
>
> I just thought you would like to know.

This article first appeared in the June 1998 issue of Phactum, the
newsletter of the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking.

It is copyright (c) PhACT, 1998.  All rights reserved.



      To a would-be scientific revolutionary



Dear Mr X,

I am sorry you did not appreciate my reply to your long essay pointing
out the errors in the laws of thermodynamics as stated in textbooks.  As I
said, thermodynamics is a mature subject.  College students repeat the
classical experiments as part of their courses.  If there were significant
errors in college level textbooks they would have been found and corrected
years ago.

You accuse textbooks of excessive reverence for the statements of early
scientists.  However, you seem to be unaware that those very books point
out that Sadi Carnot, the founder of thermodynamics, was mistaken in
thinking that heat energy was indestructible.  Perhaps you missed this
because you too have made the same mistake.  Despite your declaration to
the contrary, heat energy can  be transformed into mechanical energy.   I
suggested, as gently as I could, that the immensely complicated device
which you had built to prove your point was not suitable for that purpose.

As have many other people, you have failed to appreciate that the
equation which relates thermodynamic efficiency to the input and output
temperatures of an engine makes no reference to the type of the engine.
The measured efficiency of any engine is its potential thermodynamic
efficiency multiplied by its actual mechanical efficiency.  Carnot
envisioned a heat engine having 100% mechanical efficiency.  Remarkably,
he also showed how, at least in principle, one could be built.  It runs on
the so-called Carnot cycle.

This does not in the least imply that the thermodynamic efficiency
equation applies only to engines with reciprocating parts or that some
other type of engine, such as a turbine, can be more efficient than a
Carnot engine.  The Carnot limit applies to all conceivable engines.  The
mechanical efficiency of an engine can be improved but cannot exceed 100%.
Thus the overall efficiency of no engine can, even in theory, exceed the
limits set by its input and output temperatures.

By writing a long, detailed response I was trying to help you.  I
didn't need to do that and you could have been more appreciative.  I
regret that you have put so much effort into a vain attempt to prove the
textbooks wrong.  The next time you find something in a textbook which you
do not understand, please consider that this is because you have failed to
grasp the principles involved, not that the writer of the textbook didn't
know what he was talking
about.
Tom Napier
--
    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg   eric@...

sign up for some of my email lists from:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/more.htm

Some of you may already get this from Patrick Bailey's site.
I consider Patrick the most rational of the pro FE promoting
people.  He at least understands the value in my wanting to
expose some of the many frauds the subject has been plauged
with. Some of his new postings listed were interesting.

eric

I got the following from INE:
-------------------
From:
          pgb@... (Patrick Bailey)


22:11

  Subject:
          The Institute for New Energy Web Site has been updated
      To:
          pgb@... (BCC to: INE_Regs List: > 1270 Emails)




The Institute for New Energy Web Site has been updated at:

http://www.padrak.com/ine/

Most New Data Files are at:   http://www.padrak.com/ine/index.shtml#INE_RECENT

All new revisions are in the file:    http://www.padrak.com/ine/REVISIONS.html

-------------     ------------------------------------------------------------
Date Included     Additions, Expansions, or Revisions
-------------     ------------------------------------------------------------

Jul. 30, 1998    Added:  NEN TOC Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1998
                      The Magnetic Rotating Apparatus (Mexico City)
                         (Press Release)
                      Ohmori-Mizuno Experiment Replicated
                      ANS and the CF Sessions
                      Cold Fusion Confusion Reigns In Washington
                      Abstracts From ICCF-7, Part Three
                      Infinite Energy Papers - Not Published Elsewhere
                      Binding Forces: and the Smith Coil
                      Free-Energy Coming Soon ? With A Response
                   Updated:
                      Links in the previous two ICCF-7 files.
                      Subjects and Authors
                      Websites
                   Site Counter = 258,256

Jul. 24, 1998    Added:
                      Awards Given To The INE Website
                         To increase the main page download time.
                      Fixed the first 4 URLs under "Most Recent" on Main Page.
                   Site Counter = 256,244

Jul. 21, 1998    Added:
                      ZENERGY:  Status and Information: as of July 20, 1998.
                      Subjects and Authors
                   Site Counter = 255,104

Jul. 16, 1998:    Added:
                      Exploiting Zero-Point Energy
                      Quantum Fluctuations Of Empty Space:
                         A New Rosetta Stone In Physics?
                      Microscopic Pictures of the Nickel Coated Microspheres
                         of Ni/Plastic Run #8 (from Edward Lewis)
                   Updated:
                      Subjects and Authors
                      Websites
                   Site Counter = 253,470

Jul. 13, 1998     Added:
                      "ORGONE" Energy Utilized For Weather Engineering
Purposes:
                         Dr. Wilhelm Reich
                   Updated:
                      Subjects and Authors
                      Websites
                   Site Counter = 252,450

Jun. 25, 1998     Replaced:  Edward Lewis's recent ELEWIS6 file -
                      The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena
                         and the Past Periodic Depression
                   Updated:
                      Websites
                   Site Counter = 246,624

Jun. 22, 1998     Added:
                      Edgar Cayce Readings Files on the No Fuel Motor
                   Updated:  ICCF-7 Files and Index File, to link each other.
                      Abstracts From ICCF-7, Part Two
                      Abstracts From ICCF-7, Part One
                      Subjects and Authors
                      Websites
                   Site Counter = 245,590

Jun. 19, 1998     Added:    NEN TOC Vol. 6, No. 2, June 1998
                      INE 1998 Symposium: Tentative Schedule
                      National Philosophy Alliance Conference
                      Professor Yull Brown Dies
                      Abstracts From ICCF-7, Part Two
                      Transmutation Preliminary Results Paper
                      Why DOE Is Stuck On Glass Plants
                      Advanced Energy Conversion Theories, Devices, And Results
                      Letter From Jerry Decker: Self-Running Lawnmower Engine
                      Letter From Don Kelly:  Gravity Drop Tests And Data
                      Letter From P. T. Pappas, On Ion Magnetic Inductor
                   Updated:
                      Subjects and Authors
                   Site Counter = 244,633

Dear inventor Phil (and lurkers),

   I'm copying the FE email list and a skeptical physicist and engineer
who commented on your idea.  There are actually a fair number of
people who come up with a FE design, fail at trying to promote it
and then years later say "what the hell" and give it out free.  There
do seem to be far more people with half working FE devices that
working ones.  Anyone interested in trying Phils idea can contact
him at:
<Well-Connected@...>
Of course if you get one of these things to go over unity - look
me up.

eric
----------------------
skeptic Chuck wrote a response on Phils proposal:
Guys,

He's describing a magnetic clutch. Since the second motor is not
connected to any mechanical load or electrical connection, all that's
being done is to overcome friction and windage losses in the second
motor. Uncoupling it would thus result in a very small change in
current to the first motor. Would mean something if a fan or pump was
being driven by the second motor, but that would violate the law of "{no
free lunch" !

Chuck
--------------------------------
and I hope you arn't offend; skeptic Chris wrote:

Here we have what seems to be free energy, two motors for the price of one!
If we expand this configuration all our energy needs are taken care of by
one small motor. If engine b runs exactly the same as engine a then engine
b can run engine c etc.
Since I am a credulous fellow I don't doubt that it works, I'd try it
myself but I can't put legos together without a diagram. We could have
several effects occurring, the change in power is so small that your meter
won't read it (magnetic bearings require very little energy to spin) there
is some major part if this design that I am missing, you have created free
energy and I am an idiot.
Most people who know me would volunteer that the last answer is most
probably correct, after all I am pretty dim. Fortunately years of of trying
to get something for nothing have given me a way to test this device. What
we are really interested in is work, therefore hook engine A up to
something that does work (this excludes me) say a pulley with 10 pounds of
lead attached. Check amperage. Now hook motor B up to an identical pulley,
since B acts the same as A B+A should lift twenty pounds of lead without an
increase of power.
         If the power consumed is unchanged, you're rich. If not then
replace the lead with crack cocaine, call it the "Tri pointed magno finder"
and swear that the second motor's spin changes when drugs are nearby. Sell
device to principals and police across the country, get rich anyway. For
supporting techno babble watch old star trek episodes.
Chris
----------------

Phil wrote concerning my request for more information:
>
> Eric,
>
> I didn't understand your reply.
>
> In Oct. of 1983 I showed plans of a Magnetic Engine to the Dir. of the
> Physics Dept. @ Va. Tech (his name ecapes me)  This man was amazed @ my
> blueprint and informed me that I had,unwittingly, designed a magnetic
> flywheel device that would work as an energy storage unit.  I disagreed
> (then & now).
>
> To prove to myself that the basic drive mechanism employed in the engine
> would work (utilizing the opposition of like poles and relying on the
> inherent energy of SmCo magnets) - I rigged the experiment which led to
> Delta Sphere.  It was an accident!
>
> Realizing that D.S. was a potent idea, I constructed the system
> described in my mailing to you.  I have also posted on usenet this week
> under Sci.Energy ("Out of Sumeria-")  The reception to those posts have
> been arrogant & comical.
>
> D.S. was tested in my home by 2 engineers from Electro Tech Corp.  They
> smuggled the equipment from the plant, a digital Milli-Amp guage.  They
> thought I was tricking them when they observed the 2 motors running with
> no effect on current usage.  I never heard from them again.
>
> Two weeks later, I demonstrated the system to the board of American
> Scientific Inc. in Christiansburg, Va.  The CEO, Mr. Pandapolous, was
> amazed, but because I wouldn't reveal the mechanism that made it
> work...they refused to go any farther than guaranteeing me a supply of
> the SmCo magnets.  I had taken 2 styrofoam cups, painted black, and
> covered the drive units.  I didn't want them to see how they were
> constructed...it's so simple...I was afraid of my idea being stolen.  I
> regret my greed!
>
> I stormed out of the plant.  Within a month the drives had broken so
> many times, they were useless.  Personal problems swept in...I abandoned
> my project.  I used SmCo mags from D.S. as fridge note-holders for 2
> years after that :-)
>
> Now, I'm happy in a new & better life...I just want to make sure that I
> tell of my experience...I don't care about $ ...I don't care about
> protecting the idea anymore.
>
> If it works...it works, if it was an anomally then at least I
> tried...but it never failed to work...& I am more sure than ever of the
> credibility of the basic principles behind the original engine that
> started the whole thing.
>
> Phil
>
>

Phil originally wrote:

> From:
>          Well-Connected@... (Capable Citizen)
>
> 22:59
>
>  Subject:
>          DELTA SPHERE - try it for yourself
>      To:
>          eric@...
>
> 1.  Create 2 mechanisms (drive units) consisting of 3 SmCo magnets each.
> Arrange the magnets with polar symmetry in a 3 point triangle along the
> axis of the drive piece.
>
> 2.  Connect each drive unit to the un-used portion of the rotor axel,
> outside the mount of 2 identical electric motors.
>
> 3.  Place the motors rear to rear until you observe the allignment of
> the 2 drive units (about an inch apart).
>
> 4.  Plug 1 motor into an AC outlet & attatch a milli-amp meter to it.
>
> 5.  Switch the motor ON.  Observe that BOTH motors run identically.
> Note the amperage.
>
> 6.  Remove the 2nd (un-plugged) motor and note that the amperage usage
> is unchanged.
>
> CONGRATULATIONS!  You've just run 2 motors for the price of 1.
>
> If you try this and find, as I have, that IT WORKS...send no
> money....just get the idea to somebody credible who can put it to it's
> proper use... of course, I'll take any credit due me as it's
> inventor..it's called DELTA SPHERE.  :-)
>
> --
----------------------
    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg   eric@...

sign up for some of my email lists from:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/more.htm

Hi folks,

If anyone has information on the next free-energy-conclave (I think they
are in Colorado), let me know, I gotta catch one once in my life.

   Mr Millennium, dabbles in the left field of the colorful world
of free energy.  I found his email rant intriguing because it's
one of scads of writings I've seen trying to turn Quantum theory
into something much more. I passed it on to physicist
Chris who gave me this humorous response:

>
>M.Twain wrote:
>>
>> Copy of Email To: Harold Aspden, UK
>> From: Millennium Twain, NZ
>> __________
>>
>> No.  Electromagnetic actions do NOT propagate at 'a' speed of light.
>> They propagate at ALL speeds of light -- which vary VERY much from the
>> gov't approved 300,000 km/sec.  Indeed going to relative zero, in the
>> case of standing waves confined within electrons and protons at rest,
>> to countless SUPERLUMINAL values.  [One, differing, superluminal value
>> for each 'EM'-wave circulating within each proton in the cosmos.  One,
>> differing, superluminal value for every particle in every 'trans-
>> light' plasma current.  One, differing, superluminal value for every
>> particle in every 'super-relativistic' supernova shock front.  Etc.,
>> etc.]

Here I just don't know, light clearly propagates at different speeds
through different media, but as far as superluminal and em waves
circulating I have no idea.

>> You had better read my email again.  I never questioned the reality of
>> Action-At-A-Distance.  It basically is just another name for the
>> aenertial aether continuum -- which structural foundations I HAVE
>> shown "account for those charges being of positive or negative
>> polarity".

Please, relate the experiment that has shown this, I would like to try it.>>

>> Of which I HAVE shown when "like charges repel and unlike charges
>> atttract".
>>
>> With which I HAVE shown what "polarity" has "to do with
>> electromagnetic waves".
>>
>> For which I HAVE shown why "they can be mutually at rest and yet,
>> surely, have their different attributes as positive or negative
>> charges".
>>
>> In which I HAVE shown how "they are communicating in some way so as to
>> preserve their separate identities."

Perhaps they use walkie talkies, while having your own identity is
important I think this is adressed by quantum mechanics.>>

>> This you would know too, if you were half as well read as I, and half
>> as introspective and curious and creative.  Committed to life.
>>
>> What you should have read and thought -- and SHOULD have noted in your
>> email to me -- was that I was QUITE clear in my email on the subject
>> of the QM fraud-at-a-distance.  Action-At-A-Distance is real.  It is
>> the aether.  It IS the aenertial.  But it in no way has ACTION ever
>> been shown, in theory or in experiment, to be instantaneous.

So how can we measure this aenertial aether? Still there is the cutting
edge of physics, a current explanation that empty space is made up of
particles. This concept I do not fully understand.>>

>> It is NOT "instantaneous".  Clear?

Well could it be pre instantaneous, I have some equations here (pg 399,
Griffiths, Introdction to E&M) dealing with dipole radiation. These
equations imply that the potential of the system is based on a future
configuration. Hence information must travel back in time. This is a
standard text, used by many universities. So it destroys causality, big
deal, but surely brainwashing wouldn't include such revolutionary (if not
practical) conclusions.

>>
>> Seems you, too, need to look at the difference between 'instantaneous'
>> and superluminal (and luminal and subluminal) Action-At-A-Distance.
>>
>> But you have never looked in detail at the nature and origin and
>> structure of "electric charge".  It has never been a priority for you
>> to reveal the unambiguous aenertial electromagnetic foundations of
>> 'mass' and 'energy'; of 'length' and 'breadth' and 'height'; of 'spin'
>> and 'polarity' and 'parity' and 'propagation'.

Of course recent experiments have indicated the presence of instantaneous
transfers of info. I can think of one experiment which indicated that a
particle  reacted to anothers particles deflection before the deflection
occured. Bizarre stuff indeed, I can't explain it. But add this tidbit in
to your argument. >>

>> Thus you grasp at straws, and ignore the wind.

When you snatch the pebble you may leave grasshopper.>>

>> These foundations I have seen and explored and revealed.  In great
>> detail.  I have shared them freely with any and all in the world who
>> have inquired of them.  This I will continue to do.  These details I
>> will continue to refine and expand.
>>
>> You have been dogged and persistent through the decades, but largely
>> dependent on the gangster institutions and their language of
>> counter-intelligence.  On the manipulators and frauds, and their
>> "newspeak".  You have shown great insight at times, but have not
>> pursued it to completion.  Your restraint is typical of the
>> comfortable British, who conform ever so completely to their perceived
>> 'cultural' values; their provincial and intellectual bigotries.

Those damn Sex Pistols, Tools of the Machine!>>

>> I can say these things about you, because they are also true of me.
>> Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am younger -- and born to world
>> revolution.  Born to "interesting times".  To a global renaissance.
>> And I suffer greatly, and succeed equally, because of it.

Or perhaps you were born in boring times and are trying to make them
interesting.>>

>> I know that essentially everything reported in the press, everything
>> taught to me (and you) in the schools, everything passing for approved
>> knowledge and behavior in our 'culture' -- are simply Cult lies.  This
>> is as true in China, as it is in the 'United Kingdom'.

Since when does the press bother with science?>>

>> Thus, though I read a thousand Cult physics references yesterday and
>> today and tomorrow, they do not produce any "average" or "consensus"
>> opinion in my mind.  They present a thousand different pictures of the
>> Cult manipulators and conformers -- indeed a large gangrenous knot or
>> ulcer which I laugh out-loud at.  But better to laugh at EACH
>> individual (drone clone) postule.
>>
>> For the benefit of our growing dissident community which has very good
>> reason, and need, to laugh.
>>
>> I laugh, and sterilize the cancer.
>>
>> In your case -- I would rather laugh with you, than at you.

LAsers sure are great, lasers are a quantum phenomena, lasers scanned my
groceries today. Well since I find you credible, next time I'm at the store
I'll ask them not to use media lies to calculate my tab.
The fringes of physics are strange, probably wrong, but we have a test to
find out the truth. We do it for  a really long time, perform experiments
and such, reach a conclusion and hammer it into kids heads. Only then will
the world bow before us, Join us Mill, question no more!>>

>> take care,
>>
>> Millennium
>
--
    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg   eric@...

sign up for some of my email lists from:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/more.htm

____,

   I also have the same creed to not subsidize these people.  If
we are willing to publish a review, they should send it free (many
of them offer me free stuff).
    I've seen a lot of FE people making enough "tinkering money"
selling theory.  It doesn't bother me that much since people aren't
being hurt too much by paying 80$ - they actually get hurt worse
by spending countless hours trying to make sense of it.

   As I've seen the whole lottery craze, I've started understanding
that one of the deepest psychological itches is a sense of hope
and purpose.  Just feeling like you have tiny chance to be on to
something really big can be a high point for a dull life.

Eric

============ the following is a mention of FE messiah, Joe Newman
selling his secrets for $80. We skeptics are frugal and have moral
hesitancy to give up money to possible scams.  Of course the other
side can easily say, "you haven't waded through my 1000's of pages
so you can't criticize me"  =============


____  wrote:
>
> >
>  <snip> I'm more convinced than ever that all they want to do is to promote
> their $80 books rather than truly put themselves in the crucible of scientific
> scrutiny.
>
> If I ever come across that book on a bookshelf in a store or library, I'll
pick
> it up and see what's inside - but I refuse to pluck down that much money. If
they
> were truly interested in science rather than making a buck, they would have
this
> stuff up on the web so ANYONE can check it out - like our good friend Arron
Lynch
> has done with Memetics.
>
> It's funny how they all follow the same pattern. In
> the end, it only becomes too obvious what they are up to. At least it's only
$80
> per fool, instead of thousands like Dennis Lee's contracts are.
>
> -____

--

Sundog,

    That sounds really cool. It's my impression that it "blows up" for the same
reason some trees do when hit by lightening:  Electrical resistance in the
water causes high energy build up, immediate vaporization, expanding gases and
explosion.  I believe you can set the electrical resistance in the water by
adjusting the salt concentration.  Matching resistance in the "load" with the
resistance in your power source will maximize usable power.  I've BCC'd 2
physicist mentors of mine who will let me know if I've missed anything.  Once
again, the energy going into such a  reaction will be less than any
harnessable energy out. (not that Free Energy wannabes would be discouraged).
The best way to get an explosion with water is to use electrolysis and
detonate the hydrogen and oxygen.  More information on this reaction by Tom
Napier at:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/bgas.htm
Please of course be careful when playing with explosives and don't tell idiots
how to do it.
    By the way, if I can get some fine wire that pays out cleanly from
a light container, I want to launch a tethered balloon in a thunderstorm to
see what kind of reaction I get from "calling down lightening from
the heavens"  (of course I would do one of my 10 second 100 yd dashes
after releasing the balloon).  There would be some awesome "practical
joke potential" if it works. Hope you don't mind me copying this to
the free energy email list.

    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg   eric@...

sign up for some of my email lists from:
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/more.htm


Sundog wrote:
>
>         Hi!.   I'm a 20 year old college student, and I have to agree
> with you on most of your views.  I don't really think that free energy
> will be harnessed in my lifetime ( if it can be ), but on numerous
> studies and experiments of my own, I've found several reactions that are
> interesting.
>
>     The most of which (for this month anyway *grin* )  is the old
> "exploding water" experiment.  Shooting 20-70 thousand volts through a
> small amount of water makes it blow up (with sometimes very serious
> results, shrapnel being the worst, despite safety precautions, it's very
> violent)   I was wondering your opinion on this reaction and your views
> on it's potential usage for a viable source of power.    I'm curious
> myself about this, and am writing to numerous people to ask opinions,
> find resources, and gather information.  Aside from satisfying my
> personal curiosity, this will also make a very good paper if I get the
> chance to use it.
>
>                                                              Sincerely
>                                                                Sundog
>                                                  AKA   Shad

--

Tom :
>
> HI Eric,
> I'm not trying to win a prize, but I had an idea that started out to be a back
> up generator that had no exhaust, was quiet, and ultimately charged itself.
> What would happen if you had two 12volt deep cycle batterys crossed to form a
> 24volt dc power supply. This supply would power a 5 horse power dc motor with
> 3450
> RPM's. Or a smaller horse power motor geared up to produce 3450 RPM's. This
> motor would now belt drive a 4000 watt belt driven AC generator.  The
> generator requires 3600 RPM's to generate AC current. As the formula goes to
> determine pully size to produce 3600RPM's from the standard 3450 RPM motor,
> which is 3600 devided by 3450 = 1.043( the the size the pully that you use on
> the generator, say 2 inches) So, 2 times 1.043 =2.086 inch pully (or 3inch)
> for the DC drive motor.
> The way you could make this a self charging unit is to have a seperate 24 volt
> battery storage, and add a car altenator to the belt drive system. With two
> battery stores you could use one for powering the generator, and the other
> could be charging. You can also adopt the theory of lining up these car
> altenators in a row, and producing as much direct current as you have
> altenators. As for the deep cycle batterys, once fully charged will power for
> hours depending on the load. Am I nuts or what.  All this from a layman who
> has not the cash to put this plan to work, and work out the bugs ( the
> variables ). Maybe you can help. Please respond !
>                                                                            Tha
> nk You, Tom

Dear Tom (and email list)

   12 volt batteries can put out around 200 amps which means 200 X 12 or
2400 watts - divided by 750 watts per hp is 3.2 hp.  - so you are
behind on the first transition.  A 4000 watt generator would need
at least 5.333 hp in even at perfect efficiency. The rpm's won't make a lot of
difference - just affects what hz power out.  The bottom line is you will
never get all the power you put into a motor out of it and you will never
collect all the energy that you put into a generator out of it either.  You
have invented a perpetual consumer of power.  Hundreds of people have
worked on motor/generator FE machines for nearly a century now.  They make
stuff a little more efficient but will never go over unity.  A similar mistake
is made by people who try to pump water up to a reservoir and get more energy
back or people who try to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and
get more harnessed energy by combusting them.   There are all kinds of
physical reactions producing energy in one direction and consuming it in
the other.  I don't believe you come out ahead in any.  But feel free
to try.  I hope this has helped,
--
    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic

take a look at:
http://www.inertialessdrive.co.nz


Here is a company in New Zealand (for a small country,
they have lot of alt physics people) promising some kind
of anti-gravity or inertia-less drive.  Of course they are
looking for investors.  I suspect that their assumptions of
success are based on poor mass measurements in the
presence of something spinning.  Sometimes I think you
can classify FE claims according to types of measurement
failures.
    The world of anti-gravity claimants is not as
big as that of free energy claimants, but there
are many parallels and lots of cross pollination
between the two.
   Maybe next year, I'll create test requirements for a open
prize for significant proof of this sort of thing.

--
    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/more.htm

Evan,


  I wish I had two such magnets to give it a try.  My guess is that if you took
a cross section of the two magnets, you'd find the field strength to be
more of an ellipse than a circle because of the thickness of the bars.
The strongest force would be when the bars are lying co-planer.  As you
apply counter balancing force and move them not coplaner, you'd all of
a sudden find a weaker field area where they could move together easier.  I
don't think there is anything magic about that.  The combination of forces
and torques would be a complex mathematical calculation - I'm sure you could
simulate if you had the Mathlab software package.
    People who design conventional motors feed all the characteristics into
a modeling program which just understands basically Maxwell's equations.  I
believe such programs work because the mathematical models they use for the
forces and
shapes perfectly model the real world.
    When I was in physics class, I found EXPERIMENTALLY that the mathematical
models for kinematic behavior worked perfectly with in my measuring
accuracy as well.  (-that's how we can predict spacecraft paths so
accurately).
    If scientists found that their models for behavior did not properly
predict, they'd try to achieve lasting fame by exposing it.
    Now if you and Mr. Newman could apply his TOE (theory of everything) to
prove
free energy openly to skeptics - then that would differentiate his theory from
the hundreds of other people desperately pushing their TOEs.  I'll BCC Walt,
but I
suspect he's had his fill of you for now.

    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic


Evan Soule wrote:
>
> Dear Eric --
>
> Here's a simple question for your friend Walt:
>
> [I would be sincerely and honestly interested in his reply which hopefully
> will not be too sarcastic and 'attacking.']
>
> Let's take two, pemanent bar magnets.  Measurements: 5" long, 2" wide, and
> .5 inches thick.
>
> Position the two bar magnets such that the first magnet lies on a flat
> table top with the North Pole face of that first magnet positioned c. one
> inch away from the North Pole face of the second bar magnet.
>
> Now, endeavor to bring the two north pole faces together.  It should be
> obvious that there will a repulsive force felt in hands/arms as you attempt
> this.
>
> Fine.
>
> Now take one of those magnets and offset the North Pole face of one
> relative to the North Pole face of the other and then bring the two magnets
> together --- bring their SIDES together.  If you do this correctly (and
> this simple task is admittedly difficult to describe in this ascii context)
> --- you should notice a very slight SIDEWAYS *ATTRACTION*.
>
> Question:  why?
>
> And reverse one aspect of the above:
>
> Position the two bar magnets such that the first magnet lies on a flat
> table top with the North Pole face of that first magnet positioned c. one
> inch away from the South Pole face of the second bar magnet.
>
> Now, endeavor to bring the two north/south poles faces together.  It should
> be obvious that there will an attractive force felt in hands/arms as you
> attempt this.
>
> Fine.
>
> Now take one of those magnets and offset the North Pole face of one
> relative to the South Pole face of the other and then bring the two magnets
> together --- bring their SIDES together.  If you do this correctly (and
> this simple task is admittedly difficult to describe in this ascii context)
> --- you should notice a very slight SIDEWAYS *REPULSION*.
>
> Question:  why?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Evan Soule'

--

As a general announcement, if you are interested in the large nation
wide dealer network set up by "free energy messiah" Dennis Lee, go to
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/bwt
to sign up to hear about 1 rant every other day.


The following is part of a pitched battle between skeptic Fred and
Joe Newmans sidekick, Evan Soule:
=======================

From:
          Fred Mitchell <fred@...>
                                                                       Sun
20:21

  Subject:
          Where is the patent?
      To:
          Evan Soule <josephnewman@...>
      CC:
          Eric Krieg <eric@...>, "dlee-list@..."
<dlee-list@...>




Evan Soule wrote:

> ...No Fred, my above statement is not "specious." But your statement indicates
> that you do not understand the subjective nature of knowledge.

Actually, you are indicating that you don't understand the nature of the
Scientific
Method.

>  All knowledge is subjective.

Measurements made by mechanical instruments are NOT Pure Mathematics also is
NOT
subjective.  1+1=2 is NOT a subjective statement.
What IS subjective is our interpretation of their meaning. The Scientific
Method
is
the most reliable means by which we eliminate the subjective component in our
otherwise hopelessly "subjective" reasoning. If we, at each point on the way
of
our
thinking make sure that the conclusions stand on firm Mathematical  and
Scientific
grounds, and make sure that our SUBJECTIVE interpretations match up with the
OBJECTIVE measurements our mechanical instruments can make, then we can say
that
we
have a high degree of CONFIDENCE that our thinking does not solely reside in
the
realm of subjective fantasy.

> ... is that there are TWO types of "subjective knowledge" --
> ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE and RELATIVE SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE.  I wish to
pay
> gratitude to Arthur Eddington who first pointed out this important
> epistemological distinction.

What has that to do with measuring with MECHANICAL instruments the rate at
which
an
apple falls? In fact, we can have computers deduce the law of gravitation.
Would
you
call computers "subjective"?

> When you repeat the falling apple test the results are STILL subjective to
> YOU.  If I repeat the falling apple test then the results are STILL
> subjective to ME.  etc, etc.....  But IF these tests are repeatable (for
> the exact same conditions, etc.) with NO EXCEPTION -- NO FAILURE TOLERATED
> -- then it can be said the knowledge involved is ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVE
> KNOWLEDGE rather than relative subjective knowledge.

This is so much double-speak. And I see what you are up to. So let me cut to
the
chase here. You are attempting to assert that ALL OBJECTIVITY is suspect (so
you'll
have some wiggle room for your favorite pet theory) simply because an organic
brain,
hopelessly flawed in its functioning, is involved in the process. You are
trying
desperately to wiggle out of the austere and unshakable body of scientific and
mathematical and metrical knowledge that we have spent centuries accumulating,
testing, thinking about, retesting, betting our lives on, and so on. You hope
by
sheer force of pseudo-intellectualism to cut through the unbreakable wall of
logic
that says your pet theory is most likely full of hot air.

And all we need really to settle the whole issue is to subject your pet theory
to
the same rigors of logic and science and mathematics that EVERY successful
theory
had to go through.

Sorry, there is no wiggle room around the Scientific Method, and if you are to
shake
loose the pillars of the sound Scientific Knowledge that has been gathered and
tested true over time, you MUST produce extraordinary results, just like every
other
successful "opinion" that has manage to challenge and change the mainstream of
scientific thought.

In this vein, not only is the Scientific Method your ally (if you are right),
it
is
the ONLY way you will be taken seriously by OTHERS.

You can spew forth all the stuff you like about the basis of epistemology.
Much
of
what you say in that vein is correct. It still does not exempt you per se from
the
Scientific Method!

So let's put aside the flowery words, bring your device and your "pet"
theories
into
the light, and let us test them together. If you are right, we all stand
corrected,
and there are many physics textbooks that will have to be rewritten. If you
are
wrong, then perhaps you can control your hubris, see why you are wrong, and
come
back again with something that will REALLY stand the world on ear! Otherwise
you
are
wasting your valuable and precious time, let alone tarnishing your reputation
even
before it becomes established!

> ..."Puzzle" is a useful metaphor in terms of expressing the point.

To a layman, not to a seasoned expert.

>  The "edges" of the ENTIRE standard puzzle bear a operationally similiar
> relationship to the "deeply intertwined and interacting" nature of right
> scientific theories.

But once you get beyond the surfacy level of layman understanding, the
metaphor
quickly falls apart.

> >Today, we have the ability to make extremely precise measurements, down to
> >several
> >decimal places. We can measure the difference in the passage of time of a
> >clock in
> >orbit vs. one that is on the ground. Shortly we will be able to measure
> >gravitational waves, also predicted by GR, for instruments that have
> >accuracy on the
> >order of 15 decimal places are on the horizon.
> >
> >The abilitiy to make such precise measurements adds much weight to
> >objectivity. If
> >GR is correct to 15 decimal places, that's a heavy statement for GR.
>
> Agreed .... with the comment that I would phrase it as, "The abilitiy to
> make such precise measurements adds much weight to abosoute subjectivity."

How does "absolute subjectivity" differ from OBJECTIVITY? Besides, "absolute
subjectivity" sounds too much like an oxymoron.

> >This is how Science works. We test our "opinions" - our hypotheses and see
what
> >happens. Just the same, we'd like to test your opinions. But if you are to
> >shoot down those who look to verify your claims, what does that say about
you?
>
> Fred, I'm not "shooting down" anyone.  In fact, this entire thread began
> with "pot-shots" being initiated in my direction.  I did not initiate this
> discourse, nor its adversarial theme.

Well, not "shooting down", but certainly trying to discredit the basis of all
scientific knowledge, no? Which has the effect of "shooting down" or
"silencing"
those who are skeptical of your claims. Of course, a single simple rigorous
test
would do more than a hundred times all your flowery philosophical words to
show
you're onto something.

> >Rather, I urge everyone to get out your apples and drop them! See if they
> >indeed do
> >fall at 9.8 meters per second per second everywhere on the surface of the
> >earth. Or
> >would you consider us all delusional who came up with that measurement?
>
> I would do BOTH.  Read the book AND drop the apple.  Or, if you want to
> 'Occum Razor' it: just drop the book!  :-)

Well, now that you brought up Occam's Razor, the obvious and simplest approach
is
to
test your pet theory.

> ...>Fine. Let us TEST these "extensions" and see if they can stand up under
> >the scrutiny
> >of the Scientific Method, just like every other successful "opinion", such
> >as air
> >flight, telephony, space flight, television and radio, nuclear energy, etc.
>
> Look Fred:  Over 30 scientists have tested Joseph Newman's prototypes and
> have signed legal Affidavits attesting to the operability of his
> technology.

Provide a list please. And are these scientists recognized by the rest of the
scientific community? Or are the all considered crackpots? The list would be
enough
-- we can go and do our own investigation on the reputations of these 30
scientists.

And on top of that, just what is wrong with more scientists and others getting
in
on
this? If you have the patent -- indeed, even if you've already applied for the
patent, you're protected. If anyone violates your patent (and makes a lot of
money
off of it) I'm sure you can find tons of lawyers lining up around the corner
to
take
your case pro-bono.

> Moreover, the former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office --
> William Schuyler (with "superb technical credentials" according to PTO
> representatives who nominated Schuyler to his position of Special Master to
> evalute the Newman Motor/Generator) explicitly wrote:
>
> "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is
> OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention
> in which the energy output exceeds the external input energy; there is NO
> contradictory factual evidence." [emphasis added]
>
> For Joseph Newman, personally, he is over the "testing phase" in this
> context.  He is now focused on commercial production.  If YOU want to
> convince him that YOU want to test his technology, then YOU can contact him
> directly at (303) 814-3403.  Or, one can also build the technology for
> themselves and test it to their heart's content.

What's the patent number of the invention? That's all I need. I'll know from
that
alone whether or not it's worth my precious time to pursue.

> >> Moreover, Joseph Newman IS
> >> open with his designs and methodology --- he has published his work for
> >> anyone to read (as books are available via the library system).  SIDEBAR
> >> COMMENT:  actually it was Semmelweis's and the Wright Brother's (and I
> >> suspect Goddard as well) very OPENNESS which got them into trouble with
> >> those who were intellectually dishonest and/or intellectual thiefs.
> >
> >This is why God gave us the PATENT OFFICE! Does he have a patent? If so,
> >give me the
> >patent number so I can pull it up for myself from the patent database.
>
> Fred <grinning!> --- you REALLY don't want to go here..... <big grinning!!>
>
> This statement demonstrates that you are totally unaware of the long
> history of this case.  I'm not blaming you, BTW, since a "absence of
> knowledge" (or ignorance) is not an "accusation."  We all participate in
> the process of ignorance --- a perfectly normal and acceptable process.
> [and I am not being sarcastic here (I say this because of the
> 'uni-dimensional' nature of ascii text)]  I could occupy this post and
> space of perhaps hundreds of similar posts with a LONG, LONG discussion of
> the patent office and its demonstrated foibles as well as the documented
> and proven incompetent(s) patent examiner(s) who have worked for the patent
> office.

I know that getting a patent can be a bear, one of my friends with a number of
patented inventions have told me all about it. It took six years on one of his
inventions. It just takes perseverance, always. Has the patent been granted? I
still
want the number.

> No, Fred, to prevent Eric or anyone from tearing at their hair over the
> sheer possible volume of my reponse to your above statement (which I know
> is an honest and well-meaning one), I will say that there are those who are
> working on a long-term, durable, and stable alternative to the
> dissemination of primary property --- one that will not contribute to
> volitional entropy.

Of course, I could just simply search for  Joseph Newman's name. Actually, I
just
did and here's what I came up with:

      Search Results

      Query: (Joseph Newman)

      1 out of 2313129 patents matched your query. The 1 most relevant ones are
displayed below.
      Click on a patent number to view the details of a patent. Select the
check
boxes of patents you
      wish to order by fax or mail and then click on the Order button at the
bottom.

       4930436
               Selectively positionable weather vane and display for vertical
post

This is not the same Joseph Newman of which you speak, I don't think, and this
is
the only one that came up with his name. Go search for yourself:

http://www.patents.ibm.com/ibm.html

You can pull up entire patents for free. Their database goes all the way back
to
1971. So what gives? Was he issued a patent or not?

Well, I think the discussion will have to hold until we get this small point
resolved.

Anyway,...

> >So let us know when you are ready to release the details to Eric and/or I,
> >so we can
> >try to duplicate your results. As I stated before, I'm willing to sign an
> >NDA, and
> >I'm sure Eric would be as well.
> >
> >-Fred
>
> Here's another 'pandora's box' comment  [:-)]:
>
> A Non-Disclosure-Agreement is only as good as the Integrity of the
> individual signing it.

You can be assured of the integrity of Eric and I. We have signed NDAs before
in
the
past.

> In Joseph Newman's newest 8th Edition, he includes the explicit evidence
> relating to Non-Disclosure Agreements signed by Dr. Roger Hastings who has
> since violated his NDAs and disclosed proprietary information to a company
> with which Dr. Hastings has been a private consultant.
>
> [If you wish these extensive and fully documented details, read the book.]

I don't have the luxury of time of reading an entire book right now. And of
course,
there will probably not be enough details in his book to really give us
anything
substantive to work with. The patent would be the best place to start. But
since
he
failed the patent search, either he was not granted the patent or the patent
is
not
listed under his name. If you have the patent number, give it to us.

--
======================================================================
Fred Mitchell      http://www.mitchellware.com/mitchell/home/
170000+ hits            <<<< Andromeda Web Site >>>>        150+ pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trying to tell what's going on in the world by reading the daily
newspapers is like trying to tell what time it is by looking at the
second hand of a clock." -- an old saying
======================================================================




--
    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic

Peter,

   one of the most common themes in FE inventors is to intellectually
jump way ahead of the the issue of proof and start fantasizing about
distributing the idea and getting famous and all that.  I'm glad you
are not planning on quitting your day job.
    You bring up an important point:  Even if a free energy machine is
made - the machine would cost money, so the power would not be free.  The
ultimate bottom line of any energy producing device is:  "what is the
amortized-itemized cost per kilowatt hour produced"  (of course, safety is an
important issue too).
    If there is such a thing as luck (skeptically speaking), I wish it to you
in your endeavors.  Oh and one more thing.  If it doesn't work, please send
me a full description so I can post it to possible save others from repeating
your efforts.

Eric

Peter Brow wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks for your speedy reply.
>
> I would not even consider submitting it for testing until I had it
> running myself with continuous net energy output for a good long time.
> The stored energy will be pretty small, so it wouldn't take too many
> hours of operation to verify to anybody's satisfaction that it is not
> running on stored energy.  Actually, it would start running down
> relatively quickly (maybe 10-15 minutes) if it were not working as
> planned, and that should save some time in preliminary testing and
> development.
>
> For now, this is strictly a back-burner project.  I have some much more
> conventional inventions currently in the works.  My plan for this is to
> go directly to the consumer with pilot production of small home-built
> demonstrators if/when I get a workable design & running units.
> Investors, if any, would be way down the road.  I have no intention of
> starting an investor/follower operation which could end up being, or
> perceived as being, like the many silly, fraudulent, and/or questionable
> perpetual-motion schemes which you & other skeptics properly debunk.  (I
> am skeptical of free-energy & most other extraordinary claims, too!)
>
> I have no problem with you forwarding my emails to a list, unless you
> think this would expose me to a bunch of hate mail from the
> less-reasonable type of skeptics.  Perhaps it would be wise to omit my
> street address and/or email address from any copies you post?  You could
> run my name and city, if you wish.
>
> PS, technically speaking, this would not be a "free energy" system.  The
> machine will impose some costs in the form of construction, purchase,
> eventual maintenance (after many years), and  amortization.  However, it
> would be quite simple, with less than a dozen simple & easily-made (or
> cheaply purchased) moving parts, including an electrical generator.
> There is an energy source, but not one which requires hookups to energy
> suppliers or the conversion of commonly-understood potential energy
> (fuels, heat differentials, etc.).  It is not, properly speaking, a
> perpetual-motion machine, but it is a very unconventional energy source.
> I don't consider any of these comments to be proprietary information.
>
> I love your website, by the way.  I had a blast last night surfing
> through the various nut links!  Keep up the good work!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter Brow
> , California
>

The following message occurred on the Dennis Lee email list.  Such stuff is
off topic for there and Evan has since been booted off.  I remind people about
the following discussion that just having a patent does not mean something
works or is viable
--
    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic


========================
Evan Soule wrote:

> ...No Fred, my above statement is not "specious." But your statement indicates
> that you do not understand the subjective nature of knowledge.

Actually, you are indicating that you don't understand the nature of the
Scientific
Method.

>  All knowledge is subjective.

Measurements made by mechanical instruments are NOT Pure Mathematics also is
NOT
subjective.  1+1=2 is NOT a subjective statement.
What IS subjective is our interpretation of their meaning. The Scientific
Method
is
the most reliable means by which we eliminate the subjective component in our
otherwise hopelessly "subjective" reasoning. If we, at each point on the way
of
our
thinking make sure that the conclusions stand on firm Mathematical  and
Scientific
grounds, and make sure that our SUBJECTIVE interpretations match up with the
OBJECTIVE measurements our mechanical instruments can make, then we can say
that
we
have a high degree of CONFIDENCE that our thinking does not solely reside in
the
realm of subjective fantasy.

> ... is that there are TWO types of "subjective knowledge" --
> ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE and RELATIVE SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE.  I wish to
pay
> gratitude to Arthur Eddington who first pointed out this important
> epistemological distinction.

What has that to do with measuring with MECHANICAL instruments the rate at
which
an
apple falls? In fact, we can have computers deduce the law of gravitation.
Would
you
call computers "subjective"?

> When you repeat the falling apple test the results are STILL subjective to
> YOU.  If I repeat the falling apple test then the results are STILL
> subjective to ME.  etc, etc.....  But IF these tests are repeatable (for
> the exact same conditions, etc.) with NO EXCEPTION -- NO FAILURE TOLERATED
> -- then it can be said the knowledge involved is ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVE
> KNOWLEDGE rather than relative subjective knowledge.

This is so much double-speak. And I see what you are up to. So let me cut to
the
chase here. You are attempting to assert that ALL OBJECTIVITY is suspect (so
you'll
have some wiggle room for your favorite pet theory) simply because an organic
brain,
hopelessly flawed in its functioning, is involved in the process. You are
trying
desperately to wiggle out of the austere and unshakable body of scientific and
mathematical and metrical knowledge that we have spent centuries accumulating,
testing, thinking about, retesting, betting our lives on, and so on. You hope
by
sheer force of pseudo-intellectualism to cut through the unbreakable wall of
logic
that says your pet theory is most likely full of hot air.

And all we need really to settle the whole issue is to subject your pet theory
to
the same rigors of logic and science and mathematics that EVERY successful
theory
had to go through.

Sorry, there is no wiggle room around the Scientific Method, and if you are to
shake
loose the pillars of the sound Scientific Knowledge that has been gathered and
tested true over time, you MUST produce extraordinary results, just like every
other
successful "opinion" that has manage to challenge and change the mainstream of
scientific thought.

In this vein, not only is the Scientific Method your ally (if you are right),
it
is
the ONLY way you will be taken seriously by OTHERS.

You can spew forth all the stuff you like about the basis of epistemology.
Much
of
what you say in that vein is correct. It still does not exempt you per se from
the
Scientific Method!

So let's put aside the flowery words, bring your device and your "pet"
theories
into
the light, and let us test them together. If you are right, we all stand
corrected,
and there are many physics textbooks that will have to be rewritten. If you
are
wrong, then perhaps you can control your hubris, see why you are wrong, and
come
back again with something that will REALLY stand the world on ear! Otherwise
you
are
wasting your valuable and precious time, let alone tarnishing your reputation
even
before it becomes established!

> ..."Puzzle" is a useful metaphor in terms of expressing the point.

To a layman, not to a seasoned expert.

>  The "edges" of the ENTIRE standard puzzle bear a operationally similiar
> relationship to the "deeply intertwined and interacting" nature of right
> scientific theories.

But once you get beyond the surfacy level of layman understanding, the
metaphor
quickly falls apart.

> >Today, we have the ability to make extremely precise measurements, down to
> >several
> >decimal places. We can measure the difference in the passage of time of a
> >clock in
> >orbit vs. one that is on the ground. Shortly we will be able to measure
> >gravitational waves, also predicted by GR, for instruments that have
> >accuracy on the
> >order of 15 decimal places are on the horizon.
> >
> >The abilitiy to make such precise measurements adds much weight to
> >objectivity. If
> >GR is correct to 15 decimal places, that's a heavy statement for GR.
>
> Agreed .... with the comment that I would phrase it as, "The abilitiy to
> make such precise measurements adds much weight to abosoute subjectivity."

How does "absolute subjectivity" differ from OBJECTIVITY? Besides, "absolute
subjectivity" sounds too much like an oxymoron.

> >This is how Science works. We test our "opinions" - our hypotheses and see
what
> >happens. Just the same, we'd like to test your opinions. But if you are to
> >shoot down those who look to verify your claims, what does that say about
you?
>
> Fred, I'm not "shooting down" anyone.  In fact, this entire thread began
> with "pot-shots" being initiated in my direction.  I did not initiate this
> discourse, nor its adversarial theme.

Well, not "shooting down", but certainly trying to discredit the basis of all
scientific knowledge, no? Which has the effect of "shooting down" or
"silencing"
those who are skeptical of your claims. Of course, a single simple rigorous
test
would do more than a hundred times all your flowery philosophical words to
show
you're onto something.

> >Rather, I urge everyone to get out your apples and drop them! See if they
> >indeed do
> >fall at 9.8 meters per second per second everywhere on the surface of the
> >earth. Or
> >would you consider us all delusional who came up with that measurement?
>
> I would do BOTH.  Read the book AND drop the apple.  Or, if you want to
> 'Occum Razor' it: just drop the book!  :-)

Well, now that you brought up Occam's Razor, the obvious and simplest approach
is
to
test your pet theory.

> ...>Fine. Let us TEST these "extensions" and see if they can stand up under
> >the scrutiny
> >of the Scientific Method, just like every other successful "opinion", such
> >as air
> >flight, telephony, space flight, television and radio, nuclear energy, etc.
>
> Look Fred:  Over 30 scientists have tested Joseph Newman's prototypes and
> have signed legal Affidavits attesting to the operability of his
> technology.

Provide a list please. And are these scientists recognized by the rest of the
scientific community? Or are the all considered crackpots? The list would be
enough
-- we can go and do our own investigation on the reputations of these 30
scientists.

And on top of that, just what is wrong with more scientists and others getting
in
on
this? If you have the patent -- indeed, even if you've already applied for the
patent, you're protected. If anyone violates your patent (and makes a lot of
money
off of it) I'm sure you can find tons of lawyers lining up around the corner
to
take
your case pro-bono.

> Moreover, the former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office --
> William Schuyler (with "superb technical credentials" according to PTO
> representatives who nominated Schuyler to his position of Special Master to
> evalute the Newman Motor/Generator) explicitly wrote:
>
> "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is
> OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention
> in which the energy output exceeds the external input energy; there is NO
> contradictory factual evidence." [emphasis added]
>
> For Joseph Newman, personally, he is over the "testing phase" in this
> context.  He is now focused on commercial production.  If YOU want to
> convince him that YOU want to test his technology, then YOU can contact him
> directly at (303) 814-3403.  Or, one can also build the technology for
> themselves and test it to their heart's content.

What's the patent number of the invention? That's all I need. I'll know from
that
alone whether or not it's worth my precious time to pursue.

> >> Moreover, Joseph Newman IS
> >> open with his designs and methodology --- he has published his work for
> >> anyone to read (as books are available via the library system).  SIDEBAR
> >> COMMENT:  actually it was Semmelweis's and the Wright Brother's (and I
> >> suspect Goddard as well) very OPENNESS which got them into trouble with
> >> those who were intellectually dishonest and/or intellectual thiefs.
> >
> >This is why God gave us the PATENT OFFICE! Does he have a patent? If so,
> >give me the
> >patent number so I can pull it up for myself from the patent database.
>
> Fred <grinning!> --- you REALLY don't want to go here..... <big grinning!!>
>
> This statement demonstrates that you are totally unaware of the long
> history of this case.  I'm not blaming you, BTW, since a "absence of
> knowledge" (or ignorance) is not an "accusation."  We all participate in
> the process of ignorance --- a perfectly normal and acceptable process.
> [and I am not being sarcastic here (I say this because of the
> 'uni-dimensional' nature of ascii text)]  I could occupy this post and
> space of perhaps hundreds of similar posts with a LONG, LONG discussion of
> the patent office and its demonstrated foibles as well as the documented
> and proven incompetent(s) patent examiner(s) who have worked for the patent
> office.

I know that getting a patent can be a bear, one of my friends with a number of
patented inventions have told me all about it. It took six years on one of his
inventions. It just takes perseverance, always. Has the patent been granted? I
still
want the number.

> No, Fred, to prevent Eric or anyone from tearing at their hair over the
> sheer possible volume of my reponse to your above statement (which I know
> is an honest and well-meaning one), I will say that there are those who are
> working on a long-term, durable, and stable alternative to the
> dissemination of primary property --- one that will not contribute to
> volitional entropy.

Of course, I could just simply search for  Joseph Newman's name. Actually, I
just
did and here's what I came up with:

      Search Results

      Query: (Joseph Newman)

      1 out of 2313129 patents matched your query. The 1 most relevant ones are
displayed below.
      Click on a patent number to view the details of a patent. Select the
check
boxes of patents you
      wish to order by fax or mail and then click on the Order button at the
bottom.

       4930436
               Selectively positionable weather vane and display for vertical
post

This is not the same Joseph Newman of which you speak, I don't think, and this
is
the only one that came up with his name. Go search for yourself:

http://www.patents.ibm.com/ibm.html

You can pull up entire patents for free. Their database goes all the way back
to
1971. So what gives? Was he issued a patent or not?

Well, I think the discussion will have to hold until we get this small point
resolved.

Anyway,...

> >So let us know when you are ready to release the details to Eric and/or I,
> >so we can
> >try to duplicate your results. As I stated before, I'm willing to sign an
> >NDA, and
> >I'm sure Eric would be as well.
> >
> >-Fred
>
> Here's another 'pandora's box' comment  [:-)]:
>
> A Non-Disclosure-Agreement is only as good as the Integrity of the
> individual signing it.

You can be assured of the integrity of Eric and I. We have signed NDAs before
in
the
past.

> In Joseph Newman's newest 8th Edition, he includes the explicit evidence
> relating to Non-Disclosure Agreements signed by Dr. Roger Hastings who has
> since violated his NDAs and disclosed proprietary information to a company
> with which Dr. Hastings has been a private consultant.
>
> [If you wish these extensive and fully documented details, read the book.]

I don't have the luxury of time of reading an entire book right now. And of
course,
there will probably not be enough details in his book to really give us
anything
substantive to work with. The patent would be the best place to start. But
since
he
failed the patent search, either he was not granted the patent or the patent
is
not
listed under his name. If you have the patent number, give it to us.

--
======================================================================
Fred Mitchell      http://www.mitchellware.com/mitchell/home/
170000+ hits            <<<< Andromeda Web Site >>>>        150+ pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trying to tell what's going on in the world by reading the daily
newspapers is like trying to tell what time it is by looking at the
second hand of a clock." -- an old saying
======================================================================

Dear ____,

  you have me wondering what it would be.  Light bulbs could be placed in
parallel to insure no blowing out.

   for 25 w, I could offer to verify the power over a period of time - but I
can't offer the prize.  However, I think it would be major victory if you
could tell potential investors:  "I took it to the most prominent skeptic
involved in investigating (usually debunking) FE claims and he verified it
does put out X amount of energy over 24 hours and that it
does not appear to rely on stored power".
    So let me know when you have 25Watts continuous for hours so there is no
doubt about stored power and we'll negotiate from there.  I hope you
don't mind me copying this to the FreeEnergy email list.

  best wishes,
    Eric Krieg

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic




______ wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Does a tested machine have to produce 1500 watts?  I have an idea I
> think could work, but the machine would have to be pretty darn big to
> put out 1500 watts.  It doesn't violate any scientific laws, in fact it

<<<snip - potentially proprietary stuff removed by Eric>>>>

> Whether or not it could be economically competitive with conventional
> energy sources is a question I can't answer at present, but I think it
> would produce useful amounts of electrical energy for many years without
> maintenance, fuel, solar or other heat, or other commonly-understood
> energy inputs.
>

<<<snip - potentially proprietary stuff removed by Eric>>>

> Would you consider a machine producing only 25-50 watts?  I cannot
> afford to build one much bigger than that, and may be limited to
> something even smaller.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ________

--

Hi people on the free energy list, there is a hot argument between
Evan Soule (a longstanding defender of FE claimant, Joe Newman) and
a bevy of skeptics.  I'm trying to get the whole discourse shifted into
this list.  The latest salvo by Fred:



Evan Soule wrote:

> ...Fred/Evan interchange:
> >Evan Soule wrote:
> >> Dear Eric,
> >> Certainly anyone is entitled to their "opinion" --- you, me, or "many
> >> people within the more established FE community".
> >
> >But opinions do not shape or change the nature of the universe or the laws of
> >physics.
>

> ...EVERY formulated Natural Law is the OPINION of its formulator.  The Law of
> Gravitation was --- before anyone else (to my knowledge) --- FIRST AND
> FOREMOST the _OPINION_ of Isaac Newton.  It gradually became the _opinion_
> of others as well.  And the knowledge acquired by the mechanism of the
> Scientific Method remains SUBJECTIVE!

This is a specious statement. For example, if I drop an apple and MEASURE its
rate
of decent, and if YOU drop and apple and measure it's rate of descent, and if
a
million other people dropped an apple and measured the rate of descent, the
will all
come up with the same measurements, within experimental error. So by virtue of
REPEATABILITY, it is removed out of the realm of the "subjective" measurement
of ONE
person into consistency demonstrable by millions. It, in fact, is rendered
OBJECTIVE
in every sense of the word.

> You state above: "But opinions do not shape or change the nature of the
> universe or the laws of physics."
>
> Part of your statement is correct and part of your statement is incorrect.
>
> 1) Opinions do NOT "shape" or "change" the nature of the universe.  The
> nature of the universe is like a giant puzzle, the total picture of which
> is at this time unknown to us and was supplied to us by the universe's
> "maker" (or however one wishes to conceive of the universe's 'source.'
> [Personally, I'm a Deist --- but that's way beside the point. :-)]

"Puzzle" is the wrong metaphor to use when describing the universe. A "puzzle"
peice
only relates to its neighboring peice by the edges. However, the laws of the
universe are much more deeply intertwined and interacting. This is why we have
things like the electroweak theory, and quantum chromodymanics, and if the
refined
version of the superstring theory holds up, we'll have a completey described
intertwinement of every known force and substance and space-time. If it were
like a
puzzle, we'd have no hope in hell of predicting that which we have not
discovered
yet. Yet we've already done this many times. One of the most famous examples
of this
is General Relativity, which only recently have we been able to verify with
any
reasonable means of accuracy. And yet still more sensitive tests of GR is in
the
works. And if GR pass even those more rigorous tests, then Einstien will shine
even
brighter, as his "opinion" of General Relativity is brought even closer to a
standard of OBJECTIVITY.

> ...2) Opinions CAN INDEED "shape" or "change" the Laws of Physics since such
> "Laws" were originally the OPINION of a given innovator who subjectively
> formulated them.  Newton had his OPINION about one aspect of the "nature of
> the universe" which he subjectively termed "The Law of Gravitation."
> Einstein might later have his OPINIONS regarding Newton's work and he may
> express a given OPINION as another "Law of Physics" which may
> improve/alter/or more closely approximate the "nature of the universe" than
> Newton's original "opinion."  Thus, the opinions of such innovators cause
> the "Laws of Physics" to evolve over time and perhaps asymptotically
> approach a keener understanding of the _given_ "nature of the universe."

Given the precision of measurement in Newton's time, Newtonian laws are
perfectly
adequate and are still taught today, because for "everyday" life they do quite
well.
It's only when you get into velocities or scales big enough that the Newtonian
universe begins to veer from those simple laws. Einstien, in a very real
sense,
merely applied a "correction factor" to refine the laws for things Newton
could not
OBSERVE in his lifetime.

Today, we have the ability to make extremely precise measurements, down to
several
decimal places. We can measure the difference in the passage of time of a
clock in
orbit vs. one that is on the ground. Shortly we will be able to measure
gravitational waves, also predicted by GR, for instruments that have accuracy
on the
order of 15 decimal places are on the horizon.

The abilitiy to make such precise measurements adds much weight to
objectivity. If
GR is correct to 15 decimal places, that's a heavy statement for GR.

And as accuracy continues to improve, we'll continue to devise yet more clever
means
to try to poke holes through GR. And if GR withstands even the more rigorous
tests,
all the better.

This is how Science works. We test our "opinions" - our hypotheses and see
what
happens. Just the same, we'd like to test your opinions. But if you are to
shoot
down those who look to verify your claims, what does that say about you?

> With reference to the above, I strongly urge the reader to study
> Eddington's excellent epistemological comments in his book, THE PHILOSOPHY
> OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE, especially his Chapter entitled "Selective
> Subjectivism".

Rather, I urge everyone to get out your apples and drop them! See if they
indeed do
fall at 9.8 meters per second per second everywhere on the surface of the
earth. Or
would you consider us all delusional who came up with that measurement?

> >>  Many people thought
> >> Semmelweis was a crackpot, called the Wright Brothers the "Lying Brothers,"
> >> and termed "Goddard" a nut case.
> >
> >But what they were doing was well within the realm of science. They were
> >open with
> >their designs and methodology, as far as I know. They were not violating
> >laws of
> >physics or thermodymanics.
>
> And neither is Joseph Newman "violating laws of physics or thermodymanics"
> --- he is simply extending our understanding of these "opinionated laws of
> physics or thermodymanics" into new domains of our subjective understanding
> of the fundamental "nature of the universe."

Fine. Let us TEST these "extensions" and see if they can stand up under the
scrutiny
of the Scientific Method, just like every other successful "opinion", such as
air
flight, telephony, space flight, television and radio, nuclear energy, etc.

> Moreover, Joseph Newman IS
> open with his designs and methodology --- he has published his work for
> anyone to read (as books are available via the library system).  SIDEBAR
> COMMENT:  actually it was Semmelweis's and the Wright Brother's (and I
> suspect Goddard as well) very OPENNESS which got them into trouble with
> those who were intellectually dishonest and/or intellectual thiefs.

This is why God gave us the PATENT OFFICE! Does he have a patent? If so, give
me the
patent number so I can pull it up for myself from the patent database.

> ...Poor Wilbur was so despondent over the stupidity of the bureaucrats at the
> patent office and so upset by the actions of that first-rate intellectual
> thief -- Glenn Curtiss --- that I believe these contributed to his early
> death by weakening his will to survive a debilitating disease. [This is a
> hypothesis on my part.]  Orville, however, was not as "lucky" --- he had to
> battle with the bureaucrats at the Smithsonian Institution for several
> decades for the recognition of he and his brother's pioneering innovation.
> I only wonder how much further would we all be, technologically speaking,
> if the Wright Brothers has not been treated so shabbily.

These are different times. I have a friend who has the knowledge of a patent
attorney, and owns several patents himself. It is quite a straightfoward
process,
and if the darn invention works, you'll have no problem.

>  And Semmelweis.... that poor man made the mistake of actually having an
> "OPINION" that was contrary to the established scientific paradigms of his
> day.  He was eventually locked up as a raving mad-man and ended up
> committing suicide.  Fortunately it was Dr. Lister who took Semmelweis's
> pioneering innovation and slowly --- agonizing slowly --- convinced the
> medical community to accept Semmelweis's "opinion".  [IRONIC SIDEBAR
> COMMENT:  Semmelweis intentionally killed himself by infecting himself with
> the VERY disease which he sought to cure in women.  Personally I believe
> that he was fully sane at the very end of his life and he sanely used his
> life in the only way he believed he could:  he used his VERY life to prove
> that what he had said (his "opinion") for so many years was TRUE.]

This all happened a loong time ago, at a time there were many social ills in
the
country, the least of which being ineptitude of this nature. Do you have any
UP-TO-DATE examples of someone being persecuted for a "difference of opinion"
and
not something that took place 30 or more years ago?

> >>  And
> >> it make take a generation or two or more to prove that such is the case.
> >> So be it.
> >
> >So you spend a generation or two wishing for the rock to fly to the moon?
> >Would it
> >not be more prudent to check with the laws that govern the universe FIRST?
> >Or are
> >you using time to hide behind? So you "can't be disproven in your lifetime?"
>
> No one could "disprove" Semmelweis in his lifetime.  He was just ignored,
> ridiculed, attacked, and seeminly driven to insanity by the 'conventional
> scientists' of his day.  But as it later turned out --- long after his
> death --- his "opinion" was RIGHT and theirs was totally WRONG.

Because nobody WANTED to DO THE SCIENCE to prove him right or wrong. Eric and
I
would love to DO THE SCIENCE. But instead of proceding forward, all we ever
seem to
get is a litany of paranoid excuses about conspiracies, our integrity, etc.

> >> As you may know, it is "current" not "voltage" which costs money when
> >> "consumed" via the grid.
> >
> >Wrong. It's kilowatt-hours, which is voltage * current integrated over time.
In
> >short, it's Energy that costs money on the grid.
>
> Fred:
>
> A "kilowatt-hour" is defined as "the equivalent energy supplied by a power
> of 1,000 watts for one hour."  A watt can be defined as the power expended
> when 1 ampere of direct current flows through a resistance of 1 ohm.

And there will be a voltage drop across that resistor of 1 volt.

> If you have a standard, conventional electric motor connected to a water
> pump pumping a given volume of water at 12 psi for 12 continuous hours and
> it consumes 10X "kilowatt-hours", then you have a Newman Motor/Generator
> connected to an identical water pump pumping the same volume of water at 12
> psi for 12 continuous hours and it consumes .00010X "kilowatt-hours" then
> it should be clear that the Newman Motor/Generator will save money for the
> consumer of "kilowatt-hours".  Add to this the fact that at the end of
> those 12 continuous hours the conventional electric motor will be HOT and
> the Newman Motor/Generator will be COLD.  Add to this the fact that (if a
> battery system is employed -- instead of the grid) those batteries will
> have a higher voltage charge at the end of those 12 hours than at the
> beginning of those 12 hours when connected to a Newman Motor/Generator.

Fine. Sounds good. When can we TEST this?

> Is this impossible?  Certainly not.  Does this "violate the nature of the
> universe"?  Certainly not.  Does this "violate a natural law?"  Not the
> First Law of Thermodymanics.  In fact, Joseph Newman's Motor/Generator is
> an AFFIRMATION of the First Law of Thermodynamics.  [The ANALOGY below is
> pertinent at this point.]

Then let us test this already, and put this through the Scientifc Method.

> >
> >> The 1800-lb automobile operated on the CURRENT of
> >> less than 20 milliamps.  It was also operated CONTINUOUSLY for over 34
> >> hours.
> >
> >What was the voltage? What was the storage capacity of all the batteries? You
> >cannot ignore one part of it! You should know better!
>

[test results skipped]

OK, sounds interesting. So when do we get to test it for ourselves? Even Pons
and
Fleshman(sp) published the details of their appratus, so every scientist the
world
over could try to duplicate Cold Fusion.

So let us know when you are ready to release the details to Eric and/or I, so
we can
try to duplicate your results. As I stated before, I'm willing to sign an NDA,
and
I'm sure Eric would be as well
    best wishes,
    Eric Krieg

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic

Mr G,  hope you don't mind me posting to the FE (free energy) mail list

  your points are very good (I paraphrase them):

   true, the carnot engine represents the upper theoretical performance for
heat
   pumps or engines.

   There would be a high hypothetical mileage for cars (I don't claim to know
where
   that would be) - but there's only so much energy in gas.

   Yes, there is all kinds of latent energy all around us - just hard to
harness.

   ----------------------
I think you may have implied that a FE machine may not be commercially viable
if the cost per watt is too high.

   I have a an almost sick respect for people who can "separate people from
their
money" so easily  - it can be compared to an ideal filter. Unfortunately,
these people all learn from each other.

   You hit the nail on the head:  skeptics mostly harbor deep latent hostility
because
our message is only about 1 hundredth as popular as those we debunk.
   best wishes,
    Eric Krieg

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic


Mr G wrote:
>
> Eric,
> Please be aware that the carnot cycle is the upper limit for any engine,
> not just heat pumps.A few years ago there was a bunch of talk about the
> 200 mpg carb. This is possible, provided you make the car light enough.
> But on closer inspection the theoretical limit of a car engine is much
> higher and fuel injection placed in the same car would result in even
> higher mileage.
>         Still free energy has some allure, after all there's plenty of energy
> all around us if only we could extract it. Hmmm, as soon as I figure out
> a way I pass a couple billion bucks your direction.
>         Still don'r be too hard on Dennis, he has found a way to seperate
> people from vast sums of money with little useful work being produced.
> So maybe your answer is in Dennis. Too bad skeptics don't get paid like
> fanatics
> G

--

Dear S,

   I've make sure to look for vans if anyone comes by.  Actually,
I'd much rather earn my self a place in history by grabbing the
media's attention to the greatest invention in decades.
    Barring that, I still feel there is great value in exposing frauds. If
people say, "I have no proof of FE now, but hope to soon" - I have no problem
with that.  I disagree that tabloids are interested in exposing fraud - that's
a minor story, a bigger story is to report that something exciting is true.
Any astronomer will tell you that when a comet shows up, the way to grab
"network air time" is to give the most grandiose promise.
    The reason I exclude solar from my prize is that it would not be a break
through like energy out of thin air.  There are already 10's of millions
backing the slow rate of improvement on that. BTW:  Solar power is my favorite
hope for weaning us off messy fossil fuels someday.
    FE people have constant semantical debates on "perpetual motion", "over
unity" ad FE.  I define FE as something not needing a fuel (other than perhaps
water) and totally different from what exists.  For example making net power
with:
   a water wheel and no external moving water.
   some jumble of magnets and antennas
   an over unity motor-generator combination
   something harnessing vortex power (what ever that is)
   a heat pump/ heat engine combination (ala Dennis Lee)
   something grabbing zero point energy (what ever that is)

   The competition is not limited to sane people (I get too few applicants as
it is),  although I have a family and prefer not to deal with the criminally
insane.  I ask contestants to agree with me up front over conditions and
protocol.  Hope you don't mind me copying the FE email list on this.
Any people copied can join the slow moving FE email list from:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/free_energy

"energetically yours",
Eric

fax (215) 654-0651  eric@...
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/more.htm


Steven wrote:
>
> Dear Eric,
>     I was sitting around pondering the possibility of using a high power
> directional transmitter hidden a van across the street, beaming power
> into your garage to power my device, when something hit me.
>
> Actually two things hit me.
> First I realised that I had better wait till you up the reward.
> Second, my 1.5kv generator with enough fuel to last for over 24 hours
> will not fit into the back of may van.
>
> Don't you think it is a bit optimistic to think that a new type of
> machine, it its birth, will be more efficient and smaller then what we
> have come up with in the long life of the internal combustion engine?
>
> I draw the conclusion from this that your main objective is not to find
> a source of "free energy", but rather to expose frauds.  A noble
> pursuit, probably just as beneficial to mankind as actually finding a
> source of "free energy".  Are you forgetting that these frauds are
> exposed every day in tabloids like The National Enquirer.  It is not my
> fault (nor yours) that the average American believes that "there must be
> something to it" when reading one of these articles.  Its like trying to
> save a sinking ship by bailing with a teaspoon.  They breed faster then
> you can educate them.
>
> I am, however, curious as to how you define "free energy".  You state
> you believe it is possible, but then go on to say you that you doubt you
> will ever have a valid claim.
> I note that you forbid fusion/fission.  You also exclude solar.
> Understandable, as this is just a roundabout way of saying fusion.
> All energy comes from somewhere.  That is part of our definition of it.
> I never got a bill from Mr Sunshine for my solar powered calculator (or
> from Mr Lightbulb for that matter, since I hardly use it outdoors).  Its
> not perpetual though.  In five billion years (give or take a few days)
> Mr Sunshine will come a knocking.
>
> So what is the criteria?  Do I have to channel UFO rays through a
> tinfoil pyramid hat, or is this competition open to people playing with
> a full deck as well?
>
> Best Regards,
> S

--