brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/19/85)
In this debate, there's a lot of talk about suckers and closed minds. Let me explain why most people feel this machine is a (perhaps unintentional) fraud. It has little to do with closed minds. For example, the law of conservation of energy is, like most physical laws, an observed property of the universe that has never been seen to be violated. A reasonable scientist will freely admit that it doesn't have to be impossible to violate this rule, but he will state that it is unlikely. This is not a "closed mind", but a reasonable conclusion from a lifetime of observation. On the other hand, attempting to violate such a principle using the other principles of physics will be met with rejection. This is because essentially all these principles were derived from assuming the law of conservation of energy. This isn't an observation, it's a definition. So if somebody says it's impossible to break the law of conservation of energy using things like Newtonian mechanics, they're right. Now the Newman machine doesn't claim to break C of E, (Church of England?) but it calls upon the well-awed power of the atom to reach effectively the same result. Why doubt from the original report? One reason is that I know, as a man with scientific training, that if I really did have such an effect, I would not be setting up fishy sounding demonstrations. I would design an experiment that would look like (and be) a deliberate attempt to show there is no trickery. If I didn't have such training, I would consult with scientists to do this. You could go up to any scientist and say, "Pretend I have a machine that puts out more than you put in. What would I need to do to convince you it really did this?" But Newman doesn't do this. He makes a demonstration that people can poke holes in just from a brief description. Flourescent bulbs, well known for having 5 times the light/power ratio of regular bulbs, are one sure telltale. Why use these bulbs when they have all sorts of special voltage and current requirements, since regular bulbs are trivial to use? Why can't the machine power itself? The electricity that powers a bulb and the electricity that comes out of a lantern battery are one and the same. If the output power isn't electricity as we know it, why not say so, since this is also an amazing discovery, especially if it can't be converted into normal energy. The *science* of physics involves careful experimental control. No special arbitrary conditions are allowed. Anybody who insists on them is suspect, and certainly not a scientist. Now one might almost tolerate such attitudes from psychic types, because there is a small grain of truth in the concept that observers affect experiments. There is, however, no excuse for this in a simple physical experiment involving well understood concepts like power and electricity. If you had said: The device was placed in a special lab chosen secretly by a group of trained independent testers. This lab was located in a randomly selected town in North America. The owner of the device was allowed to instruct in setup but did not participte, nor was he allowed to touch the machine after handing it over. He was searched for any special devices on his person. Input power measured by independently calibrated and connected meters was 10 watts. Output power was 100 watts. This was watched by an independently provided computer for a period long enough to well exceed the energy storage of any known battery or storage unit. The area around the unit was checked for the presence of unusual electromagnetic fields both before and during operation. The temperature of various sides of the unit was graphed on a chart recorder. Geiger counters recorded levels of general and cosmic ray radiation. Assuming Newman's permission the experiment was duplicated inside radiation proof rooms. *Then* the world would sit up and take notice. Even these conditions may not be enough, but they are enough to have more people come in and design even better conditions. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (10/23/85)
It seems to me that there are three possibilities
a) Newman is a fraud
b) Newman has stumbled onto a cute hack involving electrical principles
that he doesn't understand, so he is sincere, but wrong.
c) Newman has stumbled onto a new source of energy (matter conversion,
electron spin, sub-ether power transmissions, whatever). In this
case he can't be expected to give a totally correct explanation
of the principle.
A and B seem the most likely, and our traditional presumption of innocence
means we should use B as the working hypothesis. The possibility of C
requires us to give the man consideration; the probability of A or B
suggests that we shouldn't waste too much time on him. The scientific
establishment should present Newman with increasingly rigorous tests
designed to screen out fraud and error with as little expense as possible.
That Newman has no formal training means that he is unlikely to know
what to say to get the attention of trained scientists. It is the
duty of the scientists to say "If you want to convince me of that,
this is what you'll have to do." The scientific establishment makes
an ass of itself when it gets angry about people like Velikovsky
and Newman. Science should know better than to say that anything
is impossible. It should simply state its reasons for disbelief, and
then ignore the crackpots until they prove themselves.
--
Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney North Carolina State University
"If God had intended Man to fly, he would never have given us the railways."benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Thomas Cox) (10/29/85)
[]
Dear netters:
a quick request for background: who is Velikovsky?
please reply directly; I will summarize answers and
post one brief historical article to these three newsgroups.
yours
Thomas Cox
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
--
Thomas Cox
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
But of COURSE everything is unique.
If they weren't, they'd all be one thing.