bde@ihlpl.UUCP (Ewbank) (02/28/86)
hi -- First off: Please, no "this is impossible" type letters. I realize that it sounds somewhat more than strange.... I was watching "The Tonight Show" last night and one of Mr. Carson's guests was an inventor named Neumann who had (he claimed) invented a device which produced more conventional energy that it used. The kicker was that this device was somehow converting *magnetic* energy into electrical energy. Since this was "The Tonight Show," there was not exactly an in-depth report. Does anyone know more about this Mr. Neumann and his device? The US Patent office turned him down because such a device is "impossible to make." I remember that the Wright Bros. were told the same thing... thanks for any info. -- Bryan Ewbank, 312/979-4296, !ihnp4!ihlpl!bde, ih 6M-523 / AT&T Bell Labs / Naperville, IL 60566 -- -- Bryan Ewbank, 312/979-4296, !ihnp4!ihlpl!bde, ih 6M-523 / AT&T Bell Labs / Naperville, IL 60566
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/03/86)
In article <654@ihlpl.UUCP> bde@ihlpl.UUCP (Ewbank) writes: > I was watching "The Tonight Show" last night and one of > Mr. Carson's guests was an inventor named Neumann who had (he > claimed) invented a device which produced more conventional > energy that it used. The kicker was that this device was > somehow converting *magnetic* energy into electrical energy. > Since this was "The Tonight Show," there was not exactly an > in-depth report. Does anyone know more about this Mr. Neumann > and his device? First of all, Neumann claims (not very clearly) that what his device does is to extract energy from the ATOMS of the materials used to construct it. Anyone who is expert in physics could poke holes in Neumann's explanations as given on the Tonight Show. He (as he admits) is not schooled in physics, and it shows; he has apparently never heard that there is energy in the E-M field itself, he doesn't realize that reversing the legs of his horseshoe magnet produced a spatially-rotated situation, so that symmetry demanded that current be induced in the opposite direction (Neumann seemed to believe it has something to do with gyroscopic effects), etc. I think the fellow is sincere, but he doesn't appreciate the vast difference between careful scientific investigation (such as has led to the modern understanding of electromagnetism, or even that at the turn of the century) and imaginative guesswork involving trying to apply "common sense" to uncommon phenomena. The "Neumann device" wasn't well described on the show, except for the claim that it put out 3 times the energy put into it, but it appeared to be not much more than a rather routine motor-generator with a low output duty cycle and/or a highly reactive load. People who are not careful enough may jump to the conclusion that such a device is dissipating more energy into its load than it actually is. > The US Patent office turned him down because such a device is > "impossible to make." I remember that the Wright Bros. were > told the same thing... The Patent Office considers the Neumann device to be a "perpetual motion machine" and as such it is subject to their long-standing policy not to grant patents to perpetual motion machines. (That policy appears to be an attempt to avoid a flood of worthless proposals.) Neumann himself seems to be unaware that connecting the output of his device to its own input would produce something that looks amazingly like a perpetual motion machine. Since Neumann thinks he has an atomic engine, it isn't really a perpetual motion machine, so he might as well be granted a patent. This discussion should continue on the physics newsgroup only if someone thinks he understands Neumann's physical theories and believes there is some merit to them (in which case, please explain them to us).
greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) (03/03/86)
In article <654@ihlpl.UUCP> bde@ihlpl.UUCP (Ewbank) writes: >hi -- > First off: Please, no "this is impossible" type letters. I > realize that it sounds somewhat more than strange.... > > I was watching "The Tonight Show" last night and one of > Mr. Carson's guests was an inventor named Neumann who had (he > claimed) invented a device which produced more conventional > energy that it used. The kicker was that this device was > somehow converting *magnetic* energy into electrical energy. > Since this was "The Tonight Show," there was not exactly an > in-depth report. Does anyone know more about this Mr. Neumann > and his device? Ok, I will not say "This is imposssible" in the following reply: Yes, I have heard of him. He is a fraud. Discover had an article on him a year or two ago. Look for the "Skeptical Eye" column in back issues. As for the machine itself, all I have to say is that Mr. Neumann's physics are inconsistent with Mr. Neumann's physics as well as everyone else's physics. Finally, a simple way to figure out whether or not someone has invented an energy-generating machine: Can it be put in a stationary, closed container and still work? Mr. Neumann's cannot, since it plugs into an electrical outlet. -- gregregreg
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (03/04/86)
In article <654@ihlpl.UUCP> ihlpl!bde (Bryan Ewbank) writes: >... an inventor named Neumann who had (he claimed) invented a device which >produced more conventional energy that it used. The kicker was that this >device was somehow converting *magnetic* energy into electrical energy. >The US Patent office turned him down ... "impossible to make." Interesting that your article did not contain the phrase "Perpetual Motion Machine". I would wager that Mr. Neumann himself avoided that term. Clearly that's what the Patent Office thinks it is; they got fed up with all the PMM applications and made a rule to cover it. If my understanding is correct, Mr. Neumann can appeal that ruling by demonstrating a working model of his device. Since he has apparently chosen instead to appear on the Tonight Show, I am somewhat skeptical. If his device works, and is converting magnetic energy into electrical, then the obvious question is, Where is the magnetic energy coming from? Do you power it with a permanent magnet which gradually loses its magnetism, or is it supposed to use the Earth's magnetic field, or what?
bde@ihlpl.UUCP (Ewbank) (03/04/86)
ahem. I've been informed by several [friendly..rude] letters that I am about one year behind net.physics when I ask about Mr. Neumann and his "magical magnetic device." I therefore retract my query about said person and device. Did anyone keep archives of that discussion? of net.physics in general? I'd like pointers only. Don't think the machine could deal with N copies of net.physics.archive. Thanks ^ 10e6 -- -- Bryan Ewbank, 312/979-4296, !ihnp4!ihlpl!bde, ih 6M-523 / AT&T Bell Labs / Naperville, IL 60566
greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) (03/04/86)
In article <609@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: >If his device works, and is converting magnetic energy into electrical, >then the obvious question is, Where is the magnetic energy coming from? >Do you power it with a permanent magnet which gradually loses its magnetism, >or is it supposed to use the Earth's magnetic field, or what? According to Discover magazine, Mr. Neumannn's machine is an electric motor. Its power comes from an electrical outlet. -- gregregreg
waddingt@umn-cs.UUCP (Jake Waddington ) (03/13/86)
In article <609@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: >In article <654@ihlpl.UUCP> ihlpl!bde (Bryan Ewbank) writes: > >>... an inventor named Neumann who had (he claimed) invented a device which >>produced more conventional energy that it used. The kicker was that this >>device was somehow converting *magnetic* energy into electrical energy. >>The US Patent office turned him down ... "impossible to make." > >Interesting that your article did not contain the phrase "Perpetual Motion >Machine". I would wager that Mr. Neumann himself avoided that term. > >Clearly that's what the Patent Office thinks it is; they got fed up with PLEASE, PLEASE ! Let's not start the Neumann discussion again. Enough is enough. Read past postings if you want but let's not get in to it again. Paul Fink