arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) (03/06/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
After watching Mr. Neumann's presentation on the Carson Show, I wrote a
short story which I sent to IASFM about a person who invented such a
machine, and the effect it had upon the society to which it was
introduced.
I will say this now, and wiat for the flames: I myself can construct
(as does my character in the story) a machine that once I have turned it
on, utilizes "free energies" from natural phenomena, never e requiring me
to input anything else--"something for nothing".
Unfortunately, it will not work in a closed box. This is not a hoax:
let me build it according to my plans and it will output work without
being plugged into an electric outlet. It uses no magnets. But it must
be built to take into account natural earth energies.
Flame now, or wait until (or if ) the short story, "A Dangerous Knowledge",
gets into Dozois' publication.
("That ain't workin'/That's the way ta do it
Write that sci-fi and fantasy
That ain't workin'/That's the way to do it
Money for writin' and yer cons fer free!")
--arlanjcp@osiris.UUCP (03/07/86)
> Unfortunately, it will not work in a closed box. This is not a hoax: > let me build it according to my plans and it will output work without > being plugged into an electric outlet. It uses no magnets. But it must > be built to take into account natural earth energies. > This sounds like the "engine" in ATLAS SHRUGGED. It was built by John Galt and supposedly ran on static electricity from the air. -- jcpatilla ..{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!jcp Look for beauty in all things; let the fountains of delight refresh your heart.
cmpbsdb@gitpyr.UUCP (03/08/86)
such "static motors" are easily constructed. refer to
scientific american, "the amateur scientist" about 1975-76 for
details on building your own (some quite powerful) motors using
static electricity gathered from vertical difference.
--
Don Barry (Chemistry Dept) CSnet: cmpbsdb%gitpyr.GTNET@gatech.CSNET
Georgia Institute of Technology BITNET: CMPBSDB @ GITVM1
Atlanta, GA 30332 ARPA: cmpbsdb%gitpyr.GTNET%gatech.CSNET@csnet-relay.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cmpbsdbjlg@lanl.UUCP (03/09/86)
In article <326@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes: >I will say this now, and wiat for the flames: I myself can construct >(as does my character in the story) a machine that once I have turned it >on, utilizes "free energies" from natural phenomena, never e requiring me >to input anything else--"something for nothing". I too can build such a device. It's called a windmill - or maybe a water wheel, or a geothermal plant, a solar collector, a .... The point is that none of these things violate the first or second laws of thermodynamics - which is apparently what is claimed by the inventor on the carson show. J. Giles Los Alamos
gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP (03/09/86)
In article <702@osiris.UUCP> jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes (>): >> Unfortunately, it will not work in a closed box. This is not a hoax: >> let me build it according to my plans and it will output work without >> being plugged into an electric outlet. It uses no magnets. But it must >> be built to take into account natural earth energies. >> > This sounds like the "engine" in ATLAS SHRUGGED. It was built by >John Galt and supposedly ran on static electricity from the air. Although Galt's engine was invented purely as a fictional story device, it is interesting to note that there really is a substantial potential gradient in the atmosphere. I don't think one could extract much power from it with a modest-sized apparatus, however. Nikola Tesla's research may have served as the inspiration for the concept; this is the kind of thing he worked with. ("Broadcast power" was another, also mentioned in "Atlas Shrugged" as I recall.)
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/10/86)
> > Unfortunately, it will not work in a closed box. This is not a hoax: > > let me build it according to my plans and it will output work without > > being plugged into an electric outlet. It uses no magnets. But it must > > be built to take into account natural earth energies. > > > This sounds like the "engine" in ATLAS SHRUGGED. It was built by > John Galt and supposedly ran on static electricity from the air. > -- > jcpatilla I know how to make one of those too! Just put a loop of wire in a box oriented north and south. Hang a wattmeter and a resistive load on the terminals of the loop outside of the box. Wait a few hundred thousand years for the magnetic field of the earth to flip again. Notice the small impulse of energy that came out of the box when the field flipped. See? FREE ENERGY extracted from 'natural earth energies'. Send gobs of money for detailed plans! Soon you too can enjoy massive wealth from FREE ENERGY! (not available in any stores!) -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (03/10/86)
There is indeed abundant free energy flowing about the planet. In telephony, differences in ground potential cause large longitudinal currents in telephone lines. The "balanced pair" was invented to eliminate the noisy static when the earth was used to provide the return path for the signal sent down a single conductor. The amount of energy in these sources is measurable but not commercially profitable to tap. Static discharges in the atmosphere (e.g. lightning and auroras) contain enormous amounts of energy but are not easily tapped with available technology. Ben Franklin could have been eloctructed when he flew a kite in an electrical storm. So theoretically, we could tap the energy in atmospheric static electricity, or ocean waves, or thermal clines, or sunlight, or wind, or flowing water. And we do. Fluctuating magnetic fields also contain energy. But a high school physics student can calculate for you the energy potential, and a commercial investor would be discouraged at the numbers. Energy goes for about eight cents a kilowatt hour. Commercial energy supplies must be in the megawatt range or higher. Sources not meeting the criteria for commercial success exist all right. But they are in the category of toys and curiosities. So I wouldn't condemn the inventor of the Free Energy Machine as a crackpot. (Although I might suggest some edifying literature that he might peruse.) But neither would I invest in his enterprise. --Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
jimc@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/11/86)
In article <326@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes: >I will say this now, and wiat for the flames: I myself can construct >(as does my character in the story) a machine that once I have turned it >on, utilizes "free energies" from natural phenomena, never e requiring me >to input anything else--"something for nothing". > >Unfortunately, it will not work in a closed box. This is not a hoax: >let me build it according to my plans and it will output work without >being plugged into an electric outlet. It uses no magnets. But it must >be built to take into account natural earth energies. Let me guess: a windmill? A water-wheel? A hydraulic ram-pump? Each harnesses natural earth energies, works without access to the electric power mains, and doesn't have to have the user pour anything into it (except for a little fiddling on startup with the ram pump). -- James F. Carter (213) 206-1306 UCLA-SEASnet; 2567 Boelter Hall; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024 UUCP:...!{ihnp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!jimc ARPA:jimc@locus.UCLA.EDU
dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) (03/12/86)
In his wonderful book "Perpetual Motion", Ord-Hume describes several machines which although they are not classic perpetual machines (They do have a source of energy), will run for very long periods of time. The impressive one was a clock that contained a HUGE mercury barometer. The daily fluctuations in the barometric pressure were sufficient to keep it fully wound. Benj. Franklin was the first to build a static machine, and it is reported that he used one to drive a spit in his fireplace. The real problem with a static machine is what to do with it in a lightning storm. When I was a teenager, I built a static machine in a shed on our property, and erected a rather tall bamboo tower (from the scrap bamboo that carpet used to come wrapped on) to hoist the antenna grid. Well, the first summer storm came along, and POOF, no shed... ` -- -David B. (Ben) Burch Analyst's International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours"
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <326@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes: >After watching Mr. Neumann's presentation on the Carson Show, I wrote a >short story which I sent to IASFM about a person who invented such a >machine, and the effect it had upon the society to which it was >introduced. >I will say this now, and wiat for the flames: I myself can construct >(as does my character in the story) a machine that once I have turned it >on, utilizes "free energies" from natural phenomena, never e requiring me >to input anything else--"something for nothing". Quite a while ago, I read a story which started with a young man strumming a guitar while a young lady was doing something very organic -- spinning or something -- in their nice little commune. [The words here are just to give the impression of the story: very 60's, very laid-back, non-establishment, peacenik, hippie, whatever. I was there too; I don't need to be told about it.] The young man gets an idea, develops it, comes out with a something-for-nothing machine. He then decides to leave his commune, go to business school, buy some suits, and cover his machine with fantastic working camouflage. He then marketed it and sold it, trusting that the basic working principle would quickly be uncovered, stolen, and made available to the entire world -- which it was. The end of the story has him returning to the little commune, where the girl upbraids him for not remaining true to his principles, and not giving up everything in the world. The young man, looking around at everything he had wanted in the world, has no reply. Nice little bit of irony, there. But it was written back then, or just after. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
guy@slu70.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <1438@mhuxt.UUCP>, js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: > I know how to make one of those too! Just put a loop of wire in a box > oriented north and south. Hang a wattmeter and a resistive load on the > terminals of the loop outside of the box. Wait a few hundred thousand > years for the magnetic field of the earth to flip again. Notice the > small impulse of energy that came out of the box when the field flipped. > See? FREE ENERGY extracted from 'natural earth energies'. Actually, you don't even need to wait for the field to reverse. Much less dramatic variations in the field are taking place constantly on a time scale ranging from less than seconds to thousands of years. This is what magnetic storms are all about (strictly speaking, solar energy). Not that you can extract any significant amount of energy that way. You normally have to expend more energy to amplify the signal than you collect. As a side note, the 'flip' of the magnetic field actually takes several thousand years. We could be undergoing one now but we'll never know. Guy M. Smith (your friendly local paleomagnetist)
mtglass@hound.UUCP (R.RICHARDSON) (03/13/86)
I think we've reached the crux of the issue here: there are energy sources of physical interest and there are energy sources of economic interest. We each have a certain portfolio of resources available to us (as do nations as a whole) and while some energy sources may be particularly "efficient" from a physical point of view they may simply not stack up economicly: thus you are more apt to find coal plants in Indiana and geothermal plants in Iceland. We must also keep in mind that different people have different portfolios. Many times it's cheaper in 3rd world countries to use manual labor than to purchase machinery. We should not interpret this as backwardness: merely a sign that this country is a pocket of cheap labor. If this fellow's invention can be manufactured economicly then somebody should and probably will produce it. One parameter I am holding constant, however, is politics. It's concievable that a political power with a large interest in the current energy infra structure could buy up the patent and bury it claiming the research "didn't pan out". Many people feel this happened with photovoltaic research by the oil companies in the 1970's. Another disturbingly parallel political phenomena arises from the scientific community itself. People who have put a lot of work into the prevailing outlook will naturally resist innovation. Indeed, even on the net the reaction to such situations is often surprisingly parochial. "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom" Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923 "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible" Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Socety, c 1895 "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" Harry M. Warner, Warner Bros. Pictures, c 1927 usual disclaimers R. Richardson
mtglass@hound.UUCP (R.RICHARDSON) (03/13/86)
>In article <326@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes: >>I will say this now, and wiat for the flames: I myself can construct >>(as does my character in the story) a machine that once I have turned it >>on, utilizes "free energies" from natural phenomena, never e requiring me >>to input anything else--"something for nothing". > >I too can build such a device. It's called a windmill - or maybe >a water wheel, or a geothermal plant, a solar collector, a .... > >The point is that none of these things violate the first or second >laws of thermodynamics - which is apparently what is claimed by the >inventor on the carson show. > >J. Giles >Los Alamos Regrettably, I don't remember his name either, but I don't think he purported to have discovered a counterexample to thermodynamics I&II. I don't think he purported to *understand* thermodynamics I&II. As near as I could make out, he claimed to harness the intrinsic magnetic properties of the magnet's molecules (vs those magnetic properties induced by the applied electric current.). This doesn't strike me as impossible at all. In fact, at the rawest level technology is nothing more than exploiting the potential energies around us. We exploit the chemical potentials present when we mix oxygen and coke together to smelt iron just as we exploit the potentials latent in the atom. In these cases as well as the phenomena our friend on the Tonight Show describes, we do indeed put less energy into a system than comes out. Of course...otherwise, why bother? At no time did he suggest, however, that the system produces more TOTAL energy than it uses...he's merely refering to the amount of energy WE (as controllers) of the system expend from our finite store of "refined energy". Why do we (myself included) react this way to this gentleman? Isn't it a rather more virulent reaction than mere healthy, objective, scientific skepticism? Could it be because he is on TV and we are not? the usual disclaimers R. Richardson
dand@dadla.UUCP (Dan Davis) (03/14/86)
In article <713@aicchi.UUCP>, dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) writes: > In his wonderful book "Perpetual Motion", Ord-Hume describes several machines > which although they are not classic perpetual machines (They do have a source > of energy), will run for very long periods of time. > > -- > -David B. (Ben) Burch > Analyst's International Corp. > Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) > When I was in the service near Chicago in 1969 I visited the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry and saw a "perpetual motion" machine. It worked vaguely thus: A ball bearing dropped out of the end of a tube, fell about 18 inches onto the slanted top of a solid cylinder which deflected the bearing left about 3 feet to the top of another cylinder. It then bounced vertically into the mouth of the tube, rolled slightly downhill and to the right about 3 feet only to fall back out the end and start it's cycle over again. There were maybe 15-20 bearings in the system and they continually went thru this pattern, each clicking with the following one at about 1 per second. It was fascinating to watch and I've always wondered if it was still working. Maybe Mr. Burch or someone else in the Chicago area knows or could find out. It's a good excuse to visit a wonderful place. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dan Davis Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!dadla!dand | | "book him, dano." | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (03/14/86)
> I myself can construct ... a machine that once I have turned it > on, utilizes "free energies" from natural phenomena, never e requiring me > to input anything else--"something for nothing". > > Unfortunately, it will not work in a closed box. I can do one that *will* work in a closed box. Well, let's say that I can design one. The energy output is so low that it would be difficult (probably impossible) to reduce friction losses below the energy output using current technology. Perhaps using magnetic bearings, with the unit in a vacuum... A couple of hints: the device has to be started externally, and then can be disconnected. And it must be oriented differently at different points on the Earth in order to achieve optimum output. See my next message for the answer. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (03/14/86)
> I can do one that *will* work in a closed box.
My "free energy machine" taps the precession of a sizable gyroscope.
The source of the energy is the Earth's rotation. Perhaps we're
lucky that there isn't enough energy available this way to make it
worthwhile; I don't think that I'd accept a 25-hour day as the cost of
"free energy".
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!dougnorman@batcomputer.UUCP (03/15/86)
In article <293@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: >Quite a while ago, I read a story which started with a young man >strumming a guitar while a young lady was doing something very >organic -- spinning or something -- in their nice little commune. > >The young man gets an idea, develops it, comes out with a >something-for-nothing machine. He then decides to leave his commune, The name of the story is "The Man Who Learned Loving." Theodore Sturgeon wrote it, and it nearly won a Nebula award when it was published in 1969. -- Norman Ramsey norman@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Pianist at Large
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (03/18/86)
In article <603@dadla.UUCP> dand@dadla.UUCP (Dan Davis) writes: >In article <713@aicchi.UUCP>, dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) writes: >> In his wonderful book "Perpetual Motion", Ord-Hume describes several machines >> which although they are not classic perpetual machines (They do have a source >> of energy), will run for very long periods of time. >> >> -- > >When I was in the service near Chicago in 1969 I visited the Chicago >Museum of Science and Industry and saw a "perpetual motion" machine. >It worked vaguely thus: > (summary: an endless chain of ball-bearings bounced across two angled steel platforms and into an aperture on the right side of the display. They then reappeared at the left side of the display and began bouncing across.) > >It was fascinating to watch and I've always wondered if it was still >working. Maybe Mr. Burch or someone else in the Chicago area knows or >could find out. It's a good excuse to visit a wonderful place. >-- > | Dan Davis Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!dadla!dand | No, no, no! Like Mr. Davis, I fondly remember the display in question, which I believe was designed to demonstrate the elasticity of steel. By the time I saw it, though, it had a little placard affixed to the front: THIS DISPLAY IS NOT A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE. THERE IS A CONVEYOR-BELT BEHIND THE DISPLAY LIFTING THE BEARINGS FROM THEIR EXIT TO THEIR ENTRANCE. Oh well, back to the drawing-board. -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax |ihnp4 | linus| cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay "Ooh, ick!" -- Penfold
laneg@ulowell.UUCP (Dromio) (03/24/86)
In article <293@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: >Quite a while ago, I read a story which started with a young man > > >The young man gets an idea, develops it, comes out with a >something-for-nothing machine. He then decides to leave his commune, >end of the story has him returning to the little commune, where the >girl upbraids him for not remaining true to his principles, and not >giving up everything in the world. The young man, looking around at >everything he had wanted in the world, has no reply. (Nice little bit >of irony, there. > (poorly condensed version of article) I just recently reread the story in question. It's titled 'Brownshoes', and was written by Theodore Sturgeon. The device in question is a little gizmo, made out of certain parts and material, which, when put together in a certain way, would spin a rotor without energy until its bearings wore out. The ending is, indeed, nicely ironic. Our hero, Mensch, has almost singlehandedly revolutionalized human society and wiped out hunger and poverty. His girl accuses him of leaving his ideals: '"You could have had love," she said. "But I did.". And, since she could never understand, he got into his noiseless, fueless car and drove off.' For those who are interested, it's available in a collection titled 'Sturgeon is Alive and Well', along with a whole bunch of other good fiction a lesser Power of Darkness