From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technology
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.181540.1413@cnsvax.uwec.edu>,
mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

> [...]
>           Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science" 
>           and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which 
>           assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law 
>           of thermodynamics") [...]
>           
>                Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a 
>           seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with-
>           OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT [...]
>           
>                Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy, 
>           but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by 

Hmmm... Taps it, rather than creating it....  But you just flamed
"conventional physicists" for stating the same thing.

>                A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray 
>           Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the 

Tesla coils do not create energy, either.  Nor is it obvious that they
collect "free energy", and pull it into the circuit.  Telsa was known
for messing up the weather around Pikes Peak, however.

> [...]
>                Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown 
>           in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between 
>           metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of 
>           particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a 
>           common household smoke detector. 

Why crystals?  I suspect you could build a nuclear battery by placing a
beta emitter between two metal plates.  A magnetic field could be used
to prevent electrons from reaching one plate.

>           Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION 
>           reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive 
>           deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities 

I hope you're not implying that _some_ Deuterium *is* radioactive...
Neither H, nor D are radioactive. Tritium *is* radioactive, however.

>           from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be 

Interesting.  What do you call "radioactive"?  Whenever you stick things
together, they generally end up in an excited state.  That would make
the D2-D2 reaction product a highly excited He4.  This would be a gamma
emitter, unless you put it into the ground state upon fusion.

>           converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting 

How do you convert the two D2's (or one He4) directly into electrons?

>                And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that 

Many years ago, some German researchers found the same results as Pons
and Fleischmann.  They published, and later published a retraction.
It seems that their palladium was contaminated, and formed a simple
battery.

>           has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter 
>           half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing 

Anti-matter is not a "material"?  Those positrons will be real unhappy
with you.

>                Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat' 

Oh, now I'm convinced...

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser