From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:50:25 GMT


-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
-Date: 17 Nov 92 22:44:40 GMT
-Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

-     The technology described in the article copied below could be used to
-power spacecraft, space colonies, etc.:
            
-                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
-                       by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
          
-               Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a 
-          heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly.  It would 
-          violate the "laws" of physics.   All of the "experts" and 
-          "authorities" said so. 

There's a difference between violating established "laws" of physics and
extending the established base of engineering knowledge. (Though even some
distinguished authorities may tend to forget the distinction.)

-               Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are 
-          saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy' 
-          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") and "there is always a decrease in useful 
-          energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics").  The physicists do not 
-          know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare 
-          that those things cannot be done.  Such PRINCIPLES OF 
-          IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to 
-          cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox 
-          modern theories. 

Isn't it strange that of the inventors who claim that most of the established
principles of physics are wrong, and come up with wildly unconventional
theories of their own, so many of them boast of having "little formal
education", and do not even possess the mathematical tools to understand
that which they dispute?
          
-               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 
-          SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated 
-          pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment. 
          
-               For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058, 
-          #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for 
-          motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly 
-          tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic 
-          field.  The first two require a feedback network in order to 
-          be self-running.  The third one, (as described in detail in 
-          "Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980), requires 
-          critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings of 
-          magnets, but NO feedback.  

I believe I actually read that issue. The fellow had set up a linear
configuration of magnets, and caused another magnet to move from one
end of the array to the other. (No surprise there - that's well within
the realm of established physics.) The article went on to say that all 
he had to do was buy a few more magnets, and he would have enough to
curve the track into a circle, so it would run forever! (At which point
I burst out laughing - I invented the all-permanent-magnet motor when I
was seven or eight years old, and it took me only about half an hour of
experimenting with magnets and pieces of steel to figure out why it wouldn't
work. I consider it pitiful that grown men are working on this, and
spending years at it.) I've *never* seen an article of this type followed up
by another article stating that "he's got it working now, and it's running
beautifully" - any subsequent articles are about *somebody else's* great
invention that's "nearly completed".
          
-               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray 
-          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the 
-          unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps ELECTRO-
-          MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12 
-          cycles per second plus harmonics).  They typically have a 
-          'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the 
-          energy in the coils with the energy being tapped.  It is 
-          important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of 
-          the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as 
-          'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output.  

Tesla was interested in using the Tesla coil as a power *transmitter*, but
the power came from a conventional AC power plant (which he also invented,
by the way). The Newman machine is a battery-powered motor-generator, of which
the motor portion has been complimented as a clever and unique design. The
generator portion puts out narrow, intense spikes of voltage and current, 
which a typical power meter would read as a considerably greater power level
than what is actually produced. The researchers who investigated the machine
(and who had access to more precise instruments) stated the opinion that
given this peculiar property of the machine, it was plausible that the
inventor was sincere in his belief that the machine was putting out more
power than it took in.
          
-                                   Robert E. McElwaine
-                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC

I don't think we can say that there will never be discoveries of amazing
and unconventional energy sources, but in general the current crop of
"fringe" researchers sure don't seem very well equipped to do so.

I'm also sending this to Robert McElwaine via email, since I have been
unable to find any evidence that he even bothers to read sci.space after
dumping his posts here.

All opinions are my own.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space