Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site kitty.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!larry From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.misc,net.research Subject: Re: Joseph Newman's Energy Machine Message-ID: <533@kitty.UUCP> Date: Sat, 26-Oct-85 13:27:36 EST Article-I.D.: kitty.533 Posted: Sat Oct 26 13:27:36 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 04:29:52 EST References: <173@tulane.UUCP> Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY Lines: 50 Xref: watmath net.physics:3453 net.misc:8792 net.research:305 > ... > Today, I had the oppurnity to attend the first public showing of the > Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. ... > ... > The machine which I saw operate today used several lantern batteries > for a power source... connected to the machine's ouput leads were a neon > sign and about 12 florescent tubes (each 5 feet long). When Newman threw > the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only > movement seen in the machine itself was a spark every tenth of a second or > so. Obvisouly, 12 florscent tubes cannor be powered by a few lantern > batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... > ... I have been aware of Mr. Newman's `energy machine' for quite some time, and am admittedly skeptical of his claims (speaking as an engineer). I must admit, though, that I have not seen the machine nor do I have enough technical information on it in my possession to give it a proper evaluation. HOWEVER, the possibility of fraud cannot be discounted, since some really spectacular frauds have been perpetrated in the past for alleged energy saving devices. The fact is that several lantern batteries are INDEED CAPABLE of powering 12 fluorescent tubes. Consider the following: Let's use four as the number of lantern batteries (you said several, so four seems reasonable). Assuming they were an Everyready P/N 731 6 volt lantern battery, these batteries have an approximate energy capacity of 10 ampere-hours to a 4.0 volt discharge. 4 batteries X 6 volts X 10 ampere-hours = 240 watt-hours of energy. A small neon sign can easily run on 25 watts (5 KV x .005 A). A Sylvania fluorescent tube 4 feet long, P/N F40SSP32/CW/RS requires only 32 watts of energy for FULL rated output. 32 watts X 12 lamps = 384 watts. 25 watts + 384 watts = 409 watts, which is quite capable of being supplied by four lantern batteries for say, 1/2 hour. For the moment I am ignoring energy conversion loss for any static inverter, since the above power consumption for the lamps is RMS anyhow. HOWEVER, the human eye is not a very accurate radiometer, so the lamps could well be running at LESS than full intensity, with no one being the wiser. Obviously this would increase battery life, especially if high-frequency excitation were being used for the lamps instead of conventional ballasts. The use of fluorescent lamps instead of incandescent sets off alarm bells in my mind, since fudging the energy consumption of incandescent lamps is not readily possible. Please bear in mind that I am NOT accusing Mr. Newman of tryng to perpetrate a fraud. I am only suggesting that people have an open mind. === Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York === === UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry === === VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice,shell}!baylor!/ === === FAX 716/741-9635 {AT&T 3510D} syr!buf!/ === === TELEX 69-71461 ansbak: ELGECOMCLR {via WUI} ihnp4!/ === === === === "Have you hugged your cat today?" ===