For REALLY good mileage check this out

[Michael D. Porter]

David Doddek wrote:
> 
> If the guy was not trying to be so much of a salesman, the theory is
> actually quite interesting.  And really he is not getting something for
> nothing.  What he has actually invented is an extreemely save nuclear
> reactor because what is actually happening is the copper atom is providing
> the power as it is being destroyed.  Any other Engineers or Scientists care
> to comment.

He is a salesman, and of snake oil to boot. The US Patent Office is very
clear on the subject of such machines. If they are claimed to produce
work without energy input, they are perpetual motion machines, which are
not patentable.

In both his description of book and process, and in his "special
report," virtually all is testimonial. The test he described, using line
voltage from the power company was, I believe, later debunked. The
device was equipped with a hidden current source.

Several times, he uses the analogy of hydraulics to describe the effects
of high voltage in his device. Any idiot knows that something has to
produce the hydraulic pressure, and that something is work, whether it's
a motor turning a hydraulic pump, or one's foot pushing on a brake
pedal.

Next, he makes only vague allusions to the power from the device as
coming from the destruction of copper atoms in the device coil. That
destruction, or conversion can only occur by two means--fission, or
fusion--and in both cases, radiation is emitted. Period. Newman makes no
such claim. 

Further, Newman describes his device as working to "excite" the copper
atoms. Electronic shell theory observes the Laws of Conservation. Energy
input into an atom of just about anything excites the electrons. But not
to move at the speed of light, as he describes. They are already moving
at the speed of light. His "gyroscopic movement" of the electrons is, in
actuality, inferred from the physical data, and is not literal. Put
energy into an atom, and its outermost electrons go to higher electron
shells. The law of conservation regarding entropy says that everything
relaxes to its lowest energy level, and the electron is no exception,
releasing energy in quanta to return to its original level. That quanta
can be of all sorts of electromagnetic energy and light, but never more
than the original input.

Now to the inference that the device derives its high output from
fission or fusion. Fission, in the context of this device, can only
occur with unstable elements in the presence of an excess of neutrons.
This condition cannot exist in a coil of copper. As to fusion, this
occurs principally among atoms of light elements which, by virtue of
tremendous energy input, overcome the  atomic force which keeps atoms
apart from each other, thus making a new atom of another, heavier
element. According to the curve of binding energy, energy is released
(this is true, up to iron). Again, unstable elements are necessary, or
are at least more efficient at fusion--isotopes with additional
neutrons. Again, this is not possible in an ordinary coil of copper.

Last, Maxwell proved, rather simply and elegantly, that water and
electricity obey much the same laws. Water pressure is analogous to emf
(voltage), and yet, with the tap off, or the stream blocked, no water is
available to do work. The water itself is analogous to current. Water
moves, work is done. This fellow is saying that work is done virtually
without current, and that the heat normally produced by current flow
generated by back emf is captured and recycled without being dissipated
as heat. No explanation for the phenomenon is given. Current flow, not
voltage potential, produces electromagnetic effects, and current flow
produces heat, because of the resistance of wire (this, of course, is
the reason for current interest in superconductors). 

No formula anywhere for this is presented except Einstein's
matter-energy conversion formula, E=mc_2. For Einstein's formula to
apply in any meaningful way, fission or fusion must occur. And
Einstein's formula, as has been proven frequently, still obeys the laws
of conservation.

Newman promotes without providing any scientific evidence, and for that
reason alone, there are lingering doubts. The articles in the web site
say that the device has been patented in other countries. Those
countries are not cited. If any one of them has reciprocal patent
protection laws with the US, there is no reason whatsoever that the
device would not have been snapped up by a manufacturer in a foreign
country and would currently be in production. If it actually worked. 

My general feeling is that this is one of the longest-running scientific
hoaxes to be perpetrated on the public, and continues because of the
relative lack of scientific education of the lay public. If this fellow
were a true scientist and has found fundamental new laws, he would not
hesitate to submit them for peer review, publication and testing for
replication of results. Had he done that, instead of rail at the US
Patent Office for their shortsightedness, he might have some
credibility. Under the circumstances as described, he would have no
problem defending earlier patent applications, were the system to work.
This is the National Enquirer version of the cold fusion debacle.

Cheers.      

-- 
My other Triumph runs, but....