Subject: Re: Burn's critique on PM_Square! free energy !

From: Andrew J. Paier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 May 95 22:19:01 est

Hank Simon writes:

> Brief digression:  Assuming we could get work out it, the moon
> going around the earth is a perpetual mtion machine similar to
> the magnet setup.  However, it's fairly understood that frictional
> forces have slowed the moon's rotation (hence, the dark side) and
> that soon the moon will spiral into the earth due to these
> frictional, tidal, gradient type forces :-)

Just a brief correction (?)  In high school, I was told that the moon is 
actually moving away from the earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year, not 
falling in.  Seems the gravity ain't enough to hold it here at present.

-AP

---

From: [email-masked] (Hank Simon)
Date: 9 May 1995 20:29:53 GMT

The EMF theory looks good and is similar to something patented a
few years ago.  Unfortunately, there is still more physics going
on in the nonlinear regime: friction.

Magnets also have to deal with friction, air resistance, heat loss,
alignment instabilities...so it won't last "perpetuum."

However...it may still last a long time and there may be ways to
reduce the nonlinear effects.  As a theory, don't quit your day
job.  But as a garage project (or SBIR), it may be worth a look.
Experiement and see...Tha's what Edison did!

FWIW

Hank Simon

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Davis)
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 07:33:52

>frictional, tidal, gradient type forces :-)

The moon will not SOON spiral into the earth.  The dark side of the moon is 
not due to a slowing of the moon's rotation.  I assume when you say " the dark 
side of the moon"  you refer to the fact that one side of the moon is allways 
facing away from the earth.  That is due to the fact that the moon rotates 
once for each rotation, which incidentally is very common among the moons of 
the different planets of this solar system.

---

From: [email-masked] (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Date: 11 May 1995 11:10:44 GMT

>the different planets of this solar system.

Everyone will be responding to this, I think.
The 'dark side of the moon' traditionally refers to the side facing
away from us, not the side 'in the moon's shadow'.  The existance
of such dark side is due to frictional effects, or the moon being
a huge accurately navigated spacecraft.
Because the earth's rotational speed is highher thant that of the moon
it will tend to accelerate the moon and thus fling it into a higher
orbit.  The word 'soon' as Mr. Simon used it was included for dramatic
effect olny.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)

---

From: [email-masked] (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Date: 11 May 1995 11:13:15 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (John Kondis) writes:

>I am ignoring angular momentum conservation, but it's probably OK since a 
>loss or gain thereof can be made up by the spin of either the earth or 
>the moon...

Don't.  While the moon will move to a higer orbit, the eargh will slow down,
and so will the moon's rotation too.

Kristjan

---

From: [email-masked] (John Kondis)
Date: 11 May 95 02:36:40 GMT

>falling in.  Seems the gravity ain't enough to hold it here at present.

A correction?  He he he.  How can gravity not be enough to "hold it 
there" when it has been doing so for so long?  (At least, as far as I can 
remember...  :)

Seriously, energy is being dissipated in the form of waves and tides 
destroying multi-million dollar superstar homes on the beaches of 
southern California.  Since the moon is most responsible for tides (and 
some waves) we expect the mechanical earth-moon system to lose some of 
its total energy.  The earth-moon system's mechanical energy is about 
E=-(1/2)GMm/r (ignoring rotational energy which is probably small), where 
r=distance from earth to the moon.  If the energy is decreasing 
(dissipated in the oceans and below the earth's crust), then r 
must also be decreasing.  Hence, the moon should be approaching us.  
(Duck!)

...John
  _____    
 |     |    _____    "Come on!  Jesus needs a new pair of shoes!!!"
 |  O  |   |O   O|                  -- God (playing dice with the Universe)
 |     |   |O   O|   
  ~~~~~    |O   O|   John P. Kondis        UC Irvine        [email-masked]
            ~~~~~

---

From: [email-masked] (Emory F. Bunn)
Date: 11 May 1995 03:20:28 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
John Kondis <[email-masked]> wrote:
:Andrew J. Paier <[email-masked]> writes:

:>Just a brief correction (?)  In high school, I was told that the moon is 
:>actually moving away from the earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year, not 
:>falling in.  Seems the gravity ain't enough to hold it here at present.

:Seriously, energy is being dissipated in the form of waves and tides 
:destroying multi-million dollar superstar homes on the beaches of 
:southern California.  Since the moon is most responsible for tides (and 
:some waves) we expect the mechanical earth-moon system to lose some of 
:its total energy.  The earth-moon system's mechanical energy is about 
:E=-(1/2)GMm/r (ignoring rotational energy which is probably small), where 
:r=distance from earth to the moon.  If the energy is decreasing 
:(dissipated in the oceans and below the earth's crust), then r 
:must also be decreasing.  Hence, the moon should be approaching us.  
:(Duck!)

In fact, Andrew is right: the moon is gradually receding from us.  (It
is, however, not really right to say that it's because gravity isn't
strong enough to hold it.)  The Earth is slowing down in its rotation,
and some of that energy is going to the moon.  As it picks up energy,
it moves further away.

You are right about the central role of the tides: they are the
mechanism by which the energy transfer takes place.  However, the
transfer goes in the opposite direction from what you said.

See, e.g., Frank Shu's book "The Physical Universe" for details.

-Ted

---

From: Andrew J. Paier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 17:29:02 est

> a huge accurately navigated spacecraft.

As we continue the thread that has very little to do with this news group...

No, the dark side of the moon is in fact the part that does not get light, due 
to the shadow of the moon itself.  The same part of the moon _always_ faces the 
sun.  This causes the Dark and Light sides as we know them.  

-AP

---

From: [email-masked] (Emory F. Bunn)
Date: 11 May 1995 21:58:25 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Andrew J. Paier  <[email-masked]> wrote:

>No, the dark side of the moon is in fact the part that does not get
>light, due to the shadow of the moon itself.  The same part of the
>moon _always_ faces the sun.  This causes the Dark and Light sides as
>we know them.

This is not true.  The Moon always keeps the same face towards the
Earth, not towards the Sun.  When people refer to "the dark side
of the Moon," what they really mean is the far side.

See any basic astronomy book if you don't believe me.  Or just keep an
eye on the Moon for a few months (preferably with binoculars) and
notice that it keeps the same side towards us.

-Ted

---

From: [email-masked] (Neil Ferguson)
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 12:47:30 GMT

> falling in.  Seems the gravity ain't enough to hold it here at present.

    It's not so much gravity, as tidal momentum transfer. What 
happens is that the tides the Moon produces on the Earth exert 
a drag on the Earth's rotation, slowing it down. The energy 
originally stored in the Earth's rotation is transferred to the 
Moon's orbital velocity, accelerating it and thus moving it slowly 
outwards. Eventually, when Earth's rotation has the same period 
as the Moon's orbit, the two worlds will be tidally locked to 
each other.
    Incidentally, the reason the Moon moves outwards is that the 
Earth/Moon are rotating/orbiting in the same direction and the 
Earth is rotating with a shorter period than the Moon's orbit. 
If they were rotating/orbiting in opposite directions, or even 
if the Earth's rotational period was longer than the Moon's, then 
the Moon would indeed spiral inwards. This is expected to occur 
once tidal lock has been reached, when the Earth's rotation will 
continue to slow (by emission of gravity waves, if I remember 
correctly - I'm not sure of this!) and start to lag the Moon, 
dragging it back in once more.

-- 
Neil Ferguson                  Email to: [email-masked] 
Microelectronic Engineering at Edinburgh University in Scotland!

It wasn't me!

---

From: Ben Newsam <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 May 1995 14:29:20 +0100

"Andrew J. Paier" writes:
> to the shadow of the moon itself.  The same part of the moon _always_ faces the > sun.  This causes the Dark and Light sides as we know them.  

Oh Moon! When I look on thy beautiful face,
Careering along through the boundaries of space,
The thought has quite frequently come to my mind,
If ever I'll gaze on thy glorious behind.

          Found in the mattress of Edmund Gosse's
          serving maid, after her death.

----------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam, Micro Services, [email-masked]
Tel & Fax: +44 114 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy
C++, Windows, MFC,etc..
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (John McCarthy)
Date: 12 May 1995 14:13:52 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Carl J Lydick) writes:

   In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (John McCarthy) writes:
   =Let me add what Stendhal said.
   =
   =
   ="The people of the antipodes, gazing at the moon when for us it is only
   =a small crescent, remark, 'What a splendid brightness!  It's nearly full
   =moon'" - Stendhal in Memoirs of an Egotist, p. 92, Noonday Press.

   Er, just how long ago did Stendhal publish that misinformation?

Sten.dhal \sten-'d<a:>l, stan-, F sta<^n>-d<a.>l\
    1783-1842 pseud. of Marie-Henri Beyle \'bel\ Fr. writer-- Sten.dhal.ian 
    \-'d<a:>l-<e^->-<e>n\ adj

As a scientist, Stendhal was a great literary man.  _The Charterhouse
of Parma_ is a very exciting nove.

-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

---

From: [email-masked] (William Bogen)
Date: 12 May 1995 14:50:35 GMT

Andrew J. Paier ([email-masked]) wrote:

: No, the dark side of the moon is in fact the part that
: does not get light, due 
: to the shadow of the moon itself.  The same part of the
: moon _always_ faces the 
: sun.  This causes the Dark and Light sides as we know them.  

Ah, so when the Moon is 'new', and appears dark from Earth, then the
dark side has rotated into view?  No, wait a minute, we never see
the dark side, do we?  Hmmm, then the light side must somehow be
changing its color, in a pattern that sweeps across the surface of
the moon every month.  Gee, maybe there's a kind of lunar lichen
that grows and dies every month, doing a 'Wave' for our amusement?

Cheap experiment:  Stand in a dark room.  Have a friend point a
flashlight at you.  Hold a grapefruit, with your arm extended.
Slowly spin on your heel, keeping your eye on the grapefruit.
Notice how the side you can see alternates between light and dark.
You have just demonstrated the phases of the Moon.  _All_ sides of
the grapefruit, er Moon, receive light over the span of a month.

This information will change no one's 'knowledge' of the Dark side
of the Moon, of course.  The phrase is too embedded in the memes of
the general public.  I found it ironic that, in a recent episode of
'Sliders', in which our hero was competing in a high IQ game, one
question was (roughly), "Name 3 craters on the Dark side of the
Moon."

---

From: [email-masked] (Bernd Kuemmel)
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 17:29:08 GMT

>While this learned reply has merit, the correct answer is that
>the Dark Side of the moon is covered with Heavy Boots.

>        Paul

Mice say the moon is made of cheese.

---

From: [email-masked] (Craig DeForest)
Date: 12 May 1995 00:39:38 GMT

Andrew J. Paier ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Kristjan Valur Jonsson writes:
: > Everyone will be responding to this, I think.
: > The 'dark side of the moon' traditionally refers to the side facing
: > away from us, not the side 'in the moon's shadow'.  The existance
: > of such dark side is due to frictional effects, or the moon being
: > a huge accurately navigated spacecraft.

: As we continue the thread that has very little to do with this news group...
: No, the dark side of the moon is in fact the part that does not get light, due 
: to the shadow of the moon itself.  The same part of the moon _always_ faces the 
: sun.  This causes the Dark and Light sides as we know them.  

No, no, no, Kristjan is right.  Every part of the Moon (with the
exception of some craters near its poses, which are in pepetual
shadow) alternately gets light and dark.  The Moon is in tide lock
with the Earth -- it always faces the same hemisphere toward us.
Don't take *my* word for it just because I'm an astrophysicist -- go
look for yourself, once or twice a day for several days.  The surface
features are always the same.

--
Craig DeForest "PhD time: tee minus 45 days and holding for netnews delay"

---

From: Paul Dietz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 10:58:07 -0500

Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (scharle)
Date: 12 May 1995 17:41:40 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (William Bogen) writes:
...
|> This information will change no one's 'knowledge' of the Dark side
|> of the Moon, of course.  The phrase is too embedded in the memes of
|> the general public.  I found it ironic that, in a recent episode of
|> 'Sliders', in which our hero was competing in a high IQ game, one
|> question was (roughly), "Name 3 craters on the Dark side of the
|> Moon."

    I had always assumed that the expression "dark side of the moon"
referred to our lack of knowledge, much as in the expression "the dark
continent of Africa" referring to the 19th century English lack of
knowledge of the continent.
-- 
Tom Scharle  
Room G003 Computing Center [email-masked]
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA

---

From: [email-masked] (Ross Alexander)
Date: 12 May 95 21:23:10 GMT

[email-masked] (Craig DeForest) writes:
>shadow) alternately gets light and dark. 

Are we *really* arguing about this as though it wasn't an established
fact?  Dear ghu, even Pink Floyd got it right in the spoken part of
_Dark Side of the Moon_, where someone says "it really doesn't have
any dark side".

Next I suppose we'll discuss heavy boots.

regards,
Ross
--
Ross Alexander, ve6pdq  --  (403) 675 6311  --  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Emory F. Bunn)
Date: 12 May 1995 21:40:14 GMT

In article <alvinf.800313790@atha>,
Ross Alexander <[email-masked]> wrote:
>fact?  

You must be new to Usenet.  Arguing about established facts is one of
the primary activities around here.

-Ted

---

From: Kevin Eber <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 May 1995 17:39:24 GMT

there is no dark side of the moon, really.
matter of fact, it's all dark.

(sorry, i couldn't resist it)

---

From: [email-masked] (Louis Nick III)
Date: 13 May 1995 01:22:17 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, David Tashima  <tash> wrote:
>Actually, isn't there a very small crater somewhere on one of the poles that
>never receives any light?  I remember hearing something about a new altimeter
>measurement that revealed that the deepest known crater in the solar system
>(deeper than Mars, I guess) exists on the Moon.  I'm not sure, though, and have
>no reference.

A few years back the DoD launched a lunar probe to test/demonstrate new 
technology, including a laser to scan and map the lunar surface, some 
equipment to better determine the crafts position, better cameras, etc.  
About 30 years beyond NASA, basically.

It took photos and readings of one of the lunar poles, and it was 
speculated that there maybe frozen water in this polar crater, provided 
there is no sunlight there year-round.  I don't know how deep it was, or 
if it set any records.  Since then, incidentally, they decided that the 
presence of water is unlikely there.  I think. :^)

---
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, 
de-briefed, or numbered!"

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 19:08:43 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
 [email-masked] (John McCarthy) writes:

>Let me add what Stendhal said.
>"The people of the antipodes, gazing at the moon when for us it is only
>a small crescent, remark, 'What a splendid brightness!  It's nearly full
>moon'" - Stendhal in Memoirs of an Egotist, p. 92, Noonday Press.

As with those posters that say " watch the moon for several days"
to see the same face, so please look at the size :-). 

As an antipodean, this is what I expect to see over the next few 
weeks. Let me know if you don't see a full moon on the 15th, and
you are on planet earth :-).

May 15    Full Moon
May 21    Last Quarter
May 29    New Moon
June 6     First Quarter.
 
            Bruce Hamilton

---

From: [email-masked] (John McCarthy)
Date: 12 May 1995 03:44:02 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (John Kondis)
Date: 13 May 95 09:49:51 GMT

[...]
>sun.  This causes the Dark and Light sides as we know them.  

Uhh...  I don't think so.  I remember as a youth with my first telescope 
I had a map of the moon.  There were two sides -- one side for the half 
that always faces away from the earth and the other that always faces 
us.  And I remember taking peeks over periods of time and seeing the same 
craters at the same relative positions on the moon.

...John
  _____

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 21:20:14 UNDEFINED

Having read twenty or so postings in this thread, I am left wondering..

What was it all about?

---

From: [email-masked] (Emory F. Bunn)
Date: 12 May 1995 06:38:19 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>moon'" - Stendhal in Memoirs of an Egotist, p. 92, Noonday Press.

I know most of you already know this, but in case anybody doesn't, let
me point out that this is not an accurate description of the phases of
the Moon.  Full Moon is full Moon the world around.

-Ted

---

From: [email-masked] (Carl J Lydick)
Date: 12 May 1995 06:47:17 GMT

Er, just how long ago did Stendhal publish that misinformation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [email-masked] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

---

From: David Tashima <tash>
Date: 12 May 1995 22:21:10 GMT

-- 

-dave

David Tashima		INTERNET: [email-masked]
Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, AK-40
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195

---

From: [email-masked] (David P Norwood)
Date: 12 May 1995 00:45:56 GMT

: -AP

I know, I should post a serious answer, but this thread is just too 
entertaining...

---

From: [email-masked] (DaveHatunen)
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 18:10:51 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Larry Smith USG <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>
>>I've addressed the point, Larry.  You stated:

[...]

>>	2)  The moon has a two-week day/night cycle.
>
>That is a two week day, and a two week night.

Given the definition of "cycle", it is a stretch to claim it means what
you say. It may have been what was meant, but it is not what it says.

>>These two claims are consistent with each other, and both are wrong.  Why not
>>admit you posted incorrect information rather than claiming that your bullshit
>>was a typo?
>
>Because there is a world of difference between "bullshit" and blooper.
>But obviously, that's lost on you.  You must think John F. Kennedy was
>a jelly donut, too.  If you want to believe I think the above, fine.
>Whatever makes you feel better.  I am more interested in the fact that
>this newsgroup is far more interested in scoring points rather than
>debating them.

Carl and I are interested in science. What you posted was out and out
wrong, and has no place in a newsgroup purporting to deal with science
and technology.  Anyone can mispost. God knows I've done it often
enough, especially early on a Monday morning. But I hope I'm not afraid
to say "Oops, sorry about that".

-- 

    ********** DAVE HATUNEN ([email-masked]) **********
    *     Daly City California: almost San Francisco      *
    *   but with parking and lower car insurance rates    *
    *******************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Larry Smith USG)
Date: 22 May 1995 14:05:58 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>	1)  The moon rotats once per fortnight;

That's a blooper.

*plonk*
-- 
Larry Smith --- My opinions only.           [email-masked]/[email-masked].
"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into
error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling
into error." - U.S. Supreme Court.  And we are doing a damned poor job of it.

---

From: [email-masked] (Carl J Lydick)
Date: 22 May 1995 15:37:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Larry Smith USG) writes:
=
=In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Carl J Lydick) writes:
=
=>I've addressed the point, Larry.  You stated:
=>	1)  The moon rotats once per fortnight;
=
=That's a blooper.
=
=>	2)  The moon has a two-week day/night cycle.
=
=That is a two week day, and a two week night.

SO you'r asking us to believe that you don't know what the word "cycle" means
rather than that you got the length of the cycle wrong.  Either way, you're
clueless, especially given that you claimed that your bullshit was what any
well-educated person would know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [email-masked] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

---

From: [email-masked] (DaveHatunen)
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:52:40 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Neil Ferguson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>< lots of unnecessary arguing deleted >
>
>    I don't suppose there's any way you pair could transfer this 
>to email? It gets boring seeing you constantly going around in 
>circles...

Do you always keep reading stuff you find boring? Why?

Are you sure you are qualified to speak for everyone about what is
boring? Would you favor periodic votes in each newsgroup to decide
which threads are boring?

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Neil Ferguson)
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 07:54:04 GMT

< assuming _I_ remember, any further comments I make will be by 
  email >

It wasn't me!