You want to address my comments? Great!
Tell me -- and Vortex -- the output power of the engine. That's what
I'm asking. In fact, that's really ALL I'm asking.
If it's OU -- if it's doing that which "is not possible", in your words
-- what's the shaft horsepower with 20 watts of input power?
So it rotates a shaft at 100 RPM. What torque is it applying to the
shaft? Rotation rate by itself says nothing.
Absent either [EMAIL PROTECTED] or power out values, you're just blowing smoke.
You are advertising for investors on Vortex while failing to provide
vital information required to assess whether or not you've got
something. As I'm sure you realize, not everyone on Vortex is going to
realize just how vital the information is which you are leaving out.
Please stop doing that. Either provide the output power number, or stop
spamming Vortex.
JNPCo. wrote:
This is another post in which the input power is mentioned, but no
estimate of the output power is given.
The magician waves his hand and says, "Look how fast that thing over
there is spinning!" and you're not supposed to notice that he never
says anything meaningful about engine output.
For pumping water, it's not hard to compute net output power.
For engine experts, it's trivial; I'm sure Nolfe could do it in his
sleep.
He doesn't give the number. Ergo, it's a no-brainer that output
power doesn't exceed input power.
Dyno-tested BHP is very, very well understood and not hard to
measure. ANY claim about engine performance should include that value.
Nolfe doesn't mention it.
The post includes this:
>> "**Individuals who can help bring this technology into production**
>> **should contact:**
*
*
"help bring this into production" == "Give us money"
Beware: SCAM -- do not give these people money.
Dear Steve,
Who is Joseph Newman "scamming"?
Anyone who invests in his company, I suspect. Do you deny that you're
posting on Vortex, asking for investors?
You are strongly implying you have a perpetual motion machine of the
first kind. You do realize that, right?
An engine which does more useful work than power in is violating COE.
If you are not claiming that, then just what /are/ you claiming?
Those individuals who are serious about the technology are invited to
see it, inspect it, and test it for themselves using their own "experts"
and their own equipment.
IF -- and ONLY if -- they are convinced that the technology is doing
precisely what Joseph Newman says it is doing -- then, at their option
they can discuss the possibilities of investing in production of the
technology.
Please explain how that is "scamming" anyone?
Asking for investors in a public forum while withholding the information
which would allow anyone to actually assess your performance looks a lot
like a scam.
In fact, I resent your accusation that Joseph Newman is "scamming" anyone.
I challenge you to PROVE it is a "scam" since you are very loose with
your fallacious accusations.
More than 30 scientists and engineers who HAVE seen it, inspected it,
and tested the technology signed legal affidavits that the technology
operates as stated.
Another challenge to you:
I challenge you to cite the specs (name/make/model) for a conventional
motor that can rotate a 1,250-lb shaft at 100rpm AND continuously pump
water using a 375-lb positive displacement pump AND continuously
recharge the batteries (or any externally-applied input electrical
source) AND run cool during the entire 1 hour test .... performing all
of the above on 20 watts or less.
Please, sir, provide the name, make, and model of a conventional motor
that can meet or exceed the above-described performance.
Funny -- all those words and no statement of output power.
Rotation rate, but no statement of torque.
You say it "pumps water" but you don't say how much, or up how big a
rise. Without that information, the claim is empty.
Nothing which would allow an actual assessment of the insinuation that
the engine is OU.
Please provide the output power, and the torque produced at your cited RPM.
Thanks!
Evan Soule'
JNPCo./NECorp.
