From: Paul
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 06:37:16 GMT

[...] My theory is that the device produces a
short flyback high voltage pulse that drives the crud that accumulates
around the electrode of a carbon battery back into the stuff they 
are originally filled with which has the purpose of neutralizing this
accumulating crud.  Shows you how much I remember all the details of 
a carbon battery -- Huh!.  Anyway, if that happens the battery works 
again (crud free) for awhile.  The accumulation of course is just below
some critical threshold value so it isn't long (3minutes in this case)
before the stuff again does it's thing.   This probably the main reason 
that carbon cells do not give the energy that alkalines do.  [...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
From: Jay
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 02:22:10 GMT

[...] the NBS found that Newman's device was a "dead"
battery being switched on and off, so that "peak power" was being
detected, while average power was close to zero.  You can achieve the same
effect from switching a dead transistor radio on and off--even with a dead
battery, you can get a few seconds of sound.  Physically, I believe the
electrons bunch near the terminals, but I'm not a physicist.  Anyhow, such
a device does not violate the First or Second Laws.  The claim that more
energy came out than went in came from comparing apples to oranges-- peak
power versus average power.  Can't do that.[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike
Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 23:42:36 +0100

[...] I hesitate to offer serious comments because all I know about this
device is what I've read over the last 8 hours on the 'net.

        Nonetheless, I suspect that if this unit were to produce
more power than it took in, it would be pretty simple to demonstrate 
that point, and it would be in the best interests of the inventor
to do so. Respecting his need for privacy, a simple read of the inputs
and outputs of the 'black box' would be a nice way to start. The article
that was posted suggested that this was done, and that the device
was found to be running at 70-something percent, not 100+ percent.
While they hedged and said that internal friction might have been 
chewing up some of the power, this strongly suggests that the device
could not have 'charged' the batteries during the earlier test. I have
to conclude, based on this limited information, that the battery
test was nonsense (probably related to the way the battery was
initially discharged, battery memory effect, thermal effects, and 
what-have-you) and that the measurement test showed it do be
a fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dirk
Date: Fri., 18. Feb. 94

   [...] Concerning the batteries: I found an article in an electronics
   magazine which described a battery charger which is based on _pulsed_
   DC. This device is far more efficient than the normal DC chargers --
   you can charge accumulators which are exhausted to a point
   where you can't recharge them with an ordinary, unpulsed DC device.
   This could be the connection between the batteries and the Newman
   device, although not everything in this story is clear to me yet.
   [...]