PDA

View Full Version : The energy machine of Joseph Newman



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2004-Sep-09, 05:42 PM
This is fake right?

http://www.josephnewman.com/

saw a program on the Discovery Channel about his invention. No validity to it, right?

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2004-Sep-09, 05:48 PM
just answered my own question- crackpot

Demigrog
2004-Sep-09, 06:33 PM
I'd say more of a pyramid scammer than a crackpot; he's been peddling this thing for so long now--"Get ready for the big demo next <insert arbitrary month>"-- that there is absolutely no way he is merely a deluded crackpot. You can get some rather lengthy discussion by googling, and randi.org has had plenty of commentary.

BlueAnodizeAl
2004-Sep-09, 06:50 PM
The 11,400% Efficiency screams crackpot. You can only ever have 100% effeciency in a perfect isentropic world. And at best 99.999% in the REAL world, everything has a certain measurable amount entropy.

Roy Batty
2004-Sep-09, 07:01 PM
'God awoke me at 4:00am this morning and told me how
to capture every bit of the massive back-spike
and simultaneously charge the battery pack.'

I just hate :evil: it when that happens, especially on weekends!
:wink:

frogesque
2004-Sep-09, 07:44 PM
The bottom line is somewhere near the bottom of the page, namely:

The 8th Edition of The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman may be ordered by sending a check or money order for $150.00 to:

Sounds a bit pricey for paper to hang up in the little boy's/girl's room.

Eta C
2004-Sep-09, 08:15 PM
This guy is the poster child of Robert Park's book Voodoo Science. I recommend reading it for the full story. Basically all Newman's done is make a high voltage (about 2000 D-cell batteries connected in series), low current motor that really isn't all that efficient. He's been trying to market it for years. Of course one should have doubts about the motor's efficacy given that, as Park points out, Newman's house is still connected to the local power lines.

Gullible Jones
2004-Sep-09, 10:48 PM
The invention is a complete fake.

BTW, I might as well warn you not to trust anything on the Discovery Channel. It used to be good, but over the years it has gotten pretty crappy... :evil:

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 01:03 AM
:)

Actually, I believe Joseph Newman has what he claims ... and as verified by more than 30 scientists and engineers who actually DID test one or more of his prototypes -- unlike Mr. Parks.

I'd recommend that one visit his website at

http://www.josephnewman.com

and read the testimonials by physicists and engineers who have verified that the technology works as stated.

Moreover, if the technology works, then it is no more a violation of the Law of Conservation than a conventional nuclear reactor. Newman states that the technology produces "greater external energy output than external energy input." And he states that the difference is a result of the transference of mass/energy from one domain (from within the atoms of the conductor) to another domain -- as output mass/energy (or "massergy" as he terms it) measurable as electrical and/or mechanical energy.

"Greater external energy output than external energy input" is not the same as saying it "produces more than it consumes". The latter statement WOULD be a violation of the Law of Conservation, while the former is not -- if the system is indeed "converting" (actually transferring) mass/energy from one domain to another.

And if someone has a problem with Newman charging $150 for his book (which I don't) then read it at the library for free.

Parks has amply demonstrated that he neither understands Newman's technology NOR has a clue as to the real facts regarding Newman's long battle for a patent.

It's interesting that Robert Goddard was once called a quack and a liar by the major newsmedia of his day and by many of the so-called "experts" of the time, yet Goddard had one thing going for him that the quacks and naysayers did not: he was RIGHT and they were full of uninformed hot air.

I say: issue Newman his patent and let him stand or fall in the marketplace.

Gary

TinFoilHat
2004-Sep-10, 01:09 AM
If the device produces more energy output than it takes to run, why has Newman never performed the simple demonstration of connecting the input to the output (with appropriate regulation, of course) and producing a machine which runs itself forever?

It's amazing that he's always been just a few years away from mass marketing his technology (or, for that matter, producing a convincing demonstration of his claims) ... for decades.

The following is interesting reading to consider:

http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/biss.htm

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 01:49 AM
:)

Sure, I've seen the seriously outdated website you've mentioned --- and I'm not impressed.

I've read Newman's book and I am impressed. I'm also impressed with the reports of those scientists and engineers who HAVE seen and tested the technology. Newman has described why you cannot simply "feed the output back into the input" since: 1) the system's commutator has to be very carefully timed and 2) Newman's biggest challenge has been to capture the back-spike while preventing it from over-charging the batteries.

Ample evidence exists that the system produces greater external energy output than external energy input. Newman is now using 400 watts input to power his newest energy machine which is mechanically coupled to a Grainger PTO conventional generator -- which according to Grainger Corp. requires over 3000 watts input just to achieve the required rpms to provide useful electrical output.

Newman then loads that PTO generator with another 1,000+ watts from TVs, lights, and fans.

Bottom line: 400 watts input and over 4,000 watts output.

Issue him his patent and let's get on with it.

Gary

TinFoilHat
2004-Sep-10, 01:57 AM
I've read Newman's book and I am impressed. I'm also impressed with the reports of those scientists and engineers who HAVE seen and tested the technology. Newman has described why you cannot simply "feed the output back into the input" since: 1) the system's commutator has to be very carefully timed and 2) Newman's biggest challenge has been to capture the back-spike while preventing it from over-charging the batteries.

As a professional electrical engineer, I see several very easy ways to get around this limitation. I'd be happy to design you a device capable of getting around this problem. Provided that it would lead to a demonstration of a self-running machine, that is.

paulie jay
2004-Sep-10, 02:05 AM
For a good rundown on Joe Newman read Voodoo Science by Robert Park.

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 02:08 AM
:)

Terrific. Now we're making progress.

Since you're a "professional electrical engineer" your explanations of "several very easy ways to get around this limitation" is most welcome.

However, I would like to offer the suggestion that you actually see the actual operating parameters of the newest energy machine (for instance) before you provide your helpful explanations. But, that's obviously up to you.

I understand that other "professional electrical engineers" who "knew" they had viable "solutions" found that such solutions were actually non-solutions when confronted with the system's dynamics.

Gary

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 03:02 AM
:)

I've read Park's book. It seems as though Park is aspiring to be the Simon Newcomb of our Age.

I also found of interest the following post on AMAZON.COM regarding Park's book:

"COMMISSION AND OMISSION IN THE ROBERT PARK'S BOOK:

"Robert Park decries media bias favorable to Joseph Newman, yet Park clearly demonstrates HIS bias against Joseph Newman. I find Robert Park guilty of commission and omission in his book. As an example of commission, he is factually incorrect when he claims that Joseph Newman never finished high school. In fact, Joseph Newman completed his Junior year of college. Moreover, if failing to finish high school and becoming self-educated in science insinuates an inability to become a scientist, then Michael Faraday and Thomas Edison were not scientists.

"Park commits commission and omission when he states that Joseph Newman "rented the Superdome in New Orleans for a week, where thousands paid to watch him demonstrate his energy machine." In fact, Joseph Newman did not rent the Superdome. He was invited by two individuals in New Orleans who themselves rented the Superdome, and Joseph Newman spoke at their invitation. Park also fails to mention that Newman had requested the event be free and open to the public, but that Superdome management insisted in charging at least $1.00 per person. Joseph Newman refused to accept any admission monies from the more than 9,000 people who attended the event. Those monies were paid to and retained by the management of the Louisiana Superdome.

"Park claims that Joseph Newman's technology is in conflict with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Joseph Newman originally began his work in the 1960s specifically because he did not believe in "perpetual motion." The label "perpetual motion" was attached to his work by a patent examiner Donovan Duggan, who no longer works for the patent office, and whose "Knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities," according to a Federal District Court in Texas. [See Lindsey v. United States, Civ. Action Nos. TX-79-60-CA, TX-81-39-CA]. Park fails to mention that fact.

"Specifically, Joseph Newman has stated that his innovation produces "greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input." Another way of stating it: the external input energy PLUS the internal energy produced by Joseph Newman's technical process is EQUAL to the output energy. That process is totally in keeping with natural law.

"Park also fails to mention that more than 30 scientists and engineers have signed Affidavits attesting to the validity of Joseph Newman's work and that it is not in any way related to "perpetual motion." Most recently, a distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University [Dr. A. Swimmer, Ph.D.] has endorsed Joseph Newman's work as providing, for the first time, a mechanical model for the unification of the fields.

"The National Bureau of Standards test that Park mentions in his book has long been discredited, since -- among other deficiencies with respect to that faulty test -- those who conducted the test admitted to grounding the device even though their original schematic contained NO ground. Once again, Park fails to mention that fact in his book. (The A&E Network featured a special broadcast that documented such incompetence on the part of NBS personnel.)

"The original NBS test protocol schematic --- that was supplied by the NBS --- showed that the energy machine should NOT be grounded during testing. So why did the NBS later ground ALL tests conducted on the device? Why did they not have the curiosity to at least conduct ONE test without grounding the device?

"Park wrote a perversion of the truth when he said that Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson [of Microsoft lawsuit fame] engaged in "citing the laws of thermodynamics" with respect to Joseph Newman's technology. It was precisely because Jackson publicly admitted that he was technically incompetent to evaluate Joseph Newman's energy machine -- with respect to the laws of thermodynamics or on any other technical basis -- that Jackson ordered the appointment of a highly-qualified expert or Special Master with "superb credentials" (according to Jackson) to evaluate the energy machine.

"Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr., (a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office and a technical expert in the field of electrical engineering), specifically wrote in his Report: "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is overwhelming that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy: There is no contradictory factual evidence."

"According to a reviewer of Robert Park's book, Park states that it was disclosed in a Senate Hearing in Washington, D.C. that the Special Master was once a patent attorney for Joseph Newman, and thus the Special Master was engaged in a conflict of interest. That statement is yet another example of demonstrated bias and total ignorance of the facts. In fact, the Special Master was NEVER a patent attorney for Joseph Newman. Moreover, the Special Master testified under oath that he had NEVER met Joseph Newman.

"Actually, the above-mentioned reviewer is only compounding the distortion of facts initiated by Robert Park. In his book Park specifically claims that it was disclosed at a Senate Hearing that Joseph Newman once hired the services of an attorney that worked for the same law firm as William Schuyler, Jr. Park then concludes in his book that the Special Master only arrived at his endorsement of Joseph Newman's work as a result of a "conflict of interest."

"But in his book Park fails to disclose that William Schuyler, Jr. was nominated as Special Master by the Patent Office --- NOT by Joseph Newman. And more importantly, when Schuyler was nominated as Special Master, Joseph Newman went before the court and explicitly told Judge Jackson about his (Newman's) prior connection years earlier with another attorney who had also worked at the same firm employing William Schuyler, Jr.. Judge Jackson examined the facts and determined that there was NO "conflict of interest" and that William Schuyler, Jr. could proceed as the Special Master to the Court. Robert Park fails to mention that fact in his book.

"Knowing of Park's association with the American Physical Society (APS) -- many of whose members are on the receiving end of financially-lucrative federal grants and/or private investments for their proposed projects -- one can only speculate if his demonstrated bias could be also be the result of a conflict of interest on the part of Park. In fact, any proposed project connected with conventional energy research/production could be seriously jeopardized by a revolutionary technology that would totally replace our reliance on such conventional sources of energy.

"On January 13, 1920, The New York Times wrote that Robert Goddard, the pioneer of American rocketry, "lacked 'the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools,' and that space travel was impossible since a rocket could not move so much as an inch." In a similar vein, Robert Park's biased comments in his book are factually misleading and thus misrepresent the original work of Joseph Newman with respect to his new understanding of electromagnetism."

Gary

R.A.F.
2004-Sep-10, 03:15 AM
...he's been peddling this thing for so long now--

On his website, he says that he's invested 39 years of dedicated effort...

That's got to be some kind of record...Joseph Newman is the king of scam. :lol:

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 03:21 AM
No, Joseph Newman is not a "scam" --- and those responsible individuals who have seen, tested, and verified the technology underscore that fact.

Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr. has been one of many experts who have endorsed the validity of Joseph Newman's technology. And, as quoted by Federal Judge Jackson: "Schuyler's technical credentials are superb".

Gary
:)

Eta C
2004-Sep-10, 03:35 AM
Schuyler worked for the legal firm that prepared Newman's patent application. Basically, he worked for Newman which is why the Judge Jackson threw him out as a special master and called in someone else. This info came up at Newman's hearing in front of Congress, which is why Congress refused to grant his "energy machine" a patent. Can you say "Conflict of interest?" I knew you could. He may have claimed he never met Newman, but his name appeared on the patent application. I don't care how many Bibles he swore on, but it sounds to me like he perjured himself.

You claim the machine doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics and then go on to state that the machine creates "greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input." That sure sounds like it's creating energy out of nothing and therefore has an efficiency over 100% which most certainly is in violation of the laws of thermo. Read up on Carnot's work.

I don't care how many "eminent scientists" have said the work has validity. Frankly, if they've fallen for this quack, they lost any eminence they might have had. In any case, if I cared to I could probably produce a list of 3000 or more physicists who would state the obvious. Newman is not right.

As to the machine. Can you say "inductance" Do you even know what that means? Why did Newman refuse to let any outside organization test the machine and see if more energy came out that went in? Could it be that he knew he'd be exposed? Let NIST or another reputable government lab with no financial interest in the device test it.

Of course, you'll probably dismiss everything I say since I'm part of the conspiracy of physicists. Doesn't matter, I'm not really talking to you. Go ahead and post as long a message as you like, you'll still be "Not even wrong."

Edited once to modify a possibly inflammatory statement

russ_watters
2004-Sep-10, 03:40 AM
Newman has described why you cannot simply "feed the output back into the input" since: 1) the system's commutator has to be very carefully timed and 2) Newman's biggest challenge has been to capture the back-spike while preventing it from over-charging the batteries. But with 10x the output as input, he's got lots of energy to waste doing the necessary conversions. If that EE can't do it, I can - I'm a mechanical engineer so I could use that 4000w output to power a steam engine driving a generator. There's enough inertia in a system like that to manually switch the input from his electrical socket to the generator.

But ehh, lets save some effort: with 39 years of development (and he's been claiming for a substantial portion of that time that his model works), he's had ample time to figure out how to make the machine run itself. With that much extra energy, it should be trivially easy. Why is his house still on the grid: indeed, why isn't he selling energy back to the power company (the power company is required to buy it from anyone who can sell it)?

Regarding those testimonials from engineers - if any of them are worth the title "engineer," why hasn't one of them helped him turn his device into something useful?

Bottom line, garnolyan, it takes more than testimonials to convince a scientist/engineer: scientists and engineers require that you show them actual evidence. And given the amount of money his device has generated (in that way, its a success), I'm a little surprised he's not in jail yet. He's not just a hoaxster, he's a fraud.

And it was Newman who sued to get his application reviewed, won, then refused to submit his device for testing, right? I guess people who still give him money just don't do their homework.

Edit: I was wrong, he did eventually get his device tested by the National Bureau of Standards in support of his patent application. Can anyone guess what the result was...?

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 04:42 AM
Eta C wrote:

"Schuyler worked for the legal firm that prepared Newman's patent application. Basically, he worked for Newman which is why the Judge Jackson threw him out as a special master and called in someone else. This info came up at Newman's hearing in front of Congress, which is why Congress refused to grant his "energy machine" a patent. Can you say "Conflict of interest?" I knew you could. He may have claimed he never met Newman, but his name appeared on the patent application. I don't care how many Bibles he swore on, but it sounds to me like he perjured himself."

Actually, you have apparently made some inaccurate statements. I understand that Schuyler was over 100 attorneys in the law firm where one of the other attorneys was one of several patent attorneys for Newman -- but not the law firm that prepared his patent application. Moreover, Judge Jackson did not "threw him (Schuyler) out as a special master and called in someone else." On the contrary. Not only did Newman state UP FRONT to Judge Jackson and in advance of any Special Master proceedings of his (Newman's) indirect connection with Schuyler, but Judge Jackson formally stated that such an indirect association was NOT significant and that Schuyler (the patent office's nominee for Special Master) WOULD be the Special Master. Moreover, Judge Jackson said that Schuyler's technical credentials were "superb".

Another inaccurate statement:

"This info came up at Newman's hearing in front of Congress, which is why Congress refused to grant his "energy machine" a patent."

Congress never "refused to grant his energy machine a patent."

Two additional inaccurate statements you made: 1) "He [Schuyler] may have claimed he never met Newman, but his name appeared on the patent application." and 2) "Schuyler worked for the legal firm that prepared Newman's patent application."

Also, Newman did NOT object to his technology being tested --- but only in accordance with the groundrules established by the Court of Appeals. Those groundrules were later ignored by the NBS (now NIST -- see below).

Schuyler's name does not "appear on the patent application" --- moreover, his law firm had nothing whatsoever to do with the preparation of Newman's patent application.

Eta C wrote:

"You claim the machine doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics and then go on to state that the machine creates "greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input." That sure sounds like it's creating energy out of nothing and therefore has an efficiency over 100% which most certainly is in violation of the laws of thermo. Read up on Carnot's work."

The externally applied energy combined with the energy produced inside the motor/GENERATOR is EQUAL to the total output. That does not violate the law of conservation. Moreover, with the Newman energy machine there are TWO types of efficiency: PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY and CONVERSION EFFICIENCY. The latter can never exceed 100%, while the former has considerbly exceeded 100%.

Since the referenced page on Newman's website contains considerable detail regarding Newman's patent battle (and since, judging by some comments made here that information has not been read), I'll provide the information from the site's subpage:

"THE ORIGINS OF THE PATENT BATTLE

BACKGROUND:

1) Joseph Newman originally submitted his Patent Application in 1979 to an examiner (Donovan Duggan) who was later proven in a court of law to be technically incompetent in his own field of electrical engineering, and admitted under oath that he never really READ Newman's original patent Application.

2) That incompetent examiner told Newman that, "I will never be able to grant you a patent NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE YOU PRESENT." (So much for having an open mind to new technology.)

3) Newman then invited patent officials to come to his lab and see/test the technology for themselves. They refused.

4) Newman then invited patent officials to come to his lab ** at his expense ** and see/test the technology for themselves. They refused.

5) Newman then offered to bring prototypes to Washington, D.C. at his expense for them to test. They refused his offer.

6) Newman then transported an 800-pound unit on a flatbed truck over 1,000 miles to Washington D.C. (accompanied by Dr. Hastings), hoping that once he was they with the prototype they would agree to test it. They still refused.

7) The proven incompetent PTO examiner (Duggan) told Newman that his invention "smacked of perpetual motion." It was later determined in Federal Court that the examiner in question only briefly scanned his 70+ page Patent Application and admitted not having read it in detail.

8) Newman appealed the decision of the initial examiner to a committee of patent examiners. They told him: "We believe your invention works, but your technical description is inadequate."

9) So Newman appealed THAT decision to a still higher board of patent examiners. They told him: "We believe your technical description is adequate, but your invention doesn't work."

10) Newman repeatedly tried to get them to test one of his prototypes, but patent bureaucrats refused.

11) It was at that point that he went to Federal Court, whereupon a technical expert and Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr., appointed by a Federal Judge specifically concluded in his Report:

"Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court IS OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence."

Important note regarding Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr.:

It has been claimed by one who has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of the history of this case that "it was disclosed in a Senate Hearing in Washington, D.C. that the Special Master was once a patent attorney for Joseph Newman, and thus the Special Master was engaged in a 'conflict of interest.'"

The above statement is an example of demonstrated bias and a total ignorance of the facts. In fact, the Special Master was NEVER a patent attorney for Joseph Newman. Moreover, the Special Master testified under oath that he had NEVER met Joseph Newman.

Actually, the above incorrect statement relies upon an erroneous conclusion published by a physicist-author in his book. In that book the author specifically claims that it was disclosed at a Senate Hearing that Joseph Newman once hired the services of an attorney that worked for the same law firm as William Schuyler, Jr.. The author then erroneously concludes in his book that the Special Master only arrived at his endorsement of Joseph Newman's work as a result of a "conflict of interest."

But the physicist-author fails to disclose that William Schuyler, Jr. was nominated as Special Master by the Patent Office --- NOT by Joseph Newman. And more importantly, when Schuyler was nominated as Special Master, Joseph Newman went before the court and explicitly told Federal Judge Jackson about his (Newman's) prior connection years earlier with another attorney who had also worked at the same firm employing William Schuyler, Jr..

Judge Jackson examined the facts and determined that there was NO "conflict of interest" and that William Schuyler, Jr. could proceed as the Special Master to the Court.

The above is but one example of misleading statements and erroneous conclusions by the physicist-author who demonstrates that he has no understanding of Joseph Newman's technology.



With such a Report from the Special Master (the Federal Judge's OWN technical expert), Joseph Newman and his attorney were certain that justice would finally be served and the patent would issue to Joseph Newman.

Not so.

According the Rules of Federal Court Procedures, IF a Federal Judge dismisses the findings of his OWN court-appointed expert, the Judge is required by law to clearly state his reasons why he finds the findings of his own expert to be "clearly erroneous".

Well, that Judge (Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson) declared the findings of his OWN expert to be "clearly erroneous".

However to this very day we are STILL waiting for the judge's reasons!

The judge then turned around and charged Joseph Newman over $11,000 for the Report of the Special Master which the judge then proceeded to ignore.



THE NBS TEST: A BUREAUCRATIC FIASCO

Following the dismissal of the findings of the court-appointed Special Master --- (who was a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office [with "impeccable credentials" according to Federal District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson & who was nominated as Special Master by the Patent Office] who said that the "evidence was overwhelming" that the Newman motor/generator worked), --- Federal Judge Jackson (who appointed the Special Master) ignored his own Special Master's findings and imposed upon Joseph Newman a fee of $11,000.00 for the Special Master's Report. (Judge Jackson [of Microsoft case fame] was the federal judge hearing the case brought by Joseph Newman against the Patent Office.)

Judge Jackson then remanded the case BACK to the Patent Office --- Joseph Newman's judicial adversary --- for further action. It was then recommended by the Patent Office that the NBS formally test Joseph Newman's invention. Under the original NBS test conditions, Judge Jackson:

1) refused to order the NBS to prepare a testing program in advance of delivery of the energy machine to the NBS,

2) refused to permit Joseph Newman the right to have an expert present for testing,

3) stated that the test results would be issued in secret to Judge Jackson who said in the court record that "it (the results) will be held under seal until we determine that it ought to be exhibited to the public.", and

4) gave the NBS an unlimited period of testing.



ACTION BY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEAL IN SUPPORT OF JOSEPH NEWMAN:

On behalf of Joseph Newman, attorney John Flannery filed a WRIT OF MANDAEMUS with the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse Judge Jackson's unfair testing conditions in favor of those open testing procedures originally proposed by Joseph Newman.

On January 13, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a court order upholding Joseph Newman's WRIT OF MANDAEMUS against Judge Jackson. The higher court sternly rebuked Jackson for ordering "highly irregular" testing procedures that denied Joseph Newman the "fundamental fairness" guaranteed him by the Federal Rules. Jackson had originally ordered Joseph Newman to surrender his energy machine of the National Bureau of Standards so that Office might dismantle or even destroy it. Instead, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected ALL of Jackson's conditions for testing and supported Joseph Newman's position.

[As it turned out, this did no good, because Jackson/NBS/Patent Office did exactly what they wanted to do anyway.]

The higher Court criticized Judge Jackson for authorizing the destruction of Joseph Newman's invention and giving "no reason for barring petitioner from observing all the tests on his device, or from knowing in advance what tests are to be conducted (by the NBS)," The higher Court concluded: "Such procedures are highly irregular, and taint the evidentiary value of the test results."

SPECIFICALLY, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THAT:

1) the NBS tests be prepared in advance of the energy machine's delivery to the NBS,

2) Joseph Newman be present for testing as well as have an expert on his behalf,

3) the energy machine could not be dismantled or destroyed without Joseph Newman's consent,

4) the NBS would have 30 days AND NO MORE to test the energy machine, and

5) the results would be issued openly and publicly to all parties.



REFUSAL BY THE NBS TO FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS:

However, after Joseph Newman delivered his energy machine prototype to the NBS on January 24, 1986, the following happened:

During the authorized and original 30-day test period (from January 24, 1986 to February 24, 1986) the NBS did not conduct a SINGLE test! The Patent Office and the NBS asked the Court of Appeals to change its mind and let the NBS dismantle and destroy the energy machine.

On February 12, 1986, for the second time, the Court of Appeals said "NO: The NBS's representative, Dr. Hebner, has not attested to his inability to test the device, or that its structure is concealed, or that a test program cannot be reasonably conducted to ascertain whether the device performs as disclosed in the patent application and "on reconsideration, we affirm the prior order."

The NBS still refused the test the energy machine and to run a single test unless they were permitted to destroy the invention. They told the Court of Appeals BEFORE they ran the test that Joseph Newman's invention was a hoax! (Hardly the comment of an "unbiased" testing agency.)

The NBS then offered dozens of excuses --- each of which Joseph Newman answered --- in an effort to run the (30 day) clock while they waited for permission to destroy the energy machine, e.g., the NBS insisted on communicating by mail, rather than by telephone. In another instance, the NBS required Joseph Newman to travel 1,000 miles from Mississippi to Maryland to move a single wire a single inch. Apparently the wire had come loose while the machine was in the possession of the NBS. Joseph Newman flew to Maryland and reconnected the loose wire, but the NBS still refused to test the energy machine or even tell Joseph Newman when or how they would test it.



GROUNDING THE DEVICE:

During the 1,000 mile trip to connect the wire by moving it one inch, an event occurred WHICH WOULD HAVE GREAT SIGNIFICANCE LATER ON.

The approximately 135-lb energy machine delivered to the NBS would --- if not restricted --- "pump" back-emf into the battery pack and thus proceed to overcharge and damage the batteries by shorting them out internally. Normally, Joseph Newman placed 4-foot fluorescent bulbs in the circuit to act as a "release valve" to reduce this back-emf into the batteries. Since it was inconvenient to carry 4-foot bulbs to the NBS offices in Maryland the day Joseph Newman traveled there from Mississippi to reconnect in several minutes the loose wire, Joseph Newman simply grounded the energy machine to shunt away the back-emf and prevent it from damaging the batteries.

What is most ironic is that NBS officials saw Joseph Newman GROUND the energy machine and they ASSUMED that he ALWAYS grounded it --- even for testing!

The NBS officials were not interested in mastering Joseph Newman's technical process and understanding the principles involved.

Instead --- like "monkey see, monkey do" --- they later grounded the energy machine during ALL of their secret testing of the later confiscated energy machine (see below). This action would have important ramifications with respect to the validity of the actual NBS test.

[It should be added that Joseph Newman has NO intention of "educating the NBS personnel." They were supposed to be the experts; Joseph Newman's attitude was, "Let's see what the 'experts' do."]

Moreover, before the NBS ran any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney sent the NBS a NON-GROUNDED schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine.

And the reader should be reminded that over five years earlier Joseph Newman transported an 800-pound unit from Mississippi to Maryland and asked the NBS to test the device. [That was done shortly after he had filed his original Patent Application.] The NBS refused to even look at the unit!

In addition, since Joseph Newman has over 30 Affidavits from physicists, electrical engineers and electrical technicians attesting to validity of the machine while the Patent Office had NOT ONE affidavit to the contrary, Joseph Newman's position was that the Patent Office's refusal to grant him a patent was groundless.

ADDITIONAL REMINDER: early in the application process Joseph Newman was told by a patent office examiner "Mr. Newman, we believe that your invention works, but your technical description is inadequate." Joseph Newman appealed this decision and was informed by the next higher examiner: "Mr. Newman, we believe that your technical description is adequate, but your invention does not work."

It was at that point that Joseph Newman initiated his lawsuit in the Federal Court against the Patent Office.



THE CONFISCATION OF THE ENERGY MACHINE BY THE NBS
AND VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS:

Well, the "experts" at the National Bureau of Standards did nothing during the court-ordered-and-authorized-30-day-test-period that expired on February 23, 1986.

Thus, on Monday, 10:30AM on February 24, 1986, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, appeared at the Maryland headquarters of the National Bureau of Standards where the energy machine was being held. Armed guards met John Flannery and refused to permit him to secure and return Joseph Newman's property. Mr. Flannery was informed that he had until 12 noon of that day to appear at an emergency meeting in Federal Judge Jackson's courtroom. Should Flannery fail to appear, Jackson would immediately issue a warrant for his arrest.

Attorney John Flannery did appear in the courtroom of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson by 12 noon. He was promptly informed by Judge Jackson that the energy machine of Joseph Newman was NO LONGER THE PROPERTY OF HIS COURT and that it was now under the COMPLETE CONTROL of the National Bureau of Standards and that the invention would NOT be returned to Joseph Newman --- even after the agreed-upon 30-day NBS test period had expired. Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery then asked Judge Jackson to remove himself as the Judge in the case because of demonstrated personal bias and prejudice. Jackson denied that he was prejudiced and refused to tell Joseph Newman what authority permitted the Judge to violate the Court of Appeals Order (see above).

As Joseph Newman said, "Since when in this country can a court take away a person's property, seize it without even a hearing and in violation of a standing order from an appellate court? Something is very wrong here."

On March 3, 1986, as a result of the Court's questionable procedures, Joseph Newman made an Affidavit in support of a motion to disqualify Judge Jackson for his demonstrated bias and prejudice. On March 7, 1986, the District Court held a status conference to consider giving the NBS more time to test the energy machine in violation of the original 30-day time limit authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Immediately before the status conference began, Jackson's law clerk handed Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery an order denying Joseph Newman's motion to disqualify Judge Jackson as insufficient, but without any discussion as to why the pleadings were factually insufficient. Judge Jackson then held attorney John Flannery in contempt for merely mentioning the pending motion to disqualify him. Jackson then gave the PTO/NBS until June 26, 1986 to test the energy machine --- 150 DAYS AFTER THE ENERGY MACHINE WAS ORIGINALLY DELIVERED.

Joseph Newman could not financially afford to be present with counsel and expert for the 12-hour workdays the NBS "claimed" they worked each day on testing the energy machine. It would have cost Joseph Newman over $60,000 to attend the tests and is one of the reasons that the U.S. Court of Appeals authorized the original 30-day test period limit. Former PTO Commissioner Mossinghoff misappropriated $100,000 to run the unprecedented tests which were in violation of the original order of the U.S. Court of Appeals. And according to the Patent Office, the tests cost approximately $75,000.00.

Although Joseph Newman has the "right" to attend the later, unauthorized tests on his now-confiscated energy machine, it was a "right" that he could not financially afford to exercise. Joseph Newman is not a large corporation. He is an inventor who lives by what he invents. Worse, the Patent Office said that they expect Joseph Newman to reimburse the Patent Office for ALL NBS tests!

IT IS, IN FACT, JOSEPH NEWMAN'S POSITION THAT ALL PTO/NBS/JUDGE JACKSON ACTIONS TAKEN AFTER THE FEBRUARY 24, 1986 CONFISCATION WITHOUT-DUE-PROCESS OF HIS PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As a result of that position and of the expense in attending 90 additional days of testing, Joseph Newman did NOT IN ANY WAY wish to appear to endorse the NBS proceedings by being present for their so-called testing. Also, it should be noted that BEFORE the NBS ran any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, forwarded to the NBS a schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine. It plainly showed NOT to connect the energy machine to ground.



*****************************************


MOST IMPORTANT: Prior to conducting their "testing," NBS personnel issued their OWN test/wiring schematic protocol: IN THEIR OWN TEST PROTOCOL DIAGRAM, THE ENERGY MACHINE WAS NOT GROUNDED!


*****************************************



HOWEVER: IN THE ACTUAL TESTS THEY FINALLY CONDUCTED, THEY GROUNDED THE ENERGY MACHINE FOR EVERY SINGLE TEST!

[One would think that they would have had the curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the device.]

Prior to the expected release of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) test (conducted by three individuals) results on June 26, 1986, Joseph Newman issued a national press release --- sent to over 1,500 members of the press --- which predicted that the NBS test results would be negative and that a "mockery of justice is expected to continue in the chambers of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson."

On June 26, 1986, the NBS unsurprisingly said that Joseph Newman's device did not work. Moreover, Jackson set a trial date for December 8, 1986. (Up to this point, Jackson had held a series of expensive hearings to determine if a trial was warranted. Jackson refused to relieve himself from the case due to bias, and Jackson refused to give Joseph Newman a trial by jury. In fact, a Patent Office attorney once told Joseph Newman's attorney, "We would hate to see this case tried by a jury.")

It is ironic that as a consequence of the Patent's Office disregard of the Court of Appeals requirement that the NBS notify Joseph Newman of what tests they intended to run, Joseph Newman did not know how the NBS "tested" his machine until AFTER the NBS issued its report.

Consequently, Joseph Newman discovered that the NBS DID NOT ACTUALLY TEST HIS INVENTION AT ALL.



PROVEN EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS NBS BIAS AGAINST JOSEPH NEWMAN'S TECHNOLOGY:

In one of his press releases, Joseph Newman writes: "In his April 9, 1984 Statutory Declaration (nearly two years earlier) before a Federal Court, page 10, NBS expert Jacob Rabinow claimed the following: 'It is my opinion (that) since Mr. Newman does not use a tightly-coupled iron structure around his armature, that the efficiency of his motor should be very low when used purely as a motor.'"

Following the release of the June 26, 1986 NBS Report (which has been challenged by Dr. Roger Hastings and other scientific experts), NBS spokesman Matt Heyman boastfully stated to the newsmedia that: 'the energy machine invention was so inefficient that if one wanted to operate an ELECTRIC FAN, then don't use the Newman Invention hooked to a battery, but rather use a simple conducting wire from a battery to a conventional motor.' The above two statements by NBS representatives Rabinow and Heyman are ESPECIALLY IRONIC because on July 30, 1986 --- in conjunction with his appearance before the Senate Subcommittee Hearing --- Joseph Newman demonstrated his latest, portable energy machine prototype which operated as a MOTOR (without Rabinow's 'tightly-coupled iron structure around the armature') to power a home-appliance ELECTRIC FAN at an efficiency rate that proved the Patent Office and the NBS dead wrong. Again."



SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES IN THE NBS TEST:

Dr. Roger Hastings, Senior Physicist with a major research corporation concluded that the Patent Office's trial expert, the National Bureau of Standards --- the preeminent national testing laboratory --- failed to measure the energy in Joseph Newman's energy machine although it had the energy machine for 150 days. Dr. Hastings said that the NBS simply didn't know what they were doing. "The Court of Appeals gave the Patent Office 30 days to test the energy machine and required the Patent Office to tell us in advance what tests they were going to run during the 30-day test period authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals," said John Flannery, Newman's counsel. "But their expert, the NBS, kept the device 150 days and never told us what tests they were going to run during this 30-day period," he concluded.

In his evaluation, Dr. Hastings wrote that the NBS "results reflect a total lack of communication between the NBS and Newman or any other expert on Newman's technology." "If they told us what they were doing, we might have been able to avoid this waste of time and resources of Joseph Newman and the taxpayers as well," said Flannery.

Dr. Hastings said in his evaluation that the NBS allowed energy to escape from Newman Energy Machine and then, instead of measuring the output energy from the machine, they measured the power consumed by resistors "placed in parallel with the Newman motor, and called this power the output." Dr. Hastings concluded, "The primary r.f. (radio frequency) power was shunted to ground." As for measuring output, Hastings said the NBS's test was "equivalent to stating that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by a light bulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit."

"The NBS test results came as no surprise to me," said Joseph Newman, "I never expected that we would get a fair shake from the Patent Office's expert. What I am surprised about is how badly they did the job."

If the Patent Office and the NBS had complied with the Court of Appeals Order, Joseph Newman would have had a second opportunity to reinforce what was already obvious from the schematic diagram forwarded to the NBS --- that they should NOT connect Joseph Newman's energy machine to ground. Joseph Newman could have told the NBS that they were in error. But since the NBS and the Patent Office failed to give Joseph Newman any notice --- contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals Order --- of the tests they intended to run during the 30-day test period authorized by the Court of Appeals, the Patent Office and the NBS wasted Joseph Newman's resources and, by their estimates, $75,000.00 of federal taxpayer's monies misappropriated by former Patent Office Commissioner Mossinghoff.

The Republican Study Committee of Congress wrote in its May 9, 1986 REPORT: "Joseph Newman has received arbitrary and unfair treatment at the hands of the Patent Office and Judge Jackson. Congress should act because the Executive and Judicial branches have failed this American citizen. In light of Congress' oversight responsibilities and the fact that it is empowered by the Constitution to issue patents, the fact that the preponderance of evidence is in Joseph Newman's favor, and the fact that this invention is potentially beneficial to hundreds of millions of people, it is totally in order for Congress to grant Newman a patent and to allow the American marketplace to decide the value of this invention."


SUMMATION OF ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS:

GROUND: The NBS shunted energy from the Newman invention to ground without measuring and lost this energy.

RESISTORS: The NBS measured energy spent in resistors but not in or by Newman's invention.

Dr. Hastings: "In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to ground, thus eliminating the excess r.f. power from the system."

Dr. Hastings: "The NBS test is equivalent to stating that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by a light bulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit."



Principal points concerning deficiencies of the NBS test conducted by three individuals:

1) The input voltage into the energy machine was restricted. This is exactly opposite to the Technical Process taught by Joseph Newman who teaches that the input voltage should be maximized and the input current should be minimized. The three individuals at the NBS did the opposite.

2) As Dr. Roger Hastings wrote in his statement: "In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to ground." --- as a result, the excess output power was shunted away.

3) The NBS test did not measure the output of Newman's motor --- instead, he says, the tests measured the output of parallel resistors. As a result, Dr. Hastings says, "Their measurements are therefore irrelevant to the actual functioning of the Newman device."

4) No attempt was made by the NBS to measure the heat generated in the motor windings.

5) No attempt was made by the NBS to measure the mechanical output of the Newman motor --- only the electrical output.


FROM THE ORIGINAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS ....

The following are excerpts from the Deposition of U.S. Patent Examiner Donovan Duggan. Duggan is the original examiner who attached the label of "perpetual motion" to Joseph Newman's technology; Duggan is also the Examiner who told Joseph Newman that:

"I don't believe you will ever be issued a patent no matter what evidence you present."

[Note: On September 12, 1983, a Federal District Court in Texas found that Donovan F. Duggan's "knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities." (See Lindsey vs. the United States, Civ. Action Nos. TX-79-60-CA. TX-81-39-CA.) This Texas case involved the same Examiner Duggan and another inventor, Ralph Lindsey. The Federal District Court in Texas also found that Examiner Duggan rejected the patent application of Ralph Lindsey because he (Duggan) "misunderstood" the nature of the device and therefore "carelessly and incorrectly perceived" it to be a "perpetual motion machine." The Court found that Duggan summarily rejected the Lindsey application with a "cryptic comment" failing to provide "such clear and full disclosure of reasons for rejection as required by the regulations." The Court found that once Duggan was "convinced" it was a "perpetual motion machine," he "seemed unable to consider the design on its own merits." The Texas Court concluded that, as a result of Duggan's negligence, Lindsey failed to receive a patent that was later issued instead to a Mr. Davis for a similar device.]

I have posted these Depositional excerpts in Duggan's own words, because this is the human being who saw fit to pass judgment upon Joseph Newman technology. This is the individual who, in general, had been passing judgment on new technology that came before him. Had Newman the good fortune to have his technology evaluated by a more intellectually honest individual --- or at least a more intelligent one --- Newman may well have had his patent issued to him as early as 1980. By refusing Joseph Newman his pioneering patent, an injustice has been perpetrated which continues up to the present.

THE EXCERPTS FROM THE DEPOSITION:



Q: = ATTORNEY JOHN P. FLANNERY, II (attorney for energy machine inventor Joseph Newman)
A: = PATENT EXAMINER DONOVAN F. DUGGAN



Q: Mr. Duggan, would you please state your background, your education, and employment in the Patent Office, for the record?

A: Education, you want from college, is that it?

Q: Yes.

A: I graduated from the Naval Academy in 1957; served a limited time in the Marine Corps, was honorably discharged; started to work at the Army Map Service, I believe in 1963. In 1964 I transferred to the Patent and Trademark Office, after having enrolled at Georgetown University Law Center at night. I worked during the days, went to law school at night. I ultimately graduated from the University of Baltimore Law School, I believe it was 1969. I've been at the Patent Office ever since 1964.

Q: What is your current position and what are your current responsibilities?

A: I'm a primary examiner with a so-called expert rating. I examine applications for patents.

Q: Do you have full signatory authority?

A: Yes.

Q: When you say you have expert rating, what are you expert at?

A: That's, so to speak, a man in the job designation that involves a particular class of art. In this case it would be motor and generator structure.

Q: Have you published anything about perpetual motion machines yourself?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever given any addresses or speeches about the subject?

A: No.

Q: Have you received any formal training or education relating to perpetual motion machines?

A: No.

Q: How did you gain this experience in perpetual motion machines?

A: Like I say, I never considered myself an expert, or I wouldn't term myself an expert in perpetual motion. How that came to be, I'm not quite sure, to be honest with you.

Q: Are you familiar with Maxwell's Field Theory of Magnetism?

A: I don't recall right offhand.

Q: Could you explain what you understand the theory of hysteresis --- electrical hysteresis --- to be?

A: I don't quite understand that question.

Q: Well, you're familiar are you not, that there is an electrical principle known as hysteresis?

A: I've heard of it.

Q: Do you know anything about it?

A: --- with magnetism --- it's associated with magnetism.

Q: All right. Do you know anything about it outside of what you just said, that it's associated with magnetism?

A: I --- I've --- I may know something about it.

Q: Could you define the term?

A: It's sort of a --- no --- I don't think I can, at the moment. Not off hand.

Q: Do you know what relationship, if any, it bears to magnetism?

A: I believe that over a certain cyclical magnetic --- for example cycling something from a magnetic field, it would tend to exhibit hysteresis. For example, iron to some extent can be magnetized by the hysteresis effect. Is that what you have in mind?

Q: Yes sir. Can you explain the theory more completely than that to me?

A: Not at the moment. I'd have to go to a textbook.

____________________________________________
(end of document)

Fortunately, Duggan is no longer with the patent office."

Sorry for the lengthy segment, but considering the inaccurate statements made, it has seemed appropriate.

Gary

:)

gritmonger
2004-Sep-10, 04:59 AM
"Fortunately, Duggan is no longer with the patent office."

Sorry for the lengthy segment, but considering the inaccurate statements made, it has seemed appropriate.

He (Duggan) isn't an expert in perpetual motion machines because they don't exist. Neither is anyone else on this planet an expert in a mythical construct: there are really no UFO experts, no bigfoot experts, no psychic or telekinesis experts, no dragon anatomy experts, or anything else of their ilk, because they all refer to mythical, unproven, and speciously reasoned unsupported cojecture. There are experts in the myths themselves:a bigfoot myth expert, and that is about all. No bigfoot has been studied, no UFO captured, no perpetual motion machine hooked up to power even a single house.

If you insist that there still is such a designation, then I immediately lay claim to the title of "Expert in Right Handed Ventriloquist Automobiles." You are free to question me about them, but not to question my expertise.

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 05:04 AM
Russ wrote:
"But with 10x the output as input, he's got lots of energy to waste doing the necessary conversions. If that EE can't do it, I can - I'm a mechanical engineer so I could use that 4000w output to power a steam engine driving a generator. There's enough inertia in a system like that to manually switch the input from his electrical socket to the generator."

As a general suggestion, I would recommend that one provide specific technial recommendations for "improvements" AFTER he/she has seen the technology in operation and thus has firsthand experience with its requirements.

Russ wrote:
"But ehh, lets save some effort: with 39 years of development (and he's been claiming for a substantial portion of that time that his model works), he's had ample time to figure out how to make the machine run itself. With that much extra energy, it should be trivially easy."

No, it is not easy. In fact I understand that it is very difficult given the significant back-emf produced as the system also outputs both electrical and mechanical energy. Many have attempted to "collect" that back-emf and thus obviate the timing problem by attempting many types of commutator designs --- from electronic to even vacuum tube. But the back-emf has fried both types of commutator designs. A mechanical system (so far) appears to remain the most practical.

However, I would say that with all the supposed "expert advice" floating around out there, it should be TRIVIALLY EASY to simply verify by using oscilloscopes/amp/volt meters that the external output exceeds the external input. That is the specific claim that Newman has made from the very beginning.

Russ writes:
"Why is his house still on the grid: indeed, why isn't he selling energy back to the power company (the power company is required to buy it from anyone who can sell it)?"

You assume he owns his house. Frankly, with the hundreds of thousands he has spent in his patent battles, I'd be suprised if he did own his own home. From what I can ascertain, with the limited financial resources available to him, he puts whatever he can into building newer and larger units --- and his latest system is capable of providing 4000 watts output with a 400 watt input.

Russ wrote:
"Regarding those testimonials from engineers - if any of them are worth the title "engineer," why hasn't one of them helped him turn his device into something useful?"

I understand that engineers and scientists have helped him, e.g., the support and endorsement of the Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University --- Dr. Al Swimmer. Newman is focused on raising the capital to begin production of the technology. I understand that the principal obstacle to securing capital is that investors want to be assured of patent protection --- which he does not have. However, Newman has stated he will continue his battle for a patent for the technology.

Russ wrote:
"He's not just a hoaxster, he's a fraud."

My response:
I challenge you to PROVE that he is a "hoaxster" and a "fraud".

Russ wrote:
"And it was Newman who sued to get his application reviewed, won, then refused to submit his device for testing, right? I guess people who still give him money just don't do their homework."

Newman did not "refuse to submit his device for testing". See my earlier comment, above regarding the NBS fiasco.

Russ wrote:
"Edit: I was wrong, he did eventually get his device tested by the National Bureau of Standards in support of his patent application. Can anyone guess what the result was...?"

The report of the botched NBS "test" is provided above.

Gary
:)

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 05:07 AM
Duggan's ignorance was exceeded only by his stupidity.

Gary
:)

paulie jay
2004-Sep-10, 05:10 AM
Well gee whiz, that's one heck of a long post about nothing.


Just because Newman doesn't believe it to be a perpetual motion machine doesn't mean he isn't violating the laws of thermodynamics.

The man is a fraud. If you've invested money him then you're gonna be a long time waiting for miracles.

edited to add - And don't bother throwing out challenges for people to prove that he is a fraud. The onus is on him to prove that he can do what he claims to be able to do. End of story. Until he can do that every cent he takes from gullible people is from a fraudulent act.

gritmonger
2004-Sep-10, 05:12 AM
Duggan's ignorance was exceeded only by his stupidity.

Gary
:)
Ah. Another ad hominem. Not accusatory of the group, just a logical fallacy: dismissing him on unrelated grounds and one-sided testimony. And I also find it suspect that so many points NEEDED TO BE IN ALL CAPS. Shouting does not help get a point across. There are bold tags and italics tags for emphasis.

It's funny, but plenty of other ideas have had plenty of success finding volunteer households willing to hook their living spaces to solar, wind, hydrothermal, hydrogen fuel-cell, propane, and even 500 lb flywheels buried in the ground on their properties. Why is it so darn difficult for him to simply prove his design? If he's already filed, and it works, and he can prove it through a demonstration of powering one house for a year, he'd have prior art supporting his contention for being the first patent holder.

Why does he let such a simple element stop him when everyone else simply puts "Patent Pending" on their items? There has to be one of the people who believes in him - say you or a friend of yours - who would be willing to do this.

And I also hereby formally lay claim to the aforementioned title.

paulie jay
2004-Sep-10, 05:14 AM
Out of fairness I feel I should re-post what I added to my earlier post by way of edit.

edited to add - And don't bother throwing out challenges for people to prove that he is a fraud. The onus is on him to prove that he can do what he claims to be able to do. End of story. Until he can do that every cent he takes from gullible people is from a fraudulent act.

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 05:35 AM
Pauli wrote:
"The man is a fraud. If you've invested money him then you're gonna be a long time waiting for miracles."

edited to add - And don't bother throwing out challenges for people to prove that he is a fraud. The onus is on him to prove that he can do what he claims to be able to do. End of story. Until he can do that every cent he takes from gullible people is from a fraudulent act.

No, Pauli, Joseph Newman is not a fraud. And I will challenge anyone who calls him a fraud to prove it. In fact, if you truly feel so strongly that he is a "fraud" then one would expect you to be willing to report his "fraudulent activities" to every appropriate legal governing authority.

But will you actually do that? I doubt it.

Moreover, Newman has repeatedly proven that his technology works as claimed. However, some would rather simply sit back and claim it is "impossible" or "perpetual motion" or "fraudulent" rather than see and test it for themselves.

However, there have been scientists and engineers who did test the technology for themselves and subsequently signed legal Affidavits attesting to its operability as claimed.

Gary

:)

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 05:41 AM
Duggan's ignorance is a documented fact.

Duggan's stupidity is my opinion (shared by others).

Additionally, a Federal District Court in Texas found that Donovan F. Duggan's "knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities."

That's a significant understatement.

Gary
:)

gritmonger
2004-Sep-10, 05:47 AM
Duggan's ignorance is a documented fact.

Duggan's stupidity is my opinion (shared by others).

Additionally, a Federal District Court in Texas found that Donovan F. Duggan's "knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities."

That's a significant understatement.

Gary
:)
It's taken to the tack of addressing his "ignorance" of perpetual motion machines; something of which everyone is guilty, including Newman.

So, still no addressing of my other points? That perpetual motion machines still don't exist, so that there is no-one capable of expertise in a mythical construct? That Newman has simple routes to proving that his machines work? That these routes have been exploited by alternative energy scientists for decades, yet are somehow closed to him?

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 05:59 AM
GM wrote:
"It's taken to the tack of addressing his "ignorance" of perpetual motion machines; something of which everyone is guilty, including Newman"

It is you who has introduced the topic of Duggan's "'ignorance' of perpetual motion machines."

Duggan's Deposition indicates that he is ignorant of some fundamental aspects of electrical theory:

Q: Are you familiar with Maxwell's Field Theory of Magnetism?

A: I don't recall right offhand.

Q: Could you explain what you understand the theory of hysteresis --- electrical hysteresis --- to be?

A: I don't quite understand that question.

Q: Well, you're familiar are you not, that there is an electrical principle known as hysteresis?

A: I've heard of it.

Q: Do you know anything about it?

A: --- with magnetism --- it's associated with magnetism.

Q: All right. Do you know anything about it outside of what you just said, that it's associated with magnetism?

A: I --- I've --- I may know something about it.

Q: Could you define the term?

A: It's sort of a --- no --- I don't think I can, at the moment. Not off hand.

Q: Do you know what relationship, if any, it bears to magnetism?

A: I believe that over a certain cyclical magnetic --- for example cycling something from a magnetic field, it would tend to exhibit hysteresis. For example, iron to some extent can be magnetized by the hysteresis effect. Is that what you have in mind?

Q: Yes sir. Can you explain the theory more completely than that to me?

A: Not at the moment. I'd have to go to a textbook.

____________________________________________
(end of document)

Apparently the Federal District Court agreed that Duggan suffered from ignorance of fundamental electrical theory.

IMHO, the only "perpetual motion" is the perpetual stupidity of PTO bureaucrats who perpetually attempt to claim that Newman's technology is an attempt at "perpetual motion".

Gary

:)

gritmonger
2004-Sep-10, 06:04 AM
I read your anectdote. I don't remember a lot of terminology on the spot: that's why we have reference books. The most that testimony did was establish that Duggan wasn't an expert in a mythical device, which is no surprise. None of us is, or can make that claim without telling a lie. No one is an expert in perpetual motion machines. They don't exist, so expertise in a nonexistant item cannot exist either.

You still, third time here, have not explained why Newman hasn't pursued the route of getting a volunteer to hook his machine to their house. That would be proof enough, pulling them off the grid. This is the route followed by many alternative home energy system providers. Why is he the exception? Please reply to this specifically without for a third time pulling up Duggan and that one-sided brief testimony.

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 06:07 AM
Considering the discussion regarding the term "perpetual motion" and especially its relation to thermodynamics, I thought I would provide a short segment from Newman's writings:


HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

Regarding Nikola Tesla's dream of a "totally new source of power":

Tesla would only say that ".... the apparatus for manufacturing this energy and transforming it would be of ideal simplicity with both mechanical and electrical features." Tesla said, "The preliminary cost might be thought too high, but this would be overcome, for the installation would be both permanent and indestructible."

Of course, the disagreements between Einstein and Tesla over the nature of "atomic energy" are known. What is interesting as a speculation would be Tesla's view (were he alive) on the relationship between his proposed "totally new source of power" and the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how such would relate to Einstein's concept of E = mc^2. With such a speculation in mind, the following is offered:

NOTE:

The following is "out of context" from the detailed information featuring charts, diagrams, and photographs that are presented in Joseph Newman's fundamental book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman.

From the Chapter entitled, HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:

"....Heat is electromagnetic energy (consisting of gyroscopic massergies*). Gyroscopic massergies* (or electromagnetic energy) comprise all Matter. Alterations in the heat (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter cause a change in the amount of (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter in accordance with E=mc^2."


*Nomenclature note:

It's been said that "learning is a result of understanding which is a result of good communication which is a result of a consistent language which is a result of good nomenclature."

For over 30 years, Joseph Newman has referred to the fundamental 'entities' creating (electro)magnetic fields as "gyroscopic particles."

Over the past 14 years, some individuals have expressed to their problem with the word "particle(s)." That word sometimes causes them to wonder "to what "particle" the "gyroscopic particle" belongs?" Some individuals have wondered how does the "gyroscopic particle" relate to protons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc...

Several years ago, I began substituting the term "masergy" for "particle." More than anything it represents a 'refinement' of one aspect of Joseph Newman's paradigm. To employ a completely new word has the advantage of disassociating its old usage from previously used words and their connotations.... especially when Joseph Newman has described his "gyroscopic x" as being the fundamental unit out of which the larger units and sub-atomic "particles" are constructed.

The new term also immediately suggests the ongoing, simultaneous equivalence between "mass" and "energy" and that the important point (within the context of Joseph Newman's technology) is to focus on the word "gyroscopic," not the word "particle" or even the word "masergy."

A gentleman named Ben (with whom I've had several private email discussions) has acted as a "catalyst" to encourage me to pursue this new nomenclature.

Anyway, I have had a subsequent discussion with Joseph Newman about this issue of appropriate (and perhaps more explicit) nomenclature and he agrees with the new usage, with one slight correction (i.e., the addition of a second "s" to more explicitly indicate the "mass" involved). In other words, this "entity" is simultaneously both "mass" and "energy" --- and that its most important mechanical characteristic is its gyroscopic nature.

So, henceforth, it is suggested that the "gyroscopic particle" be referred to as the:

Gyroscopic Massergy.

-- ERS

To continue quoting (out-of-context) from Joseph Newman's fundamental book:

32.

"I shall now proceed to constructively refute the negative doctrines that are a result of the present "Three Laws of Thermodynamics."

A. FACTS:

1. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding of the relationship between heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) and Matter.

2. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding that there is an energy relationship other than the simplicity of Work = Force X Distance, Power = Work/Time, and Force = Mass X Acceleration.

3. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without any knowledge, understanding, or anticipation of Einstein's equation of E = mc^2.

4. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without an understanding of Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Inertia, Matter, and Planetary Motion.

32-B.
QUESTION: If none of these things were understood at the time that the Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived, how can these three laws be so "all encompassing" as to be capable of predicting --- on a seemingly "infallible" basis --- the "Doom of the Universe" and the "Total Impossibility of Perpetual Motion?" Those who made such predictions must have understood the mechanical workings of the Entire Universe.

QUESTION: Did they?

32-C.
The "First Law of Thermodynamics" (1850) states:

"Energy can be exchanged in the form of heat or of mechanical work, but its total quantity remains constant."

The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the most positive scientific statements ever made, although this was not the initial intent of this Law.

QUESTION: What does this Law say?

ANSWER: If one cannot destroy energy, this means that energy always exists. If energy always exists, one can always use it. The Facts have indicated to me that the gyroscopic particle composition of all Matter is totally in accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics since it appears that the energy (spin speed) of the gyroscopic particle cannot be consumed.

32-D.
The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" (1850):

The First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are incorrect!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics represents a conclusion concerning the use of heat, based upon primitive, 19th century mechanical devices. The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" may well apply to such primitive mechanical devices, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the implications of E = mc^2.

As I have demonstrated earlier, many of the 19th century scientists believed heat to be only the result of motion. They did not understand that heat was simply the conversion of Matter into gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) as implied by the brilliant work of Joseph Black. Nor did they realize that heat (consisting of gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy) was convertible into Matter. They were completely ignorant concerning E = mc^2. In their ignorance, they would have said that anyone claiming such a statement was stupid. In my opinion, Joseph Black would have readily accepted the implications of E = mc^2.

In 1824, Sadi Carnot published a paper entitled "Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat." Carnot had discovered that heat must flow "downhill," i.e., heat must change from high to low temperatures to perform work. Such a conclusion was based upon the observation of primitive inventions and has no real connection with the essential nature of heat or E = mc^2. Joseph Black understood the nature of heat as early as 1760 --- others did not.

By 1850, it was concluded throughout the scientific community that Carnot's discovery of a definite direction for heat flow laid the foundations for one of the basic laws of physics: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law was first formulated in 1850 by the German physicist, Rudolf Clausius, who stated, "It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature."

The essence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is this: heat will not flow of its own accord from a cold place to a hot one. Again, I repeat that this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the essence of heat and demonstrates a total lack of understanding that heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) which comprises all Matter and that E = mc^2.

In physics it is presently believed that this unidirectional flow of heat, as stated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, implies the "Doom (or heat death) of the Universe." I vigorously disagree with this unfounded statement! All of the facts now presented in science prove this close-minded statement to be totally incorrect! This negative statement has been an extreme hindrance to the diligent progress of science since it closes one's mind to creative thought and has succeeded in unjustly influencing young minds that were taught to accept it.

Electromagnetic energy is perpetually changing from energy to Matter and from Matter to energy. [While I fully realize that the use of the word "perpetual" violates current scientific taboos, I will do so anyway!] The gyroscopic entity I have described in this Book perpetually spins and travels at the speed of light in accordance with E = mc^2. Even if all physical Matter could become exactly the same temperature, the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) within Matter is still moving at the speed of light. Any Matter could still be caused to release its incredible electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy) composition!

A chain reaction could be induced within a mass the size of a planet, thereby causing the mass to release its electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy composition) at a rate as rapid as that of the Sun. The mass would then cause a source of heat greater than its surroundings which were retaining the major portion of their gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) composition within the physical boundaries of the materials. All heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter can release its gyroscopic massergies in the form of heat, light, electrical current, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic radiation, or in smaller quantities of its total physical form. However, it makes no difference in what form Matter is released, since it is always composed of gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy).

The reverse is also true: all gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) can be converted into physical Matter! Having a basic understanding of the ingenious properties of the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) composition of all Matter in the Universe, the mathematical law of probability tells me that the probability of the Universe undergoing a "heat death" is zero.

One of Joseph Black's important discoveries was that different substances have different capacities for absorbing or emitting heat (electromagnetic energy)!

EXAMPLE:

If 1 kg. of iron at 80 degrees C. is immersed in 1 kg. of water at 40 degrees C., then the equilibrium temperature is found to be 43.7 degrees C. In other words, the same amount of heat (electromagnetic energy) has resulted in a much greater temperature change in the iron than
in the water.

The same unfounded statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also used in present physics to have stamped the final label of "FUTILE" on the quest for "Perpetual Motion." I would agree that "Perpetual Motion" would be futile as long as one accepts the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as explaining everything in the Universe for all time. However, I challenge such validity. It is easy to recognize that in this sense, the Second Law has operationally been a deliberate attempt to close young minds who would be otherwise willing to question the "finality" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am sure that there are many who read this Book who have been so unjustly influenced. Please recognize that the conversion of physical Matter to electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) and from electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) back to physical Matter is "perpetual" throughout the Universe and this phenomenal energy change can be conceptually understood and technologically harnessed in the immediate future for the incredible benefit of humanity!

32-E.
The "Third Law of Thermodynamics" (developed 1888-1902):

In 1902, measurements of the heat reaction of various substances were examined, and it was found that the free energies experienced an increasingly small variation as the reaction approaches absolute zero.

This line of thought was initiated in 1848 by Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). Knowing that when cooled one degree from 0 degrees to -1 degrees C. a gas loses 1/273 of its pressure, Kelvin reasoned that at -273 degrees C., gas should have no pressure and he called -273 degrees C. "absolute zero". Scientists at the time further reasoned that if "cold" is simply the absence of "heat," then there should be a point when there is absolutely no heat. This reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of understanding that heat is actually electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) which comprise all Matter and that E = mc^2. [Kelvin's knowledge is valuable, however, in terms of designing my Pioneering Invention where atom unalignment is important since heat causes random motion and rapid atom unalignment.]

In accordance with the above concept regarding the absence of heat, the Third Law of Thermodynamics was proposed. It states that every substance known to man undergoes entropy, i.e., a measure of the availability of energy to perform work that approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero (-273 degrees C. or -459.69 degrees F.).

Einstein's equation of E = mc^2 and the work I have accomplished prove that this statement concerning entropy is totally incorrect.

Kelvin's results are explained by my prior discussion that heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) loss from Matter causes the atomic entities to demand a smaller area. This is why gases lose pressure at low temperatures since they are becoming a liquid state.

The concept that cold is the absence of heat should be corrected as follows: Cold is simply a condition of less gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) in Matter. As long as one has Matter, one still has gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy or potential heat). Matter at -459.69 degrees F. STILL contains tremendous electromagnetic energy (or heat if properly released) or vast quantities of gyroscopic massergies spinning at the speed of light. Only when Matter is gone, is all potential heat gone. The mechanical essence of E = mc^2 is the gyroscopic-action-massergy which is the basic building entity of all Matter.

32-F.
It is totally amazing to me that these three laws of thermodynamics have been so long accepted, knowing that their total premise is one of negativism which completely stops the creative thinking processes of a student who is motivated to question or discover a method for a better energy invention that would ultimately be of service to humanity. However, in spite of the negative intentions of those who developed it, THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROVES JUST THE OPPOSITE!

It is a most positive, scientific statement.

Although this may seem superficially paradoxical, I will make the positive statement that:

"there is NO PLACE in science that negativism should be allowed to exist!"

The entire history of science has proven over and over again that, whenever it has been thought that something was not possible, it later turns out to be possible. Therefore, as the facts have proven, science should put forth positive statements of hopes and dreams that will perpetually stimulate the creative processes of the human mind. In contrast, throughout my sincere, scientific efforts of nearly two decades, I have had to fight against many negative "scientific statements" that were and are wrong. Such injustice has not been unique to my efforts, but, on the contrary, it has been the common fate of most creative individuals throughout the History of Science......"

Joseph Newman


"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a PHYSICAL existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY


Gary
:)

AZgazer
2004-Sep-10, 06:08 AM
It really sucks that one person has the knowledge to improve the quality of life for so many people and won't share the fruit. Guess this gives a new meaning to "Knowledge is power." [-X

I'm surprised that with the potential world economy shaking technology that he has been advertising for 3 decades that TPTB or heck even Oil Barons of any nationality have allowed him to live. :o

gritmonger
2004-Sep-10, 06:14 AM
Considering the discussion regarding the term "perpetual motion" and especially its relation to thermodynamics, I thought I would provide a short segment from Newman's writings:

<snip>

*Sigh*

So, for a third time I am ignored in my questioning. No answer, no rebuttal, no reply, just more effluvium. No explanation for his failure to go to proof of concept, the next step in most inventions. No answer to why he has eschewed the route taken by almost all other alternative energy purveyors. Nothing.

Have your podium while I wade back to my post of watching from a distance; there is no discussion here; only spew.

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 06:35 AM
GM wrote:
"I read your anectdote. I don't remember a lot of terminology on the spot: that's why we have reference books. The most that testimony did was establish that Duggan wasn't an expert in a mythical device, which is no surprise. None of us is, or can make that claim without telling a lie. No one is an expert in perpetual motion machines. They don't exist, so expertise in a nonexistant item cannot exist either."

Duggan specifically claimed that Newman's technology was an attempt at "perpetual motion". As a patent examiner, Duggan's claim carries legal implications. If such an examiner attempts to make such a claim, then the legal presumption is that he can technically substantiate that claim. In order to make such a claim, Duggan would (presumably) need to have an understanding of what constitutes an attempt at "perpetual motion". However, Duggan had demonstrated that he lacked even the fundamental understanding of electrical theory to be capable of defining what was (or what was not) at attempt at a "perpetual motion" device.

GM wrote:
"You still, third time here, have not explained why Newman hasn't pursued the route of getting a volunteer to hook his machine to their house. That would be proof enough, pulling them off the grid. This is the route followed by many alternative home energy system providers. Why is he the exception? Please reply to this specifically without for a third time pulling up Duggan and that one-sided brief testimony."

Presumably, Newman would need an output greater than 4,000 watts to provide power to a standard home. 10kW comes to mind as being more realistic.

However, if one insists that hooking up his device to a house is the ONLY way it can be properly tested, then I would say such insistance is ridiculous. There is nothing magic about a "house".

Newman has mechanically coupled his present energy machine to the shaft of a conventional Grainger PTO generator. That generator, in turn, is producing useful electrical output upon which loads are placed.

The final challenge is to measure: 1) the electrical input and 2) the mechanical/electrical output.

The input to the system has been c. 400 watts and the output has been c. 4,000 watts (not including the back-emf spikes).

Using all their strength, for instance, two men can barely turn by hand the 1200-lb rotary shaft of the energy machine when no electrical input is applied. Yet, 400 watts input is capable of turning that 1200-lb shaft at 350+rpms and, despite pulley losses, the shaft of the Grainger generator will turn at over 800rpms providing electrical output sufficient to power lights, TVs, and home appliance fans. And, simultaneously as the system operates, it produces tremendous back-emf spikes.

Gary
:)

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 06:42 AM
AZ wrote:
"It really sucks that one person has the knowledge to improve the quality of life for so many people and won't share the fruit. Guess this gives a new meaning to "Knowledge is power."

What really sucks is that one person has the knowledge to improve the quality of life for so many people, is willing to share the fruit, but others are afraid to touch it because it might upset their paradigmatic applecart.

AZ wrote:
"I'm surprised that with the potential world economy shaking technology that he has been advertising for 3 decades that TPTB or heck even Oil Barons of any nationality have allowed him to live."

No need to kill someone and risk making them a martyr when you can simply deny them their basic rights to patent protection for the fruits of their labor.

Gary :)

AGN Fuel
2004-Sep-10, 09:11 AM
Just a couple of random thoughts....

if this motor works as advertised, but there are problems with the output simply being re-channelled as input into the same device, then why not just set up a series of them?

400 watts goes into machine 1, which produces an output of 4000 watts. This output is then split with 400 watts is directed into machine 2, while the balance is referred to a grid. Likewise, the output from machine 2 is split to the grid and machine 3 and so on ad infinitum. Eventually, you could have the entire energy output of the entire cosmos at your disposal from the input of a single battery....

Secondly, if Newman had so much trouble with the US patent system & courts, why didn't he try to develop it overseas? There's a whole big world out there and I am sure many countries would not be so 'blinkered' - in fact, I am sure the opportunity to trump the US in the energy stakes would be hugely appealing to a number of nations. If the machine worked, he would have a queue of world leaders beating a path to his door, cash in hand.

Surely it couldn't be that the whole idea is just a load of baloney? (Why am I thinking of the quote, "They laughed at Copernicus, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".) :wink:

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 11:11 AM
AGN wrote:
"if this motor works as advertised, but there are problems with the output simply being re-channelled as input into the same device, then why not just set up a series of them?"

If there one thing I've noticed, it's that if one has 50 people one can come up with 50 different ways to configure the technology. Newman has used his available resources to hand-build a system that proves the technology. And I understand that he remains focused on producing systems that can be machine-built, operate at far higher rpm tolerances, and provide energy as individual home systems.

AGN wrote:
"Secondly, if Newman had so much trouble with the US patent system & courts, why didn't he try to develop it overseas?"

Newman does have a patent in Spain, but not in Germany, France, or England. I understand that at one point he was in contact with a Spanish company that was interested in producing the technology. A production agreement was reached in principle with the company, but the company's legal advisors said that since there was no patent protection in France or Germany, that a General Electric of France could simply purchase a finished unit produced by the Spanish company, thereby taking advantage of the R&D costs expended by the Spanish company to bring the unit to production, and proceed to market a GE-product in France, Germany, etc. The Spanish company was also concerned that a French corporation could even import the GE-product into Spain and the only recourse of the Spanish company would be to sue GE and engage in a lengthy legal battle. Conclusion: the Spanish company decided not to pursue production until more extensive patent protection could be assured since its pockets "were not as deep as those of GE".

Gary

:)

TinFoilHat
2004-Sep-10, 12:57 PM
A simple thought experiment.

Assume that the Newman motor can only be run off a battery pack and not the output of a generator. (If it could be run straight off the rectified DC output of a generator, the self-running demonstration would be trivial.) Assume also that the mechanical output of the motor can drive loads significantly in excess of the electrical power consumed by the motor.

Connect the output of the motor to a generator driving a battery charger, charging a battery pack identical to the one driving the motor. The charging pack should be fully charged well before the driving pack becomes discharged. When the pack driving the motor becomes significantly discharged, switch the packs so that the pack previously charging is now powering the motor, and the pack previously driving the motor is now charging. The pack switching could be done manually, but it should also be feasable to arrange a setup using relays and a voltage trip to do the pack switch automatically. The setup should run until some part of the mechanism breaks - motor wears out, batteries won't take a charge anymore - which should take months or years, long enough to convince any skeptic of Newman's claims.

That's a crude, but effective way of getting around the problem of closing the loop. In theory it should be possible to design some solid-state power feed and replace the batteries with capacitor banks, but it would take a lot of experimenting with the motor to figure out just how to do that.

I'm really suprised that in all these years Newman has never arranged this type of demonstration. If I found I'd discovered a overunity motor, setting up a closed loop (no matter how clunky and crude) if for no other reason than to make sure I wasn't fooling myself.

Eta C
2004-Sep-10, 01:27 PM
OK Gary, no more beating around the bush.

1) Does the machine produce more power than is put in?
2) If so, why isn't one attached to every house in the world?

Short answers are all that's required. No screeds about the greed of oil companies, the evil of physicists, etc. Give me references to the published papers that document the methodology of the tests, the full data on all the runs, the statistical and systematic errors. No, I'm not going to pay 150 for Newman's book. I want peer reviewed, independent investigations. If you can't produce these, then we have nothing to discuss.

Eta C
2004-Sep-10, 01:36 PM
Better yet, here's another question for you Gary. Do you have a Newman machine connected to your house? If not, why not? Even if it's not in production you should be able to get a prototype.

Of course I can already predict the answer. The EVIL OIL COMPANIES AND PHSYICISTS WON'T LET IT GO INTO PRODUCTION. Sigh. The brain of the conspiracist.

Amadeus
2004-Sep-10, 01:50 PM
I find this thnig very strange indeed.

Either the machine does not work and therefore useless or it has been very badly marketed.

The has been enough mention and coverage of the device not to worry about having a full patent. Just slap patent pending on the side.

There are many, many worldwide organisations that would hapyly fund this device if it worked It could be used to run water purification plants in parts of the world that do not have clean water. It could be adapted as a power source for transport.

All you have to do demostrate that it works. A simple closed loop experiment would dismiss the skeptics and give it international coverage.

This if it worked would have the power to help all mankind. And the inventor is worried about losing his royaltys in France?

If you have put your own money into this device I strongly advise you to check it out and ask to see where all the money has gone. As an investor this is your right. Not sure what the situation is in the States but here in the U.K any shareholder is allowed by rights to inspect the companies books any time.

R.A.F.
2004-Sep-10, 03:22 PM
All you have to do demostrate that it works.

I imagine that we'll hear more from gary about how it's been proven to work, ("scientists" say so") :lol: but we'll never see a demonstration...and as long as Mr. Newman can collect money for something that doesn't work, why would he demonstrate it? I wish I had that "lack of ethics" that would allow me to do something like that, because it sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

sts60
2004-Sep-10, 04:00 PM
"They didn't test my machine the right way."
"It's a conspiracy by the gummint/Big Oil/the scientific establishment."
"God wants me to share this with you."
"Those [engineers/NIST scientists/physicists/patent examiners/other critics] are too stupid too understand my work."
"Thermodynamics is wrong." (Then why the fervent insistance it doesn't violate thermodynamic laws?)
"Free energy for all is right around the corner."

Lather, rinse, and repeat for four decades.

My prediction is that this will continue until Mr. Newman passes on. Unless a believer with his energy and charisma steps forward, his "free energy" will become just another footnote in the history of pseudoscience.

I'll cheerfully eat my words if he ever comes up with a machine that works as he claims in the cold light of day. But that will never happen, and no amount of lengthy posts of court transcripts or laughable "physics" lessons will change that.

For the record, I think that Newman actually believes, more or less, that he's on to something - I don't think he believes he's fooling people, or if he does, he thinks it's for the greater good. Just my opinion.

Demigrog
2004-Sep-10, 05:40 PM
AGN wrote:
"if this motor works as advertised, but there are problems with the output simply being re-channelled as input into the same device, then why not just set up a series of them?"

If there one thing I've noticed, it's that if one has 50 people one can come up with 50 different ways to configure the technology. Newman has used his available resources to hand-build a system that proves the technology. And I understand that he remains focused on producing systems that can be machine-built, operate at far higher rpm tolerances, and provide energy as individual home systems.

Newman tries to deflect the obvious closed-loop test by claiming it is difficult to make a closed loop system with his device. However, by claiming such an outrageous gain in energy, he has undercut his own claims—at those efficiency levels it is ridiculously simple to design a system that captures the output energy and provides it as input energy. Bottom line, if you can detect the energy with scopes and meters as Newman claims, you can also close the loop. No hand-waving about “massive back-spikes” required.


AGN wrote:
"Secondly, if Newman had so much trouble with the US patent system & courts, why didn't he try to develop it overseas?"

Newman does have a patent in Spain, but not in Germany, France, or England. I understand that at one point he was in contact with a Spanish company that was interested in producing the technology. A production agreement was reached in principle with the company, but the company's legal advisors said that since there was no patent protection in France or Germany, that a General Electric of France could simply purchase a finished unit produced by the Spanish company, thereby taking advantage of the R&D costs expended by the Spanish company to bring the unit to production, and proceed to market a GE-product in France, Germany, etc. The Spanish company was also concerned that a French corporation could even import the GE-product into Spain and the only recourse of the Spanish company would be to sue GE and engage in a lengthy legal battle. Conclusion: the Spanish company decided not to pursue production until more extensive patent protection could be assured since its pockets "were not as deep as those of GE".
:)
Now this is amusing. If the device really did what Newman claims, any company would be happy to buy it from him directly, making him a very rich man with no fuss or worry. Of course, he’d have to prove it works…

Moreover, the situation described here does not exist anymore; the European Union handles patents for all member nations. However, the EU does not issue patents for perpetual motion devices (and is better at enforcing it than the US patent office these days), so it is a moot point.

Quote directly from www.josephnewman.com (which is an interesting example of writing the same sentence 1000 ways and making no more sense the 1000th time than the 1st):

We don't wish to dampen Mr. McLain's enthusiasm for this technology and, although his comments are well-intentioned, Mr. McLain is laboring under the superficial conclusion that Joseph Newman's motor "generates more energy than it consumes." That is simply not the case. In fact, the motor does generate greater external energy output than external energy input [EEO>EEI].

Well, there we have it folks. It does not violate thermodynamics or common sense. :roll:

So, for this device to do what Newman claims, it must have an internal means of generating energy (duh). Where is this energy coming from? The obvious possibility is that the machine is an oversized capacitor or inductor, and Newman is simply not measuring the total power over time, but is merely measuring the instantaneous power output. Unfortunately Newman isn’t giving us enough details of his tests to say that conclusively. This explanation leaves open the possibility that Newman really is just deluded. Likewise, he could simply be making a measurement or setup error in his test—the lack of open, independent observation again makes it hard to rule this out. The third possibility is an additional power supply, be it batteries or induction from an out-of-sight power source (high voltage lines, etc). This would be outright fraud, however, and I’m sure Newman is above such things. (There is a fourth possibility, that the test results are completely fabricated, but I find that unlikely given the longevity of this mess; to delude others for so long, Newman would have to have something to demonstrate (though I may be putting too much faith into people’s reasoning abilities))

Of course, Newman claims (quite vaguely) that the device does not generate internal energy, it merely converts it. This is his response to questions about thermodynamics—though this is even more ridiculous than if he had claimed it was a generator. Energy conversion is always less than 100% efficient. Even if you don’t believe in the laws of thermodynamics, common sense would tell you that you could never convert energy more than 100% efficiently. If I were suspicious of Mr. Newman, my guess would be he is using this argument in combination with his oscilloscope measurements to delude non-engineers into thinking a simple increase in current or voltage is a sign of a gain in energy (if so, transformer manufacturers would be a lot richer). I think Newman is probably above such a simple deception, however.

Alan
2004-Sep-10, 05:59 PM
Give them a copy of R.E. Heinlein's story "'Let There Be Light'"

Doctor Archibald Douglas works with Doctor M.L. Martin to invent a cheap, endless source of power for the whole world but the eeeeeevil powers that control the power companies try to supress it. Their solution? Publish the directions on how to do it in the media (its simple to do) and collect a small royalty on each unit made - sort of like shareware. Sure some people will not pay but with the [Carl Sagan] millions and millions [/Carl Sagan] of units that would be made, if even a small fraction of the people who built it, saw that it worked (if it did), sent him $20-$25, he would still make a lot of money.

If his goal is to "ahem" suppress the distribution of his technology (invention) and maintain total and absolute control over it for purely monetary gains to himself, how is he any different than the claimed suppressors of his technology?

ktesibios
2004-Sep-10, 06:34 PM
The full NBS report can be found online at: http://www.ncas.org/nbsreport/contents.html .

I particularly recommend reading the sections on "experimental approach", "consistency checks" and "uncertainty estimates". For anyone who is involved in making electrical measurements they provide a fascinating picture of metrologists bending over backwards to use methods appropriate to the type of signal to be measured, to use independent methods which cross-check each others' results, to anticipate, test and quantify possible sources of error and correct for same- in short, a model of How to Do Things Right.

As for Newman's post hoc ad hoc excuses for why the test didn't go his way, there's a court decision, "Newman v Quigg, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. No. 88-1312 July 5, 1989", which demonstrates that Newman had complete information on the proposed test protocol and started raising objections only after the results were in. The decision can be found on Westlaw; if you don't feel like paying the freight here's a relevant portion:

"We need not decide whether the NBS tests were conducted by a
flawed procedure, for any flaw could have been, and was not,
corrected by Mr. Newman at the time of the tests. The test
protocol designed by NBS contained electrical schematics showing
plainly that the device was grounded. Mr. Newman does not dispute
that he had a copy of the test protocol before testing began. The
record shows no communication or objection. The Commissioner
further points out that the patent specification does not mention
the need to avoid grounding the device."

IIRC, making ad hoc excuses for failed experiments is one of Langmuir's characteristic warning signs of psuedoscience.

If you want to echo Newman's claim that grounding the device "botched" the test, you need to provide a circuit analysis demonstrating that the voltage produced across a known resistive load by a floating source will differ from that produced across the same load by a source with one terminal connected to earth ground. Feel free to sketch in reasonable values for stray reactances when creating a schematic to use in your analysis, and to use a source having open-circuit output voltage and source impedance similar to the Thevenin equivalent of Newman's machine (some data on the device's source impedance can be found in the "Experimental Approach" section of the NBS report, and the scope photos of the output waveform in the same section will serve nicely as a sample of open-circuit output).

Don't use words. Let's see the math.

And finally, the "closed-loop" test remains the definitive proof-of-concept test for any free energy claim. Newman's device requires high voltage DC as a source; based on scope photos of the output voltage it puts out a rather low-frequency high voltage pulse train which could easily be rectified and filtered into DC suitable for the input. If the claim is that the machine can only operate from series strings of batteries, then the first task is to revolutionize all of electrical engineering by proving that power supplied by batteries is fundamentally different from clean DC supplied by other sources.

The closed-loop test is unambiguous and eliminates all possibility of the tyro's measurment errors that constantly fool tinkerers like Newman into thinking that they've achieved over-unity operation. Perhaps that's why free-energy claimants never seem to get around to doing them, or revealing the results if they do.
#-o

Demigrog
2004-Sep-10, 06:47 PM
The full NBS report can be found online at: http://www.ncas.org/nbsreport/contents.html .


Interesting; I wish I'd read that prior to reading Newman's site; I could have saved myself a lot of pain trying to figure out what was going on.

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 08:08 PM
Eta wrote:
"OK Gary, no more beating around the bush.

1) Does the machine produce more power than is put in?
2) If so, why isn't one attached to every house in the world?"

My reply:

1) Yes.
2) Give him the patent to which he is entitled and it will be.

And, no, I have not been "beating around the bush." But I have been "beating the bush" ... and all extrapolated 'recommendations' have pour forth that are disconnected from an understanding of the technology. Ah, so what else is new?....

Ktesibios writes:
"Don't use words. Let's see the math."

In the first place there is nothing wrong with using "words" to describe physicial effects of observable phenomena ... or, for that matter to word-describe mechanical models without any reference to "math".

It was no less a mathematician such as James Clerk Maxwell who once wrote, "The way in which Faraday made use of his lines of force in co-ordinating the phenomena of electric induction shows him to have been a mathematician of high order, and one from whom the mathematicians of the future may derive valuable and fertile methods."

It has been said that Faraday was "mathematically illiterate" --- although in his understanding and development of conceptual and/or mechanical models, Maxwell considers him to be a "mathematician of high order."

It takes one to know one.

Anyway, to respond in a variety of ways to your request ....

AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL L. GOMORY

STATE OF MARYLAND

The undersigned, being duly deposed, swears and states that:

My name is Paul L. Gomory, I live at 5609 Ogden Road in Bethesda Maryland. I was born in Newark, New Jersey and attended schools in Hungary, Austria, France, and England. Studied chemistry and engineering at the University of London, England and at Polytechnic Institute in New York City. I have an Inter-Science degree, University of London, England and that subsequent to the studies leading to that degree I studied Advanced Physics at King's College, University of London, England. I hold a law degree from Temple University School of Law and am a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and a number of lower state courts and federal courts.

The recently enacted patent law revision bill is one of several on which I have worked assiduously having testified on it and others on behalf of the Association for the Advancement of Invention and Innovation (A^2I^2) and on my own behalf. I was a Director and Advisor contact on the Hill and Public Relations person. I drafted a number of bills which have been introduced in the U.S. Senate as well as in the House of Representatives, and have secured the introduction of the American Patent Law Association bill presented to the 94th Congress. I am an ex-officio member of the National Council on Patent Law Associations.

I have chaired a number of committees in the American Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar Association, and in the American Patent Law Association. These committees have been related to various legislation activities including public relations and public information. I have acted as liaison between the D.C. Bar Association, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section of the District of Columbia Bar Association and was for many years a member of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and its Subcommittee on Divestiture which I conceived and formation of which I instigated. I have worked with a large number of other associations including NAM, CMA, PMA, MAPI, ATA, etc.

I have been involved intimately in chairing committees, including patent law committees, in drafting bills introduced in the Congress and responsible for drafting several patent law revision bills including S.4259, 93rd Congress; S.214 Fong, 94th Congress Fong; HR14632 Wiggins, 94th Congress; HR 5075 Butler, 96th Congress --- the patent reexamination procedure now in effect in the PTO first appeared in Fong S.4259.

I have authored a number of legal briefs for the United States Supreme Court, as well as articles on political and legal subjects, including Trade Secret Law, Freedom of Information Act, Intellectual Property Law, and Government Patent Policy.

I have reviewed the specification of the above identified Application [by Joseph Westley Newman] with particular reference to the related embodiments of Figures 5 and 6 and the disclosures on pages 24-35 concerning inter-alia the "working prototypes" built and to be built in the form of those figures.

In the interest of not being repetitious and lengthy, let me simply state I also found the embodiments of Figs. 5 and 6 simple to understand and that I also believe that from Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] instructions given in his specification, I would build a device similar to the one I viewed at the Hospitality House, across from the U.S. Patent Office, the same one which the Board will see and inspect. My conclusions on reading the specification is basically as already described in point 3 of page one through point 5 of page three of attorney Pugh's Declaration listed as Exhibit 2 in the Appeal Brief before the Board as well as the description given in second paragraph of page two through fourth paragraph of page four of attorney Renneker's Affidavit listed as Exhibit 1 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

The major question being: Does the teaching and instructions of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification become verified or disproven with factual demonstrations given relative to his teachings and instructions?

It is apparent that the teachings of Applicant [Joseph Newman] are either true or false. The Examiner has taken the position that Applicant's teachings were false, therefore, the invention would not function as claimed and therefore one could not build the invention, and [he] quoted rejection under 35 USC 112 (first paragraph).

The Examiner in his final action of page 2 stated, Quote: "...that rotor 300, allegedly weighing approximately four hundred pounds, is driven EXCLUSIVELY by motor coil 305, allegedly energized by a mere 126 volts and 99 milliamperes." Unquote. It is obvious the Examiner chose to disbelieve that such a massive rotor could be driven by such low wattage, if indeed such even existed.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] distinctly teaches the more larger [the] diameter and longer the coil 205 or 305, the greater the magnetic field and less current used, and coupled with a stronger magnetic field of magnet 200 or 300, the greater would be the energy output relative to energy input.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] distinctly teaches and instructs in the specification the correctness of his invention and that the teachings of the prior art are not correct.

Again, it is obvious to the Examiner, on page 3 of his final rejection, chose to disbelieve Applicant's teachings and instructions, Quote: "While applicant may certainly propound his own theories of operation of his invention, more proof of operativeness than has been presented here is required if the device is alleged more than 100% efficient." Unquote.

It is a well known fact that the prior art teaches the electrical energy produced by a battery or generator is used up in the system which it operates, whether being lights, motors, heating elements and etc. and/or causing a release of energy of any type.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] in his specification clearly teaches against such prior art (see pages 16 thru 21 of his specification, especially see pages 19 thru 21).

On this day Applicant [Joseph Newman] showed and demonstrated to me a simple demonstration that his teachings are correct and that the electrical energy produced from a generator or battery is not used up in the system it operates. At first this goes against common sense because of what we have been taught!

Applicant [Joseph Newman] used a permanent magnet D.C. motor as a generator. He demonstrated that the resistance of the copper windings of the generator was only 3 ohms. Therefore, he demonstrated the so-called work load would be nil if the two leads from the generator were connected, and the generator shaft were then rotated by hand (pulling a cord wrapped around a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of generator). I was asked to then pull the cord lightly once and then briskly. I immediately experienced noticeable resistive force the harder I pulled the cord, although there was no conventional work load hooked in the system. Applicant mechanically explained these results by his teachings of gyroscopic particles; that when the atoms of the rotating coils of the generator hit the gyroscopic particles (at some degree of a right angle) which were being emitted from the atoms of the permanent magnets in the generator, that the gyroscopic particles then went down the length of copper wire coils (but that their gyroscopic spin would then be at some degree of a right angle to the balance of the spin of the gyroscopic particles still moving in the magnetic field from the permanent magnets), therefore when the leads were hooked together this then allowed the gyroscopic particles to then try to re-enter the influences of said gyroscopic particles of said permanent magnets, but that their spin would be at some degree of a right angle to one another, therefore they try to push away from each other, resulting in the coils of [the] generator then having resistance to rotation. And that this effect was multiplied the faster you turned the coils, because then the more gyro-particles you would cause to be released from said permanent magnetic field, resulting in an ACCUMULATIVE EFFECT of gyro-particles in the closed system (coils), then trying to re-enter the influence of gyro-particles moving in said magnetic field of said permanent magnets and therefore would always more vigorously resist your acceleration of the coil and its shaft of the generator, although there was no conventional work load placed in the system.

Then Applicant [Joseph Newman] attached work load of six small miniature motors in series to the two leads of the generator (the resistance or conventional work load placed in the system was then considerably greater). Applicant now asked me to again pull the cord as I had previously done. I must say I was amazed to find that the resistance to me rotating the shaft of the generator was dramatically reduced; although all six motors run when I pulled the cord and was producing obvious work.

If, as the prior art so persistently teaches, the Electrical Energy produced by a generator or battery is used up in the work load which the system operates, then why should I observe these results? As Applicant [Joseph Newman] pointed out, the conventional words "Shorted Out" does not mechanically explain the results. However, his teachings and instructions do mechanically explain the results.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] explained that when the work load of six motors in series was placed in the system, the same number of gyro-particles were released from the field of the permanent magnet by the coils of the generator (relative to equal speeds of rotation of shaft) but that now, because of the work load (resistance), they could not easily re-enter into the gyro-particles of said magnetic field of said permanent magnets, and therefore resulted in hydraulic effect back to their source and throughout the work load of the motors, resulting in the motors rotating and producing obvious work and yet causing me less energy input, and Applicant [Joseph Newman] pointed out, that once the gyro-particles managed to get through the work load of the motors, then they would still go back into the generator and cause me to experience a resistive force, (as result of prior explanation). Therefore, based off Applicant's teachings, one does not want the electric current to get back to the source of its beginnings, whether battery or generator. And that, contrary to prior art teachings, the electrical current is NOT used up in the work load! But that the input of a work load causes LESS destruction of a battery or LESS energy input into a generator. Exactly as Applicant teaches in his specification. Applicant also points out that the prior art teaches [that] copper is "nonmagnetic," and, contrary to this, Applicant teaches throughout the specification concerning Figs. 5 and 6 that copper is extremely magnetic. So much so that an individual is easily fooled into thinking copper is nonmagnetic, simply because the magnetic field will disappear so quickly when the current is turned off.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] also vigorously teaches that the Energy in the field of force of any type magnet is the Energy which makes up the atoms of the material from which it comes. It is literally Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2. (See lines 19 thru 26 of page 29 of Applicant's specification.]

It is obvious throughout Applicant's specification that he teaches and instructs in how to achieve a startling difference in kind rather than one of mere degree! And that his teachings are impressively reinforced by the extensive teachings of the Disclosure Document which is part of his patent application.

The total proof, however, is easily seen in his demonstrations, in that they do EXACTLY as he teaches and instructs in his specification! Example: As described above in the generator and miniature motor demonstration given me. And then Applicant showed me the inner workings of his 700-pound motor coil 305 and 90-pound magnet 300 (which is covered and secured together with fiberglass) and its associated generator coil 306 of approximately 200 pounds. Then demonstrations were given as to its operability as follows:



1. Applicant [Joseph Newman] again pointed out to me his statement made in lines 4 thru line 15 of page 29 of his specification. On seeing this above prototype, I agreed it was indeed a "Rube Goldberg" built device, no precision. Both ends of the coil are open allowing magnet 300 to have weak magnetic interaction across the open ends of the coil 305, the magnet 300 is mounted in a 2 by 6 inch wood frame, the entire unit was built by hand in the backwoods of Mississippi, and looks as if it were. The magnet 300 looks massive as does motor coil 305 and the noticeable open space between magnet 300 and motor coil 305 adds to the inefficient-looking design. Compared to any other prior art, efficiently-designed motor of close tolerances and conventional sizes, the Newman motor looked as though it should be highly inefficient and that, because of a lack of precision in design, coupled with its massive size, you immediately feel this device should consume high wattage, just to run.

So much so, that once can easily see why the Examiner, in his final rejection, chose to believe that the even larger embodiment would not run off such low-claimed amperage and voltage.



2. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then stated we will now see, if as Applicant stated in lines 11 thru 15 of page 29 of specification, will this "Rube Goldberg" built device give results superior to those taught in the prior art.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] then displayed a very small precision (Distinctive Miniature) D.C. Permanent Magnet Motor built by Aristo-Craft claiming Lo-Drain and Hi-R.P.M. and HIGH OUTPUT; and designed to meet the needs of engineers, designers, hobbyists, and experimenters. Stock No. RE260 showing Nominal Voltage of 3 Volts and current draw of only 250 M.A. (with no load) and R.P.M. of 11,600 (with no load). Copy of the literature on their display box is attached as Exhibit A.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] then states, "You will agree this precision designed (Distinctive Miniature) conventional motor should draw less amperage and wattage than this 'Rube Goldberg' built device you see here, and that there should be no way his device should run on LESS wattage and amperage than this Miniature Precision Conventional Motor AND perform noticeable more work." I eagerly agreed that should be true.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] then hooked the precision miniature motor and his "Rube Goldberg"-looking device in series and hooked them both to one 6-volt D.C. battery. To my amazement, the miniature motor momentarily attempted to run and THEN STOPPED, while the large massive rotary of magnet 300 of Newman's "Rube-Goldberg"-built device ran and on the Simpson 260 meter showed only 30 MILLIAMPERES being drawn! Applicant pointed out that amounts to only .18 watts, less than 1/5 of one watt, while the precision miniature motor at 250 M.A. times 3 volts draws .75 watts or 3/4 of one watt, and yet the difference in torque is phenomenal!

Applicant [Joseph Newman] then asked, "You will admit that these results are as I predicted and described and taught in the specification, relative to improvement over the prior art?" I stated a strong, "Yes!"

The fact of the matter is, both experiments of 1 and 2 above proved the truth of the teachings of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification.

A. He demonstrated the energy released from a battery or generator is not used up in the work load as is taught in prior art, but to the contrary, the work load REDUCES the amount of needed input into a generator, when the circuit is completed. And also reduces the destruction of a battery. Amazing, but true, and in accordance with Applicant's teachings and instructions of his specification.

B. He added MORE ATOMS to coil 305 and MORE ATOMS to magnet 300 and demonstrated amazing results, in that he uses LESS energy input and INCREASES energy output. Again, amazing, but true, and in accordance with Applicant's teachings and instructions in his specification.



3. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then went to a conventional, larger 12-volt precision D.C. permanent magnet motor, still a fractional horsepower, but 3 inches in diameter, made by Tenna Corporation, and which its literature states that Tenna was the leader in fractional horsepower motors and claims the permanent magnet motor to be designed for giving maximum service, dependability, and EFFICIENCY. Applicant was advised by several electrical engineers that said motor would be in the 80% efficiency range. (Applicant, on calling the Company, was advised it had gone out of business because of economic conditions.) Copy of Tenna's brochure is attached as Exhibit B.

Said conventional precision motor draws 1.2 amps just to run, with no load times 12 volts equals over 14 watts and no load.

Tests on said conventional precision 12-volt motor and compared to tests on Applicant's prototype that is exhibited here at the Hospitality House, is detailed in Dr. Hastings' Declaration of April 26, 1982 and is shown as Exhibit 4 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

Using a "V"-belt as a slip clutch over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of said conventional precision 12-volt motor and attached to a spring scale, Applicant demonstrated to me the same type remarkable results as is described by Dr. Hastings in said Exhibit 4, when the "V"-belt slip clutch and spring scale were hooked to Applicant's prototype over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley.

And contrary to the understandable conclusion drawn by the Examiner in lines 12 and 13 of page 8 of Examiner's Answer Before the Board, this remarkable result is not "rotor moment of inertia". The braking mechanism can be MAINTAINED and the results will be CONSTANT so long as the battery voltage is CONSTANT.

Again, those results are remarkable in view of prior art teachings. However, in view of the teachings and instructions of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification, they are predictable, as he has done so, and because the facts of operation are as he predicted, proof is given of the correctness of the teaching's of Applicant's specification.

Also, as to the understandable conclusion question posed by the Examiner in the third paragraph of page 3 of the Examiner's Answer Before the Board, that there should be no complicated wave form from Applicant's Invention when viewing D.C. Input. There MOST DEFINITELY is a VERY unexpected wave form seen on a B & K Precision Oscilloscope, Model #1476 (copy of cover page of manual of said oscilloscope is attached as Exhibit C) when viewing the input current from a D.C. source into Applicant's invention. As the Examiner expected, there is not a complicated wave form on the oscilloscope when viewing the input from a D.C. source into said CONVENTIONAL precision 12-volt permanent magnet motor.

It is appreciated that the Examiner would naturally attempt to judge Applicant's specification and stated results off his prior beliefs, as result of his prior teachings, but the facts consistently show that the doubts and assumptions made by the Examiner are NOT as he anticipated and that the statements made by Applicant [Joseph Newman] and other competent individuals are TRUE and FACTUAL.

The facts show the statements made by Dr. Hastings in Exhibit 4 of the Appeal Brief are as stated.

The difference in the performance of other conventional precision motors, which draw low wattage (15 watts or less) and Applicant's "Rube-Goldberg"-built motor as so extreme in favor of Applicant's Motor Invention as to be SHOCKING to those not skilled in the teachings of Applicant's specification.



4. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then went to a Black & Decker 1/5 horsepower, torque geared precision hand drill that ran at 1200 R.P.M. (with no load) and Applicant demonstrated that it drew 1.5 amps and 115 volts, or over 160 watts just to run, with no load.

Applicant, then using same "V"-belt as a slip clutch and spring scale and hooked over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to the shaft of said 1/5 horsepower precision drill, applied a constant 2-pound pull, the amperage draw went up 250 M.A. or wattage draw increased by 28.75 watts, and R.P.M. decreased to 1050 R.P.M., and produced in the vicinity of 18 watts, as calculated by Dr. Hastings.

It is easily seen, the above shows a percentage of wattage output relative to increased energy input over NO LOAD ENERGY USE, of approximately 63%.

However, the No Load Energy consumption was already more than 160 watts, which, when load of 18 watts was applied, the total wattage consumption on said precision 1/5 horsepower Black & Decker motor then rose to 178 watts.

Applicant then stated, "Let's compare the results of this precision 1/5 horsepower Black & Decker, torque geared motor to my invention."

Applicant proceeded to demonstrate that with same "V"-belt and spring scale slip clutch hooked to 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of the "Rube Goldberg" prototype of his invention, the invention with same 2-pound pull rotated in the vicinity of 400 R.P.M. and only drew 100 MILLIAMPERES TIMES 81 VOLTS OR ONLY 8.1 WATTS on Simpson 260 meter and was under a load of torque brake of 6 watts, as calculated by Dr. Hastings and, in addition, was lighting a fluorescent light bulb hooked to generator coil 306, but not to full brightness, and which drew 28 watts when hooked to house current of 115 volts. This torque load of 6 watts plus the vicinity of 3 watts in fluorescent bulb, gives output of 9 watts, and added to this must be the energy loss dissipated in vibrating the entire 1000 pound system, which is easily felt by hand touch, and also the watts being dissipated away from the system, which is easily picked up by a transistor radio placed across the room.

It should be noted the invention (with no load) was only pulling 60 M.A. and 81 Volts or 4.86 WATTS reading on Simpson 260 meter. Therefore, the invention only increased in wattage draw by 3.24 WATTS when under load of producing over 9 WATTS OF ENERGY OUTPUT! And the total wattage input EVEN UNDER LOAD is only 8 watts or less!

Example: When input current is observed on said oscilloscope, it can be observed that the true input current into the Newman invention is even LESS than shown on the Simpson 260 meter; which attempts to take an AVERAGE reading, but which weighted mass of its pointer cannot possibly pick up high spikes of current back E.M.F. that occur at tremendous speeds.

Example: Applicant [Joseph Newman] demonstrated that when the volts per centimeter of said oscilloscope were dialed to 20 volts per centimeter, and the input current then attempted to be read, the input current is so small that at 20 volts per centimeter, no input current can be seen. However, with sweep times set at 20 M.S. or higher, there is a high amount of thin spikes occurring, that go completely off the scale.

This, Applicant points out, is the result of action and re-action effect of atoms within the copper coil and back E.M.F., and is also seen in oscillographs taken by Dr. Weber shown on page D of Exhibit 6 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

As attorney Pugh has already pointed out in his Reply Brief (bottom of page 5), "The originals previously filed in the record are clear and intelligible."

It should be noted that the Newman Invention even under load in demonstration of 4 above, was STILL drawing LESS amperage than said precision miniature motor (which drew 250 M.A. with no load) in experiment of 2 above. And the Newman Invention was still drawing LESS wattage than said precision Tenna 12-volt permanent magnet D.C. motor in 3 above, which drew 14 watts with no load.

In summation, it is easily established from the facts of actual observation of said working prototype of Applicant's Invention, that his invention works as he has instructed and taught in his specification of his Application. And that said prototype clearly matches the instructions of Applicant's specification and can be easily built from said instructions. And that said prototype has produced an energy output greater than the External Energy Input Into the system. That the amazing predictions Applicant [Joseph Newman] stated and taught would occur, when following the instructions and teachings of his specification, had indeed occurred and been astoundingly demonstrated in a "Rube Goldberg" prototype of Applicant's invention. That the statements made by Applicant and other competent individuals in Affidavit form are proven true by the facts of said demonstration of the smaller 1000-pound prototype demonstrated here. It is obvious from the facts presented, that the larger prototype with 600-pound atom Magnet Rotary 300 and 4200-pound atom Copper Coil 305 and 300-pound atom Generator Coil 305 will give even more amazing results and is the prototype that most of the Affidavits have been addressed to. The unit weighing in the vicinity of 5000 pounds was too large for Applicant to bring to the Washington, D.C. area. Even said one-half ton unit demonstrated has been a burden and high expense for Applicant to bring to this area.

The questions and doubts and disbeliefs raised by the Examiner are understandable because of his prior teachings and experiences. However, his persistent negativism in spite of the facts, exemplifies that Applicant's invention is New and Novel. Not a change of mere degree, but a distinct change in kind.

Applicant, himself, has objectively pointed out important facts and points of human nature which are pertinent to this very case in his Declaration shown in Exhibit 11 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

Applicant [Joseph Newman], understandably, is quite put out that his Affidavits have been refused effectiveness to remove a 112 rejection. As a result and the necessity of this Appeal, the costs to him in legal fees alone are greater than $20,000, as of this date.

There is no basis to distinguish between such a set of Affidavits and those submitted under Rule 132. These are, at best, also prima facie or rebuttable presumptions in litigation.

The Patent and Trademark Office or government does not guarantee the validity of the patent. The invalidity of the patent can be reckoned by the experts judging the file history of prosecution, etc.

I suggest that the cost to Applicants to argue the usual 112 rejection is way out of line with the benefit to the Country. Let us put that time, energy, and money into more patent applications, more inventions, more research, etc. Our great, but ailing Country, will benefit.

This Revolutionary Pioneering Invention of Applicant's [Joseph Newman] is a prime example. Let the experts in the art be the judge. Let us not deny them the chance to be such.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] started work on this Invention more than seventeen years ago in March, 1965. The extensive teachings and disclosures of his Patent Application and its Disclosure Document are
testament to his achievements. A life's work in itself. His work and teachings will be challenging even for the experts in the field, because of the newness and vastness of discussion, which covers overlapping scientific fields.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] has proven to me through demonstration that his teachings and instructions of his specifications are true and factual and that he has most definitely met the requirements of 112.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] has indeed produced and disclosed a Pioneering Invention which will undoubtedly be of great benefit to the world. We should do all we can to assist him in getting the broad patent protection of which he is surely deserving for his efforts of years of labor and genius.

Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] proposed claim changes (Appendix I of Appeal Brief before the Board) should be allowed and the patent should issue at the earliest possible date because of its extreme importance and benefit to the people, and so that others in the field may immediately begin to build, or attempt to design and build on this invention, of which the entire world is in dire need.

I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements, and the like so made, are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the Application or any patent issued thereon.

[Sent/Signed by]

PAUL L. GOMORY

__________________________

DECLARATION FOLLOWING TESTING OF 5,000 LB AND 900 LB UNITS

CONSTRUCTED BY JOSEPH W. NEWMAN



This letter represents a disclosure of investigations and experimentation which I have performed on Joseph Newman's energy generating machine. The fact is that every experiment which I have performed shows that the energy output of the device is indeed larger than the energy input. Some examples are:

1) The electrical energy output is measured at more than four times the electrical energy input. [Note: This does not violate the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy if one considers the source of the additional output to be the conductor coil in accordance with E = mc^2.]

2) Acting as a motor, Joseph Newman's device performed mechanical work in excess of ten times the electrical energy input.

3) Joseph Newman's device delivers over ten times the torque of a commercial D.C. permanent magnet motor rated at 80% efficiency. However, during this test Joseph Newman's device is consuming only a fraction of the input power of the commercial motor.

4) These results must be taken seriously. Joseph Newman has made the observation that huge magnetic fields may be generated with minimal power input in a large coil wound with large diameter wire. This coil creates a very large torque on a suitably large permanent magnet. In operation, the batteries powering the coil consume little power and discharge at a very slow rate. Yet the motor delivers considerable mechanical and/or electrically generated power.

It is fascinating to observe that Joseph Newman has arrived at this invention on the basis of his theoretical work, coupled with years of experimentation on electromagnetic energy. He has been rigorously consistent in the development of a model of matter and energy, and furthermore has fortified his model with experimentation. His model is based on the assumption that matter is concentrated electromagnetic energy. He predicts that this energy (E=MCsquared) may be released in a controlled way, and his experiments verify the prediction.

The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large scale commercial development of this invention. It is indeed painful to see it lying dormant.

[Signed]

Dr. Roger Hastings, PhD.
Principal Physicist, Unisys Corporation
Former Associate Professor of Physics
North Dakota State University

______________________________

JOSEPH NEWMAN'S THEORY

by

Dr. Roger Hastings, PhD

Transcribed By George W. Dahlberg, P.E.



I do not intend to recapitulate the theory presented in Newman's book, but rather to briefly provide my interpretation of his ideas. Newman began studying electricity and magnetism in the mid-1960s. He has a mechanical background, and was looking for a mechanical description of electromagnetic fields. That is, he assumed that there must be a mechanical interaction between, for example, two magnets. He could not find such a description in any book, and decided that he would have to provide his own explanation. He came to the conclusion that if electromagnetic fields consisted of tiny spinning (gyroscopic) massergies moving at the speed of light along the field lines, then he could explain all standard electromagnetic phenomena through the interaction of spinning (gyroscopic) massergies. Since the spinning massergies interact in the same way as gyroscopes, he called the massergies gyroscopic particles or gyroscopic massergies (a later nomenclature).

In my opinion, such spinning gyroscopic massergies do provide a qualitative description of electromagnetic phenomena, and his model is useful in understanding complex electrical situations (note that without a pictorial model one must rely solely upon mathematical equations which can become extremely complex).

Given that electromagnetic fields consist of matter in motion, or kinetic energy, Joe decided that it should be possible to tap this kinetic energy. He likes to say: "How long did man sit next to a stream before he invented the paddle wheel?"

Joe built a variety of unusual devices to tap the kinetic energy in electromagnetic fields before he arrived at his present motor design. He likes to point out that both Maxwell and Faraday, the pioneers of electromagnetism, believed that the fields consisted of matter in motion. That is stated in no uncertain terms in Maxwell's book "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field". In fact, Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations. That fact has all but been lost in current books on electromagnetic theory. The quantity which Maxwell called "electromagnetic momentum" is now referred to as the "vector potential".

Going further, Joe realized that when a magnetic field is created, its gyroscopic massergies must come from the atoms of the materials which created the field. Thus he decided that all matter must consist of the same gyroscopic massergies.

For example, when a voltage is applied to a wire, Newman pictures gyroscopic massergies moving down the wire at the speed of light (with resistance in mind). Those gyroscopic massergies line up the electrons in the wire. The electrons themselves consist of a swirling mass of gyroscopic massergies, and their matter fields combine when lined up to form the magnetic lines of force circulating around the wire. In that process, the wire has literally lost some of its mass to the magnetic field, and that is accounted for by Einstein's equation of energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light.

According to Einstein, every conversion of energy involves a corresponding conversion of matter. According to Newman, that may be interpreted as an exchange of gyroscopic massergies. For example, if two atoms combine to give off light, the atoms would weight slightly less after the reaction than before. According to Newman, the atoms have combined and given off some of their gyroscopic massergies in the form of light. Thus Einstein's equation is interpreted as a matter of counting gyroscopic massergies. These gyroscopic massergies cannot be created or destroyed in Newman's theory, and they always move at the speed of light.

My interpretation of Newman's original idea for his motor is as follows:

As a thought experiment, suppose one made a coil consisting of 186,000 miles of wire. An electrical field would require one second to travel the length of the wire, or in Newman's language, it would take one second for gyroscopic massergies inserted at one end of the wire to reach the other end. Now suppose that the polarity of the applied voltage was switched before the one second has elapsed, and that polarity switching was repeated with a period less than one second.

Result:

Gyroscopic massergies would become trapped in the wire and, as their number increased, so would the alignment of electrons and the number of gyroscopic massergies in the magnetic field increase. The intensified magnetic field could be used to do work on an external magnet, while the input current to the coil would be small or (operationally) non-existent. Newman's motors contain up to 55 miles of wire, and the voltage is rapidly switched as the magnet rotates. He elaborates upon his theory in his book, and uses it to interpret a variety of physical phenomena.



DATA ON THE NEWMAN MOTOR

Joseph Newman demonstrated one of his motor prototypes in Washington, D.C.. The motor consisted of a large coil wound as a solenoid, with a large magnet rotating within the bore of the solenoid. Power was supplied by a bank of six volt lantern batteries. The battery voltage was switched to the coil through a commutator mounted on the shaft of the rotating magnet. The commutator switched the polarity of the voltage across the coil each half cycle to keep a positive torque on the rotating magnet.

In addition, the commutator was designed to break and remake the voltage contact about 30 times per cycle. Thus the voltage to the coil was pulsed. The speed of the magnet rotation was adjusted by covering up portions of the commutator so that pulsed voltage was applied for a fraction of a cycle. Two speeds were demonstrated: 12 R.P.M. for which 12 pulses occurred each revolution; and 120 rpm for which all commutator segments were firing. The slower speed was used to provide clear oscilloscope pictures of currents and voltages. The fast speed was used to demonstrate the potential power of the motor. Energy outputs consisted of incandescent bulbs in series with the batteries, fluorescent tubes across the coil, and a fan powered by a belt attached to the shaft of the rotor. Relevant motor parameters are given below:

Coil weight: 9000 lbs.
Coil length: 55 miles of copper wire
Coil Inductance: 1,100 Henries measured by observing the current rise time when a D.C. voltage was applied.
Coil resistance: 770 Ohms
Coil Height: about 4 ft.
Coil Diameter: slightly over 4 ft. I.D.

Magnet weight: 700 lbs.
Magnet Radius: 2 feet
Magnet geometry: cylinder rotating about its perpendicular axis
Magnet Moment of Inertia: 40 kg-sq.m. (M.K.S.) computed as one third mass times radius squared

Battery Voltage: 590 volts under load
Battery Type: Six volt Ray-O-Vac lantern batteries connected in series

A brief description of the measurements taken and distributed at the press conference follows.

When the motor was rotating at 12 rpm, the average D.C. input current from the batteries was about 2 milli-amps, and the average battery input was then 1.2 watts. The back current (flowing against the direction of battery current) was about -55 milli-amps, for an average charging power of -32 watts. The forward and reverse current were clearly observable on the oscilloscope. It was noted that when the reverse current flowed, the battery voltage rose above its ambient value, verifying that the batteries were charging. The magnitude of the charging current was verified by heating water with a resistor connected in series with the batteries. A net charging power was the primary evidence used to show that the motor was generating energy internally, however output power was also observed. The 55 m-amp current flowing in the 770 ohm coil generates 2.3 watts of heat, which is in excess of the input power. In addition, the lights were blinking brightly as the coil was switched.

The back current from the coil switched from zero to negative several amps in about 1 milli-second, and then decayed to zero in about 0.1 second. Given the coil inductance of 1100 henries, the switching voltages were several million volts. Curiously, the back current did not switch on smoothly, but increased in a staircase. Each step in the staircase corresponded to an extremely fast switching of current, with each increase in the current larger than the previous increase. The width of the stairs was about 100 micro-seconds, which for reference is about one third of the travel time of light through the 55 mile coil.

Mechanical losses in the rotor were measured as follows:

The rotor was spun up by hand with the coil open circuited. An inductive pick-up loop was attached to a chart recorder to measure the rate of decay of the rotor. The energy stored in the rotor (one half the moment of inertia times the square of the angular velocity) was plotted as a function of time. The slope of this curve was measured at various times and gave the power loss in the rotor as a function of rotor speed. The result of these measurements is given in the following table:

Rotor Speed ........Power Dissipation .............. Power/(Speed Squared)
radian/sec ....................... watts ................................. watts/(rad/sec)^2
...... 4.0 ............................... 6.3 ................................................ 0.39
...... 3.7 ............................... 5.8 ................................................ 0.42
...... 3.3 ............................... 5.0 ................................................ 0.46
...... 3.0 ............................... 3.5 ................................................ 0.39
...... 2.1 ............................... 2.0 ................................................ 0.45
...... 1.7 ............................... 1.2 ................................................ 0.42
...... 1.2 ............................... 0.7 ................................................ 0.47

The data is consistent with power loss proportional to the square of the angular speed, as would be expected at low speeds. When the rotor moves fast enough so that air resistance is important, the losses would begin to increase as the cube of the angular speed. Using power = 0.43 times the square of the angular speed will give a lower bound on mechanical power dissipation at all speeds. When the rotor is moving at 12 rpm, or 1.3 rad/sec, the mechanical loss is 0.7 watts.

When the rotor was sped up to 120 rpm by allowing the commutator to fire on all segments, the results were quite dramatic. The lights were blinking rapidly and brightly, and the fan was turning rapidly. The back current spikes were about ten amps, and still increased in a staircase, with the width of the stairs still about 100 micro-seconds. Accurate measurements of the input current were not obtained at that time, however I will report measurements communicated to me by Mr. Newman. At a rotation rate of 200 rpm (corresponding to mechanical losses of at least 190 watts), the input power was about 6 watts. The back current in this test was about 0.5 amps, corresponding to heating in the coil of 190 watts. As a final point of interest, note that the Q of his coil at 200 rpm is about 30. If his battery plus commutator is considered as an A.C. power source, then the impedance of the coil at 200 rpm is 23,000 henries, and the power factor is 0.03. In this light, the predicted input power at 700 volts is less than one watt!



MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF NEWMAN'S MOTOR

Since I am preparing this document on my home computer, it will be convenient to use the Basic computer language to write down formulas. The notation is * for multiply, / for divide, ^ for raising to a power, and I will use -dot to represent a derivative. Newton's second law of motion applied to Newman's rotor yields the following equation:

MI*TH-dot-dot + G*TH-dot = K*I*SIN(TH) (1)

where

MI = rotor moment of inertia
TH = rotor angular position (radians)
G = rotor decay constant
K = torque coupling constant
I = coil current

In general the constant G may depend upon rotor speed, as when air resistance becomes important. The term on the right hand side of the equation represents the torque delivered to the rotor when current flows through the coil. A constant friction term was found through measurement to be small compared to the TH-dot term at reasonable speeds, but can be included in the "constant" G. The equation for the current in the coil is given by:

L*I-dot + R*I = V(TH) - K*(TH-dot)*SIN(TH) (2)

where

L = coil inductance
I = coil current
R = coil resistance
V(TH) = voltage applied to coil by the commutator which is a function of the angle TH
K = rotor induction constant

In general, the resistance R is a function of voltage, particularly during commutator switching when the air resistance breaks down creating a spark.

Note that the constant K is the same in equations (1) and (2). This is required by energy conservation as discussed below.

To examine energy considerations, multiply Equation (1) by TH-dot, and Equation (2) by I. Note that the last term in each equation is then identical if the K's are the same. Eliminating the last term between the two equations yields the instantaneous conservation law:

I*V=R*I^2 + G*(TH-dot)^2 + .5*L*(I^2)-dot + .5*MI*((TH-dot)^2)-dot

If that equation is averaged over one cycle of the rotor, then the last two terms vanish when steady state conditions are reached (i.e. when the current and speed repeat their values at angular positions which are separated by 360 degrees). Denoting averages by < >, the above equation becomes:

<IV> = <R*I^2> + <G*(TH-dot)^2> (3)

That result is entirely general, independent of any dependencies of R and G on other quantities. The term on the left represents the input power. The first term on the right is the power dissipated in the coil, and the second term is the power delivered to the rotor. The efficiency, defined as power delivered to the rotor divided by input power is thus always less than one by Equation (3). That result does require, however, that the constants K in equation (1) and equation (2) are identical. If the constant K in equation (2) is smaller than the constant K appearing in equation (1), then it may be verified that the efficiency can mathematically be larger than unity.

What do the constants, K, mean?

In the first equation, we have the torque delivered to the magnet, while in the second equation we have the back inductance or reaction of the magnet upon the coil. The equality of the constants is an expression of Newton's third law. How could the constants be unequal? Consider the sequence of events which occur during the firing of the commutator. First the contact breaks, and the magnetic field in the coil collapses, creating a huge forward spike of current through the coil and battery.

That current spike provides an impulsive torque to the rotor. The rotor accelerates, and the acceleration produces a changing magnetic field which propagates through the coil, creating the back EMF. Suppose that the commutator contacts have separated sufficiently when the last event occurs to prevent the back current from flowing to the battery. Then the back reaction is effectively smaller than the forward impulsive torque on the rotor. That suggestion invokes the finite propagation time of the electromagnetic fields, which has not been included in Equations (1) and (2).

A continued mathematical modeling of the Newman motor should include the effects of finite propagation time, particularly in his extraordinary long coil of wire.

I have solved Equations (1) and (2) numerically, and note that the solutions require finer and finer step size as the inductance, moment of inertia, and magnet strength are increased to large values. The solutions break down such that the motor "takes off" in the computer, and this may indicate instabilities, which could be mediated in practice by external perturbations.

I am confident that Maxwell's equations , with the proper electro-mechanical coupling, can provide an explanation to the phenomena observed in the Newman device. The electro-mechanical coupling may be embedded in the Maxwell equations if a unified picture (such as Newman's picture of gyroscopic massergies) is adopted.

[Signed]

Roger Hastings, PhD
Principal Physicist, Unisys Corp.
Former Associate Professor of Physics
North Dakota State University

______________________________

Letter #1

From: Rich P. Vento
To: josephnewman@earthlink.net
Subject: Your machine

Dear Joe,

I am only modestly acquainted with your work having read an article in Scientific American(?) some years ago. I am a mathematical physicist and I believe that you are using a very simple principle here that mainstream engineering is ill-prepared to address.

If you initially pass electrical dc charges through a conductive loop, the transient magnetic field builds around the coil (Faraday's Law of Induction) until the applied dc electric field forces charges into the receiving terminal of the battery. After which time the transient current will reach steady state and the battery will fry. One of Maxwell's equations (curl of E = -dB/dt) governs the entire phenomena during the transient state.

However, if both loop size and length is large, relative to the finite velocity of the charging pulse, then, as a consequence of the principle of special relativity, the collapsing magnetic field around the coil can be sustained in a narrow region of space in the coil. Kind of in a back-and-forth sway, neither fully collapsing nor expanding to peak.

If your discharge or pulse cycle, is timed so that it sets the collapsing magnetic field into a resonant harmonic, relative to the coil length, then you can, and will excite a self-sustaining and gradually building magnetic field, allowing for both line loss and recharging of the bank of batteries. You will also gradually, but continually, add to the electric field strength, and likewise the current carrying capacity of the continuous coil, and hence push the peak envelope of the magnetic field.

In addition, I believe that you will also excite more electrons of the conductor into the Fermi band where they'll do some good as small charge carrying entities (an added benefit). This might explain where the polarization vector in Maxwell's equations gives rise to energy above unity in what you must be seeing.

If the pulse is timed to reverse itself, consistent with some simple calculations, special relativity will predict that the advanced magnetic potential will sustain itself. I also think if you can do the experiment in cold junction conditions (liquid nitrogen immersion), the incremental magnetic and electric field peaks will rapidly enlarge.

If you would like we can correspond further, but I can almost make these calculations of what is required in my head.

your admirer, Rich
Mathematical Physicist

Letter #2

From: Rich P. Vento
To: josephnewman@earthlink.net

Dear Joe,

I think I could do a lot more for your efforts once I read your book. I shall search local libraries Oberlin, CWRU, JCU, CSU, and the University of Akron, for the book.

I truly believe you may have something. The key points are your coil length, number of turns, and, pulse cycle time of the discharge switch. These will determine whether the fields can be resonated using the finite velocity of light, which may be used quite advantageously by the pulse cycle.

If you start to build a Faraday-induced magnetic field around a conductor, and then reverse the polarity of the electric field, it is quite conceivable you would develop what are called the retarded and advanced potentials.

I'll look at some graduate E&M texts such as J.D. Jackson, Panofsky & Phillips, and Reitz & Milford (Adv UG). There may also be good theoretical insight in the writings of Nicolai Tesla. A couple of Russians have done some good theoretical work in E&M, and I may even have Sir James Jeans' book around as a Dover edition.

If you do have an alternative energy source, I can bring myself to understand it. I was one of the first physicists to decipher what Fleishmann and Pons were doing with cold fusion phenomena. I likened it to an accelerated form of "rusting" (i.e. heat evolution) with insufficient tritium and driving force to self sustain and control the reaction. You see, if you know the lattice (or phonon) vibration frequency of a crystal, then you can insert charges in between the phases of +/- affinity. As a '+' x-tal expands, by the symmetry of physical laws, that is likened to a the inducement of a negative charge in the center of the array. Thus you can play with the field effects.

Best regards,

Rich P. Vento
Mathematical Physicist

Letter #3

Gentlemen,

The debate of the origin of the magnetic field has certainly sparked my interest regarding the work of Joseph Newman. Please let me clarify that there is a fundamental difference between magneto-statics and magneto-dynamics (just as with electrostatics and electrodynamics). The difference being whether or not charge is in motion relative to the observer.

Much can be said about Joe's claim of the inherent magnetic field of the coil medium. There is, after all, ferro- dia- and para-magnetism, which are essentially static field concepts. But I think the over unity power that apparently has been observed in Newman machines is a combination of resonating the dynamic fields, both electric and magnetic; which perhaps permits the addition of more charges (from the coil itself) to enter the Fermi (conduction) band. Maxwell's equations play a role here, as well as the laws of Ampere, Faraday, and Biot-Savart, (maybe even Tesla).

In order for the stationary observer to observe a magnetic field, one either places iron filings on paper and brings a magnet nearby, OR, one passes current thru a conductor and watches a compass align itself. A moving observer would also observe complementary E & M fields if he (she) were to move a coil (fixed relative to the moving observer) over a stationary magnetic or move a magnet (fixed relative the moving observer) over a stationary coil. If the applied motion is sinusoidal, a compass would alternate its position. these examples are clear indications of an operative field.

Note above, that I speak of an observer. When relative motion comes into play, either by moving an iron core thru a coil, while passing current, or whether the observer is moving relative to a fixed field, the E-field will develop perpendicularly to the B-field in a manner consistent with the coordinate transformations of special relativity. Remember, Einstein could have used Galilean space and time transformations to attempt the rationalization of his theory. Instead he opted to keep consistency in Maxwell's equations, and thus the Lorentz transformation was born and we ended up with dynamic, E & M fields.

Rich P. Vento
Mathematical Physicist

--------------------------------------------------

Letter #4

Gentlemen:

I gave a reply to the magnetic field controversy. Here I'd like to say that the evidence surrounding Maxwell's equations in E&M is overwhelming. But Joe has something that I first commented on and sent to Evan some weeks ago. Namely, with resonating phenomena, there may be an excitation of another mode of electron behavior. This may contribute to the gradual buildup of the time varying E-field which would contribute to the B-field.

Just like in thermodynamics the three modes of energy that a gas molecule experiences: translation, rotation, and vibration all kick in at different frequencies (read energy levels) to contribute to the 3/2K*T which is observed.

If we apply Maxwell's partial (albeit, linear) DE to the creation of a magnetic field from a time varying E-field we see macroscopic effects. But should a configuration-specific resonance phenomena be observed, more of the conductor's electrons may be kicked into resonant conduction, further adding to the E-field, hence the B-field.

We have four quantum numbers describing the electron, n, l, m_l, m_s. The electron is a true particle as are all leptons. The gyrotron (my name for Joe Newman's particle, is probably some type of spin-orbit interaction, or band filling/band-splitting phenomena, ANY OF WHICH may contribute to conduction (and hence B) during resonance with resulting behavior as some sort of "virtual" particle. The virtual particle won't be directly observable--but its effects may be predictable.

We must not overlook Special Relativity and the finitude of the velocity of light as the fundamental physical constraint on all E&M phenomena. And the analogy is quite simple: I can set up a resonating standing wave if I have fixed boundary conditions. This I cannot do for an infinite travelling wave. Because Newman devices employ large coils with fixed boundaries and switching, I suspect a mathematical formulation (with appropriate testable, engineering conditions given) is quite possible.

Rich P. Vento
Mathematical Physicist

_______________________________

A PRELIMINARY QUANTIFICATION OF NEWMAN'S EFFECT
by Larry Adams

Joseph Newman has experimentally derived a magnetic field from a coil connected to high potential. As shall be seen in the following, this is a complementary effect to that found in ferromagnetic resonance. This effect does not contradict Oersted, since it depends on an entirely different set of suppositions unknown to Oersted and now known as a part of condensed matter physics.

After studying ferromagnetic resonance theory for nine years it comes as no surprise to me that Newman has proven a corollary to the relationship of fields and spinning dipoles in matter. He has completed the symmetry.

While it is well known that magnetic fields cause the precession of elementary magnetic moments and that precessing moments produce a magnetic field, the role of the electric field, the other half of the symmetry, has not until now been explained.

An electric field is known to cause spinning electric dipoles to precess. Precessing elementary electric dipoles are, at the same time, precessing elementary magnetic moments. Precessing electrons have BOTH characteristics.

The ratio e/m means two things simultaneously. Of course, charge to mass, influenced by electric fields, but also the ratio is the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum of the electron, influenced by magnetic fields.

We are not dealing here with the usual source of magnetism, a conductive flow of electrons. Rather, it is the precession of electrons that is crucial. The precession tends to align the magnetic moments parallel; by superposition, a net magnetic field emerges.

Newman's effect, then, is that a high electrical potential across a solid copper coil of radius r causes the precession of electrons in the copper, yielding a magnetic field.

If the angular frequency of precession is w and the ratio e/m is y (mksa units) then the magnetic flux density is:

B = w / y

An identity for B is:

B = E / wr

where E is the applied electric field.

Solve for w in the first equation (w = yB) then substitute this expression into the identity for w. Multiply both sides by B, and,

B^2 = E / yr or,

B = sqrt(E / yr).

Maxwell's equations are linear because they refer to a vacuum. The non-linearity between E and B above is connected with the presence of mass and spin.

Can very large electric fields be applied without breakdown? Theoretically, if r = 1m and E = 1.76 x 10^11 V/m, B = 1 Tesla.

The current through the coil is marginal to insignificant as related by Newman. Power = V^2 / R so the length and diameter of the copper forming the coil must be chosen to minimize the resistance.

B will alternate (pole switch) with an alternating potential.


Larry Adams

______________________________

DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT

Joseph Newman disclosed and demonstrated to me his 130-pound motor/generator (Note: an earlier prototype) with reciprocating magnet armature, operating with high voltage input. The primary problem which has been encountered in the past with scaling the Newman motors to large and practical output power levels was the need to go to higher voltage input, and the destruction which occurred when the coil was switched at higher voltages. Joseph Newman has now solved the high voltage switching problem with a new commutator design (Note: as well as a new capacitor design), and it appears that arbitrarily high input voltages can now be reached.

The significance of high voltage on the Newman Motor/Generator is that our data show that 1) the output power increases as the square of the input voltage; 2) the input power increases linearly with the voltage; 3) the motor efficiency increases linearly with the voltage; 4) output power levels required, for example, to power a home will require input voltages estimated at ten to twenty kilovolts.

The 130-pound Newman Motor/Generator was operated at 1,000 and 2,000 volts battery input (Editor's Note: later versions can be operated utilizing the voltage of the city grid with the current kept very low), with output powers of 50 and 200 Watts, respectively. Input power in these tests were 7 and 14 Watts, yielding efficiencies (Editor's Note: production, not conversion efficiencies --- conversion efficiencies can never exceed 100%) of 700% and 1,400% respectively.

In addition, the motor was operated for the first time using a high voltage transformer plugged into the a.c. power socket. The transformer output voltage was roughly 2,000 volts. The input power was readily measured using an a.c. milliammeter to be 25 Watts, while the output was measured again at approximately 200 Watts. The higher input in this case reflects the inefficiency of the transformer.

It now appears to me that the Newman Motor/Generator can be readily scaled to power levels which will make it practical for commercial and home energy needs.

The above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

[Signed]

Roger Hastings, Ph.D.
Principal Physicist, Unisys Corp.
Former Associate Professor of Physics
North Dakota State University



To whom it may concern:

I witnessed a demonstration of Joseph Newman's Motor/Generator prototype (Editor's Note: an earlier prototype) in Atlanta, Georgia. Newman's Motor/Generator weighed approximately 10 lbs, consisting of copper and a powerful magnet rotor. The rotor was attached to a 15 inch fan blade taken from a commercial fan. Newman's Motor/Generator turned the fan blade at approximately 660 r.p.m. It was connected through a mechanical commutator to 2,500 volts of dry cell batteries. The d.c. input current was 1.8 mA, for a total power input of 4.5 Watts.

Also displayed was a commercial fan with a five-inch blade. This fan was advertised as an energy saving motor. Examination of the motor revealed a precision motor design. It drew 25 Watts during operation. Newman's Motor/Generator was obviously doing several times the work of the commercial motor, while drawing 5.5 times less power. A later experiment was performed in Mississippi in which a commercial fan with an identical 15-inch blade was powered from a Variac and run at the same speed as the Newman Motor/Generator. The commercial fan drew 30 Watts compared to the Newman Motor/Generator's 4.5 Watts. It should also be noted that a 15 Watt florescent tube, connected across Newman's Motor/Generator coil to prevent sparking, was simultaneously lit to perhaps one-fourth of its full brightness. Also, as in past prototypes, a large negative current (r.f. envelope) flows back into the battery from the motor/generator coil.

My testing, and observations of Newman prototypes which are electronically commutated, indicate that Newman's fan prototype can be improved to run on external input of about 2 Watts. Thus further development can lead to a fan motor which consumes 1/15th the power of an efficiently-designed commercial motor.

I swear that the above state

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 08:16 PM
(Affidavit from Dr. Roger Hastings, continued ---)

My testing, and observations of Newman prototypes which are electronically commutated, indicate that Newman's fan prototype can be improved to run on external input of about 2 Watts. Thus further development can lead to a fan motor which consumes 1/15th the power of an efficiently-designed commercial motor.

I swear that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

[Signed]

Roger Hastings, Ph.D.
Principal Physicist, Unisys Corp.
Former Associate Professor of Physics
North Dakota State University

An Evaluation of Joseph Newman's Revolutionary Energy Machine

There are two equations that predict the terminal voltage of a battery when it is connected to a motor or generator (from Shortley & Williams Elements of Physics, 2nd Edition). VT is the terminal voltage. VE is the rated voltage. I is the current. RI is the internal resistance of the battery:

1) Connected to a motor: VT equals VE - IRI

2) Connected to a generator: VT equals VE + IRI

As a result of the internal resistance RI , the voltage at the battery terminals VT connected to a running motor will always be less than the voltage V that is present when the motor is not running.

To convince yourself of this let I equals 0 (motor not running), and the equation becomes:

VT equals VE

which means that the voltage measured by an accurate instrument at the battery terminals VT will be exactly equal to the rated output voltage VE of the battery (assuming a battery in good condition). Now, let the motor run and draw a current I > 0. With the motor running, the voltage measured at the terminal VT will always be less than the rated voltage of the battery VE .

Joseph Newman's motor, with battery terminal voltages measured by the most accurate measuring instrument available, a state-of-the-art electronic oscilloscope, shows a marked increase in the terminal voltage, VT . In other words, Mr. Newman's machine runs like a generator, not a convention motor, as one can easily tell by inspecting Equation 2) above. Equation 2) clearly shows that if the terminal voltage rises while current is flowing through a device, the device must be generating a source of current I in the opposite direction to that supplied by the battery.

During early prototypes, the reverse current was difficult to measure, even with an oscilloscope, because the huge spike of reverse current flooded the circuits of the measuring oscilloscope. In Mr. Newman's current prototypes, the large capacitors store the energy of the spike of the reverse current and spread the energy out over time. The result is that the terminal voltage increases dramatically, indicating decisively that Mr. Newman's machine is a generator, not just a motor.

[Signed]

Robert Joseph Matherne, Physicist
[retired from Entergy Corp.,Taft Nuclear Power Plant]


_____________________________

MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS OF

JOSEPH NEWMAN'S

ENERGY GENERATOR

Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from
submissions by other individuals interested in the technology


by

Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D.



Abstract.

The author has made numerous measurements on the Energy Machines developed by Joseph Newman. The machines are large, air core, permanent magnet motors. [Note: Other designs have been constructed as well.] The most important design rule specified by the inventor is that the length of wire in the motor coil be very long; preferably long enough so that the switching time between current reversals is shorter than the time required for propagation of the current wavefront through the coil. Various models contain up to 55 miles of wire, with air core coil inductances of up to 20,000 Henries. The permanent magnet armatures have very large magnetic moments. Thus the motors exhibit high torque with low current inputs. The motors generate large back current spikes consisting of pulsed rf in the 10-20 MHz frequency range. These spikes provide large mechanical impulses to the rotor, energize fluorescent tubes placed across the motor, and tend to charge the dry cell battery pack. The total generated energy ---- consisting of mechanical work, mechanical friction, ohmic heating, and light ---- is many times larger than the battery input energy.

Newman's theories and machines will be described. Measurements indicating net energy gain from the devices will be presented. A phenomenological mathematical description of the motor will also be presented. Finally, the author will present his personal impressions of Newman's work.



Newman's Theory.

Joseph Newman became interested in electromagnetic energy some 35 years ago, and began a self-study program. After searching standard texts for a mechanical description of electromagnetic interactions, he concluded that no such description existed. Newman decided that he would have to generate his own mechanical theory of electromagnetism, and over the following several years he evolved his gyroscopic particle theory. This theory, or model, states that all matter and energy is composed of a single elementary spinning particle which always moves at the speed of light.

The gyroscopic particle has mass, and it can neither be created or destroyed. All energy conversions, in this theory, involve an exchange of gyroscopic particles. E = mc^2 is the expression of this concept, and simply represents an accounting of gyroscopic particles during an energy conversion.

Electric and magnetic fields consist of gyroscopic particles flowing at the speed of light along the field lines. When an electric or magnetic field is created, the particles initially come from the materials which energized the field. For example, when a battery is connected to a wire, gyroscopic particles flow at the speed of light down the wire, and they tend to align the gyroscopic particle flow fields of the electrons in the wire. The electric gyroscopic particle flow field extends outside the wire creating the circumferential magnetic field of the wire. The energy in the magnetic field is Nmc^2, where N is the number of particles in the field, and m is the mass of an individual particle. This energy, or these particles, came from the electrons of the copper.

Thus, Newman considers the current flowing in the wire to be a catalyst which energy to emanate from the atoms of the wire. He claims that he has developed a mechanism whereby field energy can be pumped out of the copper atoms in the wire, thereby reducing their mass without consuming the voltage source which has supplied the catalytic current flow. Since the mass is consumed totally, there is no pollution in this process. One gram mass, if totally consumed, could supply enough energy to power a home for one thousand years. Newman describes his theory and its applications in his book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN [1].



Description of Newman Motors.

Newman's motors may be described as two-pole, single phase, permanent magnet armature, DC motors. That is, the armature consists of a single permanent magnet which either rotates or reciprocates within a single coil of copper wire. The coil is energized with a bank of dry cell, carbon zinc batteries. In the rotating models, which will be emphasized in this paper, the battery voltage to the coil is reversed each half cycle of rotation by a mechanical commutator attached to the shaft of the rotating armature. Motor operation is sensitive to the angle at which the voltage is switched, and this is optimized experimentally. On some models, the commutator also interrupts the voltage several times per cycle, creating a pulsed input to the coil.

The coils are constructed with a very large number of turns of copper wire. In all models, the coil inductive reactance is much larger than the coil resistance at operating speed. However, the coil resistance is large enough so that even in the locked rotor condition, very little current flows through the coil. The motors typically draw less than ten milliampere so that small capacity batteries (e.g., 9 volt transistor batteries) can be used in series for the power supply. Self resonant frequencies (frequency at which the coil inductive reactance equals the coil distributed capacitive reactance) are typically on the order of the armature rotation frequency. The permanent magnet armature is very strong, and TIGHT COUPLING TO THE COIL is emphasized in Newman's later models [emphasis added]. His early models used up to 700 pounds of ceramic magnets, while later models used smaller armatures made with powerful neodymium-boron-iron magnets. The commutator is protected by fluorescent tubes placed across the motor. Enough tubes are placed in series so that the battery voltage will not break them down. When the coil is switched, the tubes are lit by the resulting high voltage, minimizing arcing across the commutator.

Newman's Motors exhibit the following extraordinary characteristics:

1) High torque is realized with very little input current and very little input power. The battery input power is typically several times smaller than the measured frictional power losses occurring when the armature rotates at its operating speed. His motors are at least ten times more efficient than commercial electric motors (perform the same work with one tenth the input power.)

2) The batteries last much longer than would be expected for the current input. It has been demonstrated that "dead" dry cell batteries will charge up while operating a Newman Motor, and subsequently be able to deliver significant power to normal loads (e.g., lights). The batteries fail by internal shorting rather than by depletion of their internal energy.

3) Significant rf power is generated by the motor (primarily in the ten to twenty megahertz range). The rf is a high voltage relative to ground, and will light fluorescent or neon tubes placed between the motor and ground in addition to lighting the tubes placed across the motor coil. The rf current flows through the entire system, and has been measured calorimetrically to have an rms value many times larger than the battery input current.



EXPERIMENTAL DATA

A large amount of data has been collected by many individuals on the various Newman Motors. While Newman's more recent prototypes are perhaps the most interesting because of their reduced volume, I will present data on his original prototype large machine which has been more extensively investigated. Measured motor parameters are listed below:

COIL PARAMETERS:

Weight .................................... 9,000 pounds
Copper Wire Length ............. 55 miles
Coil Inductance ..................... 1,100 Henries
Coil Resistance ...................... 770 Ohms
Coil Inside Diameter ............. 4 feet
Coil Height ............................. 4 feet

ROTOR PARAMETERS:

Rotor Weight ......................... 700 lbs. ceramic magnets
Rotor Length ......................... 4 feet
Moment of Inertia ................. 40 Kg-sq.m.
Magnetic Moment ................. 100 Tesla-cu.in

BATTERY PARAMETERS:

Battery Type ......................... 6 Volt Ray-O-Vac Lantern
Total Series Voltage ............ 590 Volts

DYNAMIC PARAMETERS:

Torque Constant ................. 15,400 oz. in./amp
Drag Coefficient .................. 0.005 Watts/sq.rpm.
Q at 200 rpm ........................ 30
Power Factor, 200 rpm ........ 0.03

The torque constant was measured at DC and agrees with calculations. The drag coefficient was measured by plotting the motor speed versus time after disconnecting the batteries. It was found that the decay is exponential with the drag torque being proportional to the angular speed. With the motor operating at 200 rpm, the following measurements and calculations were obtained:



RESULTS: 200 RPM at 590 VOLTS

Battery Input Current ............. 10 milliampere
Battery Input Power ................ 6 Watts
Rotor Frictional Losses .......... 200 Watts
RF Current (rms) .................... 500 milliampere
RF Ohmic Losses in Coil ........ 190 Watts
Additional Loads ..................... Fluorescent Tubes, Incandescent Bulbs, Fan (belt driven)



The frictional losses are computed from the measured drag coefficient. The ohmic losses are computed from the coil resistance. Without considering the additional loads, it is seen that the output energy of the machine exceeded the input by a factor of 65!

Oscillograph photos show that the current waveform is dominated by the very large spike which occurs when the magnetic field of the coil collapses. The leading edge of this spike is shown in Figure 1. The staircase current rise is typical of the Newman Motors, with the width of the stairs in all cases being approximately equal to the length of the coil winding divided by the speed of light. Although the average current in the spike is at DC, the actual current waveform under the stairs is pulsing at a frequency of about 13 megahertz. The time average current in the waveform agrees with the calorimeter measurement of the rf current.

[Note: The following graphs are reproduced from ascii text and should be viewed in "Times" font; thus, any vertical displacements in the text are due to conversion from ascii to this format. Miscellaneous text characters (whose text color matches the background) have been inserted to assist in vertically aligning the following graphs.]

CC ,!
U C !
R C !
R C !
E C !_______ .........._____
N C ! mm ... : ......../
TC ,! m.m... : ......./
T C ! m.m... : ....../
I C-.! m..m...: ...../
NC. ! m ...... : ..../
N..-6! m,..,... : ../
AX. ! m....... : ./
M -8!
P ..,..!
S m.!__i__i__i__i__i__i__
m .. 5 msec per division
m... Figure 1A.

C m !
U m !
R m !
R m !
E ...0!____
N m ! m.....:
T m ! .m..... :
m.. ..! .m...... :
I ...-4! ...m..... :
Nm .! ......m....... .:
m. -6! .......m..............:
A .... ! .......m ...............: _____
M .-8!
P m.. !
S m . !__i__i__i__i__i__i__i__
m.m1 msec per division
mm Figure 1B.



C m !
U m !
R m !
R m !
E n0!____
N m.! m.. ____
T m ! m,,,....... ____
m,...,! ,,,,,,,,,,.......... ____
I ...-4! ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,............. ____
N n. !
m..-6!
A m !
M .-8!
P m..!
S m. !__i__i__i__i__i__i__i__
mm0.1 msec per division
mm Figure 1C.

Figures 1A-C. Reproduction of oscillographs showing Newman Motor switching current spike. Spike leading edge is shown with the magnified time base in second and third oscillograph. Rotor speed was 120 rpm.

Note: The above diagrams may be view more clearly at:
http://www.josephnewman.com/Analysis_by_Dr.Hastings.html


PHENOMENOLOGICAL THEORY

A phenomenological theory of operation is suggested here, which involves the following sequence of events:

1) The battery is switched across the coil and a current wavefront (gyroscopic particles) propagates into the coil at a speed determined by the coil's propagation time constant.

2) Before the wavefront completes its journey through the coil, the battery voltage is switched open. At this point the coil contains a charge equal to the current times the on-time.

3) When the switch is opened, all of this charge leaves the coil in a very short time, creating a very large current pulse in the coil.

4) The magnetic field generated by this current pulse (gyroscopic particle flow) propagates out to the permanent magnet armature, and gives it an impulsive torque.

5) The magnet accelerates, and the resulting magnetic field disturbance of the permanent magnet is propagated back to the coil, creating a back-emf. However, by the time this occurs, the switch is open so that the back emf does not impede the current flowing in the battery circuit.


These notions agree qualitatively with the measured waveforms. After one-half cycle of rotation, a charge on the order of 0.01 Coulombs will be contained within the coil. From the oscillograph this is seen to be dumped in a few milliseconds, creating a current of several amps. This current continues to flow for some ten milliseconds before decaying to zero.

Newman's Motor can be described by the following set of equations:

(1) JÒ + F(Ò) = K(sub t)I sin (Ò)

(2) LI = RI = V(Ò) - K(sub i)Ò sin (Ò)

where:

J = Rotor Moment of Inertia
F = Friction and Load Torque
K(sub t) = Torque Constant
I = Coil Current
L = Coil Inductance
V = Applied Voltage
K(sub i) = Induction Constant
Ò = Rotation Angle

The first equation is Newton's second law applied to the rotating magnet, the second is the coil current circuit equation. The voltage is the value applied to the coil within the commutator. If the first equation is multiplied by Ò and the 2nd equation is multiplied by I, and both equations are averaged over one cycle, the sum of the resulting equations gives:

(3) <IV> = <ÒF> + <I^2R> + (K(sub i) - K(sub t) <ÒIsin )

where the brackets indicate a time average over one cycle of rotation.

The term on the left is the power input. The first two terms on the right represent the mechanical power output (combined frictional losses & load power), and the ohmic heating in the coil windings. The last term is zero if the torque constant is equal to the induction constant, as would be the case in a conventional motor. However, as postulated above, if the induction constant is smaller than the torque constant, the last term supplies the negative power.

To view this another way, assume that the input voltage, through the commutator action varies as V = V(sub o)sin (Ò). If we also assume that the rotor angular speed, Ò, is nearly a constant, w, the following expression applies for the motor efficiency:

...............<wF> .......K(sub t)w<Isin Ò> m K(sub t)w
(4) E = ______ = __________________ = ___________
...............<IV> .. .....V(sub o)<Isin Ò> m.... V (sub o)

The following two equations can now be solved for the presumed constant motor speed:

(5) LI + RI = (V(sub o) - K(sub i)w)sin(wt)

(6) <F(w)> = K(sub t)<I sin(wt)>

The solution depends upon the details of the mechanical load function, F(w). If, however, the torque constant and voltage are both very large (as they are in the Newman Motor), then the angular speed is approximately [2]:

.................V(sub o)
w apr. = __________
..................K(sub i)

and the expression for the efficiency becomes:

.................K(sub t)
E apr. = __________
..................K(sub i)

If the torque and induction constants are equal,the motor is nearly one hundred percent efficient. If the torque constant exceeds the induction constant, the efficiency* exceeds 100%.

[*Note: the PRODUCTION efficiency can exceed 100%; the CONVERSION efficiency cannot exceed 100%]


CONCLUSIONS:

Joseph Newman has demonstrated that his Theory is a useful tool by which predictions of circuit function can be made without mathematics. For example, his gyroscopic particles interact as spinning particles (through the cross product of their spins), and this qualitatively describes magnetic induction.

In complicated electromagnetic systems, exact solutions to Maxwell's equations may be difficult or impossible to obtain, while a phenomenological mechanical picture can be visualized to give qualitatively correct results. Mechanical models of electromagnetic interactions were considered essential by scientists of the 19th century. Maxwell originally derived his famous equations by using a mechanical model of the electromagnetic field, and stated the following [3]:

"The theory I propose may therefore be called a theory of the electromagnetic field because it has to do with the space in the neighborhood of the electric or magnetic bodies, and it may be called a dynamical theory because it assumes that in that space there is MATTER IN MOTION, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced ...... In speaking of the energy of the field, I wish to be understood literally: ALL ENERGY IS THE SAME AS MECHANICAL ENERGY..." [Emphasis added.]

Regarding Joseph Newman's Motor, I have no doubt about its performance or about the profound importance of its future applications.

AT THIS TIME IT APPEARS THAT THE FIRST APPLICATIONS WILL BE REPLACEMENTS FOR EXISTING ELECTRIC MOTORS. [Emphasis added.]

Regarding a rigorous mathematical description of the underlying phenomena, it is clear that much effort, both theoretical and experimental, will be required to achieve this end.


REFERENCES:

[1] THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, Joseph W. Newman author; Evan Soule', editor. Joseph Newman Publishing Company, Order/Processing Dept., 3725 South Division Street, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49548 [1st Edition originally published in 1984.]

[2] The precise condition for this approximation to be valid is that the locked rotor torque be much larger than the applied mechanical torque at speed multiplied by one plus the square of the ratio of inductive reactance and resistance. This condition applied to some of Newman's Motors, and in particular to the most recent small volume devices. In the larger motors the voltage is applied with a phase shift chosen to optimize efficiency, and it can be shown that Equation 8 still applies in the limit of large inductance.

[3] A DYNAMICAL THEORY OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD. James Clerk Maxwell, T. F. Torrance, ed., Scottish Academic Press Ltd., Edinburgh (1982). [From Maxwell's Presentation to the Royal Society, 1864).

The above was written by Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D., for a presentation before a National Conference of the International Tesla Society.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dr. Roger Hastings has a Ph.D. in Physics, University of Minnesota, 1975; MS in Physics, University of Denver, 1971; ** in Physics, University of Denver, 1969.

Dr. Hastings was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Virginia, 1977-77 with research in organic superconductors and the physical properties of solutions of macroions and viruses. Currently, Dr. Hastings is a Principal Physicist with the UNISYS Corporation. As a consultant, Dr. Hastings also designs electric motors for other corporations.

The latest commutator designs enable higher voltages to be utilized.

Note: The above article was written several years ago. The principles described above are generally applicable "across the breadth of the technology." However, considerable improvements to the commutator design have been made in the recent past. Those improvements are intended to actually reduce the intensity of the sparking by distributing the physical connections over a wider area. The reader should bear in mind that within the context of this discussion there are two totally different design systems (but many sub-configurations within each basic design): there is one commutator design when the energy machine is intended to function as a GENERATOR and a totally different commutator design when the energy machine is intended to function as a MOTOR. The latest design improvements to the commutator system apply to the machine operating as a MOTOR. Subsequent torque can be utilized for mechanical systems or can be used in conjunction with a conventional generator. In general, there are many possible designs using the pioneering technology innovated by Joseph Newman.

____________________________

Gary
:)

russ_watters
2004-Sep-10, 08:55 PM
Holy spam, Batman!

One little point:
2) If so, why isn't one attached to every house in the world?

2) Give him the patent to which he is entitled and it will be. A patent is not required for putting an invention into production. Apparently, he already has people willing to build it and already has people willing to buy it - all he has to do is make it happen. But, as others have pointed out, he doesn't even have one powering his own house yet. If he does have a working prototype, why isn't it powering his house?

Demigrog
2004-Sep-10, 09:13 PM
Um, we can read Newman's website just fine ourselves, no need to post it here.

I should also point out that the "Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D." has never been confirmed to actually exist. Certainly, he is not an employee of UniSys.

Anyway, I suspect we're being spammed by Newman or an associate; any time his website comes up on a messageboard, this sort of bulk posting occurs.

Demigrog
2004-Sep-10, 09:15 PM
Holy spam, Batman!

One little point:
2) If so, why isn't one attached to every house in the world?

2) Give him the patent to which he is entitled and it will be. A patent is not required for putting an invention into production. Apparently, he already has people willing to build it and already has people willing to buy it - all he has to do is make it happen. But, as others have pointed out, he doesn't even have one powering his own house yet. If he does have a working prototype, why isn't it powering his house?

I should also point out that Newman has already missed his chance to patent his device. By disclosing the supposid operating principals by selling his book, providing demonstrations, etc, he has made the device public domain. Within the US, there is a one year grace period that has well past expired; in Europe and most other countries, you don't even get that grace period.

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 09:17 PM
Russ wrote:
"2) If so, why isn't one attached to every house in the world?

2) Give him the patent to which he is entitled and it will be.

A patent is not required for putting an invention into production. Apparently, he already has people willing to build it and already has people willing to buy it - all he has to do is make it happen. But, as others have pointed out, he doesn't even have one powering his own house yet. If he does have a working prototype, why isn't it powering his house?"

Legally-speaking, a patent is certainly not required for "putting an invention into production".

Financially/realistically --- it is.

But then, maybe you can prove that is not the case:

Let me put it to you this way: If you have serious investors* who are willing to finance production of the technology without patent protection, I'm sure Joseph Newman would be interested in meeting with them.

(*It is also understood that such serious investors would not invest a single penny until they tested the system with their engineers/experts and were convinced that the system operated as stated.)

As to your concluding point, that was discussed in an earlier post. To my knowledge, Joseph Newman does not own a house; moreover, there is nothing sacred about powering a house. If he can power fans, lights, TVs, etc. and demonstrate "greater external energy output than external energy input" that proves the validity of the technology. And he has done that ... repeatedly.

Gary
:)

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 09:23 PM
Demi wrote,

"I should also point out that Newman has already missed his chance to patent his device. By disclosing the supposid operating principals by selling his book, providing demonstrations, etc, he has made the device public domain. Within the US, there is a one year grace period that has well past expired; in Europe and most other countries, you don't even get that grace period."

Nope, that's not the case here. And even the patent bureaucrats admitted that was not the case during Newman's court action against them.

This is not the place to argue the finer points of patent & other aspects of patent law --- and, more to the point, I understand that Newman nor his attorney will disclose in advance their anticipated legal strategy for rectifying the wrong done Newman by the PTO.

Gary
:)

garynolan
2004-Sep-10, 09:29 PM
Demi wrote,

"Um, we can read Newman's website just fine ourselves, no need to post it here.

I should also point out that the "Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D." has never been confirmed to actually exist. Certainly, he is not an employee of UniSys."

A request was made for additional documentation. The website URL had been previously posted. Since the URL posting was apparently insufficient, data from the site was subsequently posted.

I understand that Dr. Hastings is now retired from UniSys. He most certainly exists and was featured in an interview broadcast on CBS Evening News concerning Joseph Newman's energy machine.

Gary
:)

zebo-the-fat
2004-Sep-10, 09:32 PM
If it works why isn't he richer than Bill Gates?
(Answers less than a page please!)

TinFoilHat
2004-Sep-10, 10:04 PM
If he can power fans, lights, TVs, etc. and demonstrate "greater external energy output than external energy input" that proves the validity of the technology. And he has done that ... repeatedly.

He has not, however, demonstrated a self-running, closed-loop unit. Which should be trivial to do given a "greater external energy output than external energy input" machine. The thought experiment I posted earlier would do it, although there should be simpler methods.

Demigrog
2004-Sep-10, 10:40 PM
Demi wrote,

"Um, we can read Newman's website just fine ourselves, no need to post it here.

I should also point out that the "Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D." has never been confirmed to actually exist. Certainly, he is not an employee of UniSys."

A request was made for additional documentation. The website URL had been previously posted. Since the URL posting was apparently insufficient, data from the site was subsequently posted.

The URL was quite sufficient; the website does not answer any questions, so reposting it doesn't really help.



I understand that Dr. Hastings is now retired from UniSys. He most certainly exists and was featured in an interview broadcast on CBS Evening News concerning Joseph Newman's energy machine.

I've seen the transcript of the CBS piece. I'm skeptical that Dr. Hastings is in fact who he claims to be, though I'd not bet money on it. Scientists can be fooled too. Certainly if his endorsement of Newman is legitimate, it doesn't do his alma mater any credit.

James Randi certainly wasn't fooled; let any competent engineer work freely on it for an hour or two and they won't be fooled either (ie the NBS test). Tests done under Newman's control are simply not legitimate.

ktesibios
2004-Sep-10, 11:38 PM
You know one very significant difference between the work done by the NBS and what we're being flooded with here by Newman's advocate?

The NBS report provides a detailed technical description of what equipment they used in their tests, how it was used, how they tested it with known sources before testing Newman's machine, what potential sources of error they identified and how they obtained quantitative measurements of these errors , the consequences of the potential error sources for the overall accuracy of their measurements- in short, pretty much every bit of information a reader would need to form a truly informed opinion of the test protocol and, if necessary, to replicate it.

From the Newman side, we don't seem to get that kind of necessary information. We get a lot of testimonials, which basically come down to unverifiable anecdotes, and plenty of handwaving about speculative mechanisms for a phenomenon which still hasn't been properly demonstrated to exist.

Unfortunately, if you don't detail your methods and lay out the data you gathered in the way the NBS did, you can't reasonably expect anyone to accept your conclusions.

As to what I meant by saying "show us the math"- the contention that the NBS measurements were in error because one terminal of the machine output was grounded demands that the difference between a floating source and a grounded source be shown to produce a difference in load voltage sufficient to reduce a true efficiency which is >1 to a measured efficiency of 0.77 (the highest efficiency the NBS found for Newman's machine under any of the test conditions). This calls for an analysis of the machine-load-instrument circuit.

Circuit analysis is a mathematical game. Period. You set up the network equations by referring to a schematic of the circuit, and you solve them. There's no need for words save to describe how you derived the equivalent circuit which you're analyzing. All you need to make the point is a diagram and your mathematical work.

Here's a quick hint- in my field (pro audio) floating output circuits are really common (we call them "symmetrical" or "transformer isolated" outputs)- virtually all "vintage" gear uses them. The neat thing about floating outputs is that you can unbalance them, i.e., connect either side to ground, without altering the signal level or frequency response at the load at all, which makes them virtually idiot (or assistant engineer)-proof. It's possible that if you take all of the stray reactances in the circuit into account you could find some difference between the floating and grounded condition, but in over twenty years of repairing, performance testing, designing and building gear, as well as untangling the wierdities that overpaid knob-twisters get into at 3 A.M., I have yet to see a difference in power transfer between a floating source and the same source grounded that was measurable, let alone of a magnitude greater than 1 dB, which is approximately the difference between Newman's best showing in the NBS test and an efficiency =1.


Um, we can read Newman's website just fine ourselves, no need to post it here.

I should also point out that the "Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D." has never been confirmed to actually exist. Certainly, he is not an employee of UniSys.

Anyway, I suspect we're being spammed by Newman or an associate; any time his website comes up on a messageboard, this sort of bulk posting occurs.

Maybe, but not necessarily. I've noticed that advocates of genyoowine woowoo notions seem to have a penchant for strings of "and foithermore" posts. :wink:

paulie jay
2004-Sep-11, 01:34 AM
Pauli wrote:
"The man is a fraud. If you've invested money him then you're gonna be a long time waiting for miracles."

edited to add - And don't bother throwing out challenges for people to prove that he is a fraud. The onus is on him to prove that he can do what he claims to be able to do. End of story. Until he can do that every cent he takes from gullible people is from a fraudulent act.

No, Pauli, Joseph Newman is not a fraud. And I will challenge anyone who calls him a fraud to prove it. In fact, if you truly feel so strongly that he is a "fraud" then one would expect you to be willing to report his "fraudulent activities" to every appropriate legal governing authority.

But will you actually do that? I doubt it.


Gary

:)

Take a look at my location Gary. Not much I can do about it from Australia.

paulie jay
2004-Sep-11, 01:52 AM
And another thing - posting alleged affidavits doesn't really cut it as proof you know Gary. Even is they are real, they still aren't worth the paper they are written on. Never heard of anyone lying in court before?

Fortis
2004-Sep-11, 02:20 AM
Hmmmm. As he has basically created a new quantum theory of the electromagnetic field, perhaps he would care to share with us his determination of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. ;) :)

Eta C
2004-Sep-11, 05:26 PM
Boy, I say to stop beating around the bush, and what do we get from Gary? The better part of a page of of bush beating. As to the "testimonials" they signify nothing other than the stupidity of the people making them (if in fact the people making them exist.)

Thanks ktesibios for the link to the NBS report. Sorry Gary, but it's pretty damning. If you can't provide something of equivalent rigor there's no reason to take any of your marathon posts seriously (as if there was a reason to do so in the first place.) The NBS report provided what I had asked for from you in an earlier post, a full set of data, with the statistical and systematic errors quantified and the methodology explained. You haven't provided that yet, and I suspect you (or Newman) cannot.

You may have answered this question, but I don't have the time to go digging for it, so please a simple, one line response. Do you (or Newman) have one of these machines connected to your home? Lack of a patent is no excuse as others have pointed out. If you are still connected to the power grid, why should any of us take your claims to be anything but risable and, coincidently, ........

R.A.F.
2004-Sep-11, 06:21 PM
Do you (or Newman) have one of these machines connected to your home?

Somewhere here, Gary has stated that he doesn't think that Newman owns a home. I don't know why that would stop him from using someone elses home. IF the device works, you'd think that he wouldn't have any trouble coming up with volunteers.

swansont
2004-Sep-11, 07:04 PM
Do you (or Newman) have one of these machines connected to your home?

Somewhere here, Gary has stated that he doesn't think that Newman owns a home. I don't know why that would stop him from using someone elses home. IF the device works, you'd think that he wouldn't have any trouble coming up with volunteers.

You'd think a utility would buy the idea/machine, if it were valid, and just sell the energy. No worries about patents.

russ_watters
2004-Sep-11, 07:17 PM
Legally-speaking, a patent is certainly not required for "putting an invention into production".

Financially/realistically --- it is.

But then, maybe you can prove that is not the case:

Let me put it to you this way: If you have serious investors* who are willing to finance production of the technology without patent protection, I'm sure Joseph Newman would be interested in meeting with them. Patent protection is only needed to keep people from stealing the idea. Since clearly no one is interested in stealing the idea and he's selling the idea itself in his books, patent protection is not needed. Certainly, if a company puts this into production and it later becomes obvious o the world that it works, more companies will want to sell them too. But do you really think that competition would be an issue here? Everyone on the planet will want one.
...moreover, there is nothing sacred about powering a house. If he can power fans, lights, TVs, etc. and demonstrate "greater external energy output than external energy input" that proves the validity of the technology. Quite right, but setting aside for now the fact that no scientific tests have ever confirmed his claims to the satisfaction of the scientific community, the general public, patent office, major investors, or manufacturer (etc.), if it works for him (or his associates), he should be using it. So has he (or anyone else) done that for anything more than a demonstration? I pay upwards of $2,000 a year in electric bills. If I had in my posession a device that could subsidize that even a little bit, I'd certainly be using it. Is he or anyone else actually using his device?

russ_watters
2004-Sep-11, 07:24 PM
garynolan, I don't know if you're an associate of Newman or just a fan, but lets be clear here: Clearly, Newman's efforts to bring his idea to the mainstream have not been successful. If he really wants to do that, he should be doing what the mainstream wants. That's marketing: you have to give your cusomer what they want otherwise they aren't going to buy it from you. Why does he continue to fight the very people he should be trying to satisfy?

We've told you (and Newman certainly knows this already) exactly what we want to be convinced. If he wants to convince us, he needs to give it to us. Arguing with us about whether what we want is reasonable isn't going to help him any: Its what we want and it isn't going to change.

edit: If Newman is serious, he should be developing a product that people will want to buy. The demonstrations he's given, even if they work, are not of marketable products. You said there is nothing magical about powering a house. Thats true in the sense that its not a scientific test, but the point is that powering a house would be a good way to sell his device. If he wants people to buy it, it has to do something useful for them!

garynolan
2004-Sep-11, 09:59 PM
Zebo wrote:
"If it works why isn't he richer than Bill Gates?"

Give him his patent and his "riches" will follow by enabling him to raise the capital from investors (who have explicitly stated that they want to be assured of patent protection prior to investing) to produce the technology.

Tin wrote:
" He has not, however, demonstrated a self-running, closed-loop unit. Which should be trivial to do given a "greater external energy output than external energy input" machine. The thought experiment I posted earlier would do it, although there should be simpler methods."

The key word is "trivial". You use that word although you have never seen nor tested a system nor have a fundamental idea how it operates (as described by Newman). Once you seen it, tested it, and understand it, THEN will see how "trivial" it is for you to create a "closed-loop unit".

One would assume that it is not beyond the competence of SOME EE to test the input of Newman's system and test the output and determine if it does or does not "produce greater external energy output than external energy input."

Demi wrote:
"The URL was quite sufficient; the website does not answer any questions, so reposting it doesn't really help."

Perhaps not for you -- but perhaps for others.

Demi wrote:
"I've seen the transcript of the CBS piece. I'm skeptical that Dr. Hastings is in fact who he claims to be, though I'd not bet money on it. Scientists can be fooled too. Certainly if his endorsement of Newman is legitimate, it doesn't do his alma mater any credit."

His endorsement is legitimate and it does credit to both Hastings and his alma mater. Hastings took the time to test Newman's system extensively --- and he recognized firsthand the extreme importance of the technology.

Demi wrote:
"James Randi certainly wasn't fooled; let any competent engineer work freely on it for an hour or two and they won't be fooled either (ie the NBS test). Tests done under Newman's control are simply not legitimate."

Randi should stick to being a magician. Randi never tested an earlier version of the technology. Why? Because he didn't know how. Moreover, I understand that his short visit to Newman's facility was misrepresented. The people who sent him claimed that he was an "electrical engineer". That was a deliberate misrepresentation. Once Newman realized that Randi had been misrepresented, Newman escorted him off his property.

KT wrote:
"The NBS report..."
Hastings and others who reviewed the NBS report effectively addressed its significant shortcomings. And the biggest question I have is: Since the original schematic issued by the so-called "test experts" at the NBS specifically did NOT feature any GROUND ---- then why did they subsequently ground the device for EVERY SINGLE TEST THEY CONDUCTED? One would think they would at least have the competence to follow their own test schematic. One would also think they would have conducted at least ONE test without grounding the device.

PJ wrote:
"And another thing - posting alleged affidavits doesn't really cut it as proof you know Gary. Even is they are real, they still aren't worth the paper they are written on. Never heard of anyone lying in court before."

Perhaps for you, PJ. For me they are indeed worth the "paper they are written on" because they were provided by scientists and engineers who actually tested the system --- as opposed to those who have never seen nor tested the system, but think they understand it.

ETA wrote:
"As to the "testimonials" they signify nothing other than the stupidity of the people making them (if in fact the people making them exist.)"

Obviously, ETA, you and I have a different concept of stupidity. I consider the latter types (described above) to be quite stupid.

"Do you (or Newman) have one of these machines connected to your home?"

No I don't. And I certainly hope to once it is in production. And that will happen when the capital is raised to begin production. And that will happen when: 1) an investor is willing to invest without patent protection OR 2) patent protection is obtain to satisfy the investment requirements of such investor(s). [And to address this specific point now rather than later: Newman insists that any investor be totally convinced before investing anything --- which is why he welcomes competent engineers to test the technology and report results to such investors prior to any investment.]

RW wrote:
" Quite right, but setting aside for now the fact that no scientific tests have ever confirmed his claims to the satisfaction of the scientific community, the general public, patent office, major investors, or manufacturer (etc.), if it works for him (or his associates), he should be using it. So has he (or anyone else) done that for anything more than a demonstration? I pay upwards of $2,000 a year in electric bills. If I had in my posession a device that could subsidize that even a little bit, I'd certainly be using it. Is he or anyone else actually using his device?"

Your initial statement is false. Scientific tests HAVE satisfied many individuals --- including major investors/manufacturers. However, for such individuals the bottom line has been: "We are VERY interested in your technology but we need to be assured of patent protection prior to investing."

And if anyone on this list disputes that fact, then I welcome them to provide a major investor/manufacturer who will be an exception to that rule.

RW wrote:
"Clearly, Newman's efforts to bring his idea to the mainstream have not been successful. If he really wants to do that, he should be doing what the mainstream wants. That's marketing: you have to give your cusomer what they want otherwise they aren't going to buy it from you. Why does he continue to fight the very people he should be trying to satisfy".

What the mainstream wants is a unit that will provide energy needs as stated. That will happen when the unit is produced. That will happen when the capital is raised to produce the unit. That will happen when either 1) a patent can be secured or 2) investment capital will be available without the requirement of patent protection. Newman is focused on getting his technology into production. And I understand that he is presently taking steps to achieve that goal.

Gary
:)

TinFoilHat
2004-Sep-11, 11:38 PM
The key word is "trivial". You use that word although you have never seen nor tested a system nor have a fundamental idea how it operates (as described by Newman). Once you seen it, tested it, and understand it, THEN will see how "trivial" it is for you to create a "closed-loop unit".

I would love to get my hands on a Newman motor and run some tests of my own. Somehow I doubt this is ever likely to happen.

Did you read the thought experiment I posted above? Has Newman or any of his associates attempted such a test? If so, why didn't it work?


One would assume that it is not beyond the competence of SOME EE to test the input of Newman's system and test the output and determine if it does or does not "produce greater external energy output than external energy input."

I am aware that it can be suprisingly difficult to accurately measure power input to an electrical device when that device is not drawing steady DC or clean, sinusiodal AC. Many methods of measuring power can be tricked by having the device draw current irreguarily - pulsing or switching on and off rapidly, or feeding voltage spikes back into the source will make most cheap current meters give inaccurate results. The Newman motor appears to be idealy designed for confounding measurement tools, since it runs at unusually high voltage and low current, and uses an unusual commutator design which chops up the incoming current and generates large inductive back spikes.

Which is why I don't trust anyone who claims their device puts out more power than it consumes. As far as I'm concerned, the only way to conclusively demonstrate overunity is by having the device power itself. This should not be a difficult thing. Energy is energy. It should matter not at all to the machine if the input power is coming from a battery or from a suitably rectified and filtered output of a generator attached to the output. Even if for some reason there must be full electrical isolation between the input and output, the switched battery system I mentioned previously should work. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who claims to have built an overunity device but hasn't managed to make it power itself has merely found a good way of fooling test equipment.

Fortis
2004-Sep-12, 12:36 AM
Couldn't agree more. It's energy that we want to see, not peak power. Simplest way does seem to be to use it to charge some batteries. I'm guessing that he's never done that, though I'd love to be proven wrong. :)

(There'd be completely new physics here, after all. Newman would be inline for a Nobel if his theory held any water...)

ktesibios
2004-Sep-12, 03:57 AM
KT wrote:
"The NBS report..."
Hastings and others who reviewed the NBS report effectively addressed its significant shortcomings. And the biggest question I have is: Since the original schematic issued by the so-called "test experts" at the NBS specifically did NOT feature any GROUND ---- then why did they subsequently ground the device for EVERY SINGLE TEST THEY CONDUCTED? One would think they would at least have the competence to follow their own test schematic. One would also think they would have conducted at least ONE test without grounding the device.



And once more, from Newman v Quigg, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. No. 88-1312 July 5, 1989 (bolding mine):

"We need not decide whether the NBS tests were conducted by a
flawed procedure, for any flaw could have been, and was not,
corrected by Mr. Newman at the time of the tests. The test
protocol designed by NBS contained electrical schematics showing
plainly that the device was grounded. Mr. Newman does not dispute
that he had a copy of the test protocol before testing began. The
record shows no communication or objection. The Commissioner
further points out that the patent specification does not mention
the need to avoid grounding the device."

What part of "contained electrical schematics showing clearly that the device was grounded" and "Mr. Newman does not dispute
that he had a copy of the test protocol before testing began." do you not understand?

Is the problem that Newman is ignorant of how to read a schematic (and the sche of the test setup in the NBS report is so simple that a "For Dummies" book is all you would need to read it- including recognizing the symbol for an earth ground.) and thus didn't know that it included a ground?

If that isn't it then the unavoidable question is "was he lying then or is he lying now?"

BTW, are you or Newman prepared to provide the circuit analysis I asked for to prove that a floating source and load suddenly behave in a radically different manner if one side of the circuit is grounded?



The key word is "trivial". You use that word although you have never seen nor tested a system nor have a fundamental idea how it operates (as described by Newman). Once you seen it, tested it, and understand it, THEN will see how "trivial" it is for you to create a "closed-loop unit".

Electrical energy in, electrical energy out. We know that the power source is a bettery pack. Given a regulated DC source of appropriate open-circuit voltage and adequate current capaciy, making it "look" (to the load) like a battery pack really IS trivial. All you need is to know the source impedance of the battery pack, and if you can't derive that from manufacturers' data sheets, measuring it is also trivial.

As far as converting the output of Newman's machine into regulated DC is concerned, even a passing familiarity with modern switching power supplies should show you that rectifying and filtering a slow pulse train like that produced by Newman's machine is hardly an insurmountable problem.

And, if the efficiency claims for the machine were anywhere near true, you have loads and loads of headroom available to accomodate a regulated DC-DC converter to provide really clean DC at the correct voltage, without reducing the overall loop gain below unity.



One would assume that it is not beyond the competence of SOME EE to test the input of Newman's system and test the output and determine if it does or does not "produce greater external energy output than external energy input."


This has already been done- by the NBS. FYI, NBS (now NIST) is responsible for maintaining the primary reference standards for the entire United States. Ultimately, every electrical measurement in this country traces back to those calibration standards. That responsibility alone calls for highly competent engineers and scientists- they're not "so-called experts"- they're the real thing, or we could have no confidence in the calibration of any of our test equipment.

If some other qualified person or organization were to test Newman's machine and obtain the same results as the NBS did, would you or Newman accept it? What evidence would you accept as proof that Newman's claims are incorrect?

I strongly suspect that what you mean is more like "surely there must be someone with the right letters after their name who will reach the conclusion I want".

garynolan
2004-Sep-12, 04:11 AM
Tin wrote:

"I would love to get my hands on a Newman motor and run some tests of my own. Somehow I doubt this is ever likely to happen."

You may indeed have the opportunity...

"Did you read the thought experiment I posted above? Has Newman or any of his associates attempted such a test? If so, why didn't it work?"

It would be interesting to see how quickly you were faced with having to dismiss your "solutions" to methods of attempting to feed the output back in as input. Just endeavoring to totally harness a 3.5-foot electric spark that is manifest as a tremendous back-spike would be interesting. It's estimated that the back-spike of the new largest machine (7,500-lbs) exceeds the 100,000-watt back-spike of the earlier large machine (5,000-lbs).

A constant, steady voltage "pressure" is needed to enable the machine to function as designed. The timing is absolutely critical. Years ago, Ray-O-Vac Corp. verified that all of their batteries given to Newman when he was testing the effects of the back-spike and sent the batteries back to Ray-O-Vac for evaluation consistently came back with the same report: the back-charging effect of the energy machine as it operated caused the batteries to over-charge. Pat Spellman (Chief Engineer with Ray-O-Vac), observed that, "It was a though a laser had bored a hole through the batteries."

But the interesting fact about Newman's largest unit is that the only form of energy being considered as output is mechanical energy, i.e., the energy output utilized to turn the shaft of the PTO Grainger generator. [That considerable mechanical output is independent of the tremendous back-spikes produced by the system as it operates.] A 1200-lb shaft rotates at 300+rpms, connected via a system of gears (with losses) to the shaft of a PTO Grainger generator causing it to rotate at sufficient rpms to provide electrical output for banks of lights, fans, and TVs. As I recall, Grainger engineers stated that it requires 4HP input to enable their conventional generator to reach sufficient rpms to provide electrical output.

All of the above occurs with only a 400-watt input.

Tin wrote:
"Which is why I don't trust anyone who claims their device puts out more power than it consumes. As far as I'm concerned, the only way to conclusively demonstrate overunity is by having the device power itself. This should not be a difficult thing. Energy is energy. It should matter not at all to the machine if the input power is coming from a battery or from a suitably rectified and filtered output of a generator attached to the output. Even if for some reason there must be full electrical isolation between the input and output, the switched battery system I mentioned previously should work. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who claims to have built an overunity device but hasn't managed to make it power itself has merely found a good way of fooling test equipment.

In the first place, Newman has never claimed that his device "puts out more power than it consumes." Period. He has stated that it "produces greater external energy output than external energy input."

Those two statements are NOT the same!

I suppose that until you see the unit in operation and fully realize the magnitude of its performance will you begin to understand the fundamental and very important distinction between the above two concepts.

It is preposterous to say that his device "puts out more power than it consumes."

However, once one truly understands how the system operates, the statement "produces greater external energy output than external energy input" is quite understandable.

Remember, the Newman energy machine is not just a MOTOR --- it also SIMULTANEOUSLY FUNCTIONS AS A GENERATOR while it operates as a motor.

Thus, the external energy inputed into the system + the energy the generator produces as it operates (internally-produced energy whose source is the copper conducter of the system) is EQUAL to the total external output of the system.

That is perfectly in keeping with the law of conservation.

You wrote above:
"Even if for some reason there must be full electrical isolation between the input and output, the switched battery system I mentioned previously should work."

I'd love to see you attempt to apply your "switched battery system" in attempting to address the critical timing which is demanded by the system's operation. I believe you would find it is not as easy as you think.

Bottom line: battery input can be measured at 400 watts. The mechanical output + the load on the conventional generator vastly exceeds that 400-watt input.

Gary
:)

garynolan
2004-Sep-12, 04:23 AM
KT wrote:
"This has already been done- by the NBS. FYI, NBS (now NIST) is responsible for maintaining the primary reference standards for the entire United States. Ultimately, every electrical measurement in this country traces back to those calibration standards. That responsibility alone calls for highly competent engineers and scientists- they're not "so-called experts"- they're the real thing, or we could have no confidence in the calibration of any of our test equipment."

No, the NBS "testers" were so-called "experts". In fact, I consider them totally incompetent.

FYI, the original schematic provided by the NBS "experts" featured no ground connection. That is a fact. One could imagine that's why Hebner was so nervous and faltered on the A&E documentary when asked about the grounding. I believe Hebner knew he was lying and also knew that his "testers" failed to follow their own test protocol. Again: one would think they would at least have had the curiosity to follow their own testing schematic.

To repeat (for the benefit of someone just coming into the discussion):

REFUSAL BY THE NBS TO FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS:

However, after Joseph Newman delivered his energy machine prototype to the NBS on January 24, 1986, the following happened:

During the authorized and original 30-day test period (from January 24, 1986 to February 24, 1986) the NBS did not conduct a SINGLE test! The Patent Office and the NBS asked the Court of Appeals to change its mind and let the NBS dismantle and destroy the energy machine.

On February 12, 1986, for the second time, the Court of Appeals said "NO: The NBS's representative, Dr. Hebner, has not attested to his inability to test the device, or that its structure is concealed, or that a test program cannot be reasonably conducted to ascertain whether the device performs as disclosed in the patent application and "on reconsideration, we affirm the prior order."

The NBS still refused the test the energy machine and to run a single test unless they were permitted to destroy the invention. They told the Court of Appeals BEFORE they ran the test that Joseph Newman's invention was a hoax! (Hardly the comment of an "unbiased" testing agency.)

The NBS then offered dozens of excuses --- each of which Joseph Newman answered --- in an effort to run the (30 day) clock while they waited for permission to destroy the energy machine, e.g., the NBS insisted on communicating by mail, rather than by telephone. In another instance, the NBS required Joseph Newman to travel 1,000 miles from Mississippi to Maryland to move a single wire a single inch. Apparently the wire had come loose while the machine was in the possession of the NBS. Joseph Newman flew to Maryland and reconnected the loose wire, but the NBS still refused to test the energy machine or even tell Joseph Newman when or how they would test it.



GROUNDING THE DEVICE:

During the 1,000 mile trip to connect the wire by moving it one inch, an event occurred WHICH WOULD HAVE GREAT SIGNIFICANCE LATER ON.

The approximately 135-lb energy machine delivered to the NBS would --- if not restricted --- "pump" back-emf into the battery pack and thus proceed to overcharge and damage the batteries by shorting them out internally. Normally, Joseph Newman placed 4-foot fluorescent bulbs in the circuit to act as a "release valve" to reduce this back-emf into the batteries. Since it was inconvenient to carry 4-foot bulbs to the NBS offices in Maryland the day Joseph Newman traveled there from Mississippi to reconnect in several minutes the loose wire, Joseph Newman simply grounded the energy machine to shunt away the back-emf and prevent it from damaging the batteries.

What is most ironic is that NBS officials saw Joseph Newman GROUND the energy machine and they ASSUMED that he ALWAYS grounded it --- even for testing!

The NBS officials were not interested in mastering Joseph Newman's technical process and understanding the principles involved.

Instead --- like "monkey see, monkey do" --- they later grounded the energy machine during ALL of their secret testing of the later confiscated energy machine (see below). This action would have important ramifications with respect to the validity of the actual NBS test.

[It should be added that Joseph Newman has NO intention of "educating the NBS personnel." They were supposed to be the experts; Joseph Newman's attitude was, "Let's see what the 'experts' do."]

Moreover, before the NBS ran any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney sent the NBS a NON-GROUNDED schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine.

And the reader should be reminded that over five years earlier Joseph Newman transported an 800-pound unit from Mississippi to Maryland and asked the NBS to test the device. [That was done shortly after he had filed his original Patent Application.] The NBS refused to even look at the unit!

In addition, since Joseph Newman has over 30 Affidavits from physicists, electrical engineers and electrical technicians attesting to validity of the machine while the Patent Office had NOT ONE affidavit to the contrary, Joseph Newman's position was that the Patent Office's refusal to grant him a patent was groundless.

ADDITIONAL REMINDER: early in the application process Joseph Newman was told by a patent office examiner "Mr. Newman, we believe that your invention works, but your technical description is inadequate." Joseph Newman appealed this decision and was informed by the next higher examiner: "Mr. Newman, we believe that your technical description is adequate, but your invention does not work."

It was at that point that Joseph Newman initiated his lawsuit in the Federal Court against the Patent Office.



THE CONFISCATION OF THE ENERGY MACHINE BY THE NBS
AND VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS:

Well, the "experts" at the National Bureau of Standards did nothing during the court-ordered-and-authorized-30-day-test-period that expired on February 23, 1986.

Thus, on Monday, 10:30AM on February 24, 1986, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, appeared at the Maryland headquarters of the National Bureau of Standards where the energy machine was being held. Armed guards met John Flannery and refused to permit him to secure and return Joseph Newman's property. Mr. Flannery was informed that he had until 12 noon of that day to appear at an emergency meeting in Federal Judge Jackson's courtroom. Should Flannery fail to appear, Jackson would immediately issue a warrant for his arrest.

Attorney John Flannery did appear in the courtroom of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson by 12 noon. He was promptly informed by Judge Jackson that the energy machine of Joseph Newman was NO LONGER THE PROPERTY OF HIS COURT and that it was now under the COMPLETE CONTROL of the National Bureau of Standards and that the invention would NOT be returned to Joseph Newman --- even after the agreed-upon 30-day NBS test period had expired. Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery then asked Judge Jackson to remove himself as the Judge in the case because of demonstrated personal bias and prejudice. Jackson denied that he was prejudiced and refused to tell Joseph Newman what authority permitted the Judge to violate the Court of Appeals Order (see above).

As Joseph Newman said, "Since when in this country can a court take away a person's property, seize it without even a hearing and in violation of a standing order from an appellate court? Something is very wrong here."

On March 3, 1986, as a result of the Court's questionable procedures, Joseph Newman made an Affidavit in support of a motion to disqualify Judge Jackson for his demonstrated bias and prejudice. On March 7, 1986, the District Court held a status conference to consider giving the NBS more time to test the energy machine in violation of the original 30-day time limit authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Immediately before the status conference began, Jackson's law clerk handed Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery an order denying Joseph Newman's motion to disqualify Judge Jackson as insufficient, but without any discussion as to why the pleadings were factually insufficient. Judge Jackson then held attorney John Flannery in contempt for merely mentioning the pending motion to disqualify him. Jackson then gave the PTO/NBS until June 26, 1986 to test the energy machine --- 150 DAYS AFTER THE ENERGY MACHINE WAS ORIGINALLY DELIVERED.

Joseph Newman could not financially afford to be present with counsel and expert for the 12-hour workdays the NBS "claimed" they worked each day on testing the energy machine. It would have cost Joseph Newman over $60,000 to attend the tests and is one of the reasons that the U.S. Court of Appeals authorized the original 30-day test period limit. Former PTO Commissioner Mossinghoff misappropriated $100,000 to run the unprecedented tests which were in violation of the original order of the U.S. Court of Appeals. And according to the Patent Office, the tests cost approximately $75,000.00.

Although Joseph Newman has the "right" to attend the later, unauthorized tests on his now-confiscated energy machine, it was a "right" that he could not financially afford to exercise. Joseph Newman is not a large corporation. He is an inventor who lives by what he invents. Worse, the Patent Office said that they expect Joseph Newman to reimburse the Patent Office for ALL NBS tests!

IT IS, IN FACT, JOSEPH NEWMAN'S POSITION THAT ALL PTO/NBS/JUDGE JACKSON ACTIONS TAKEN AFTER THE FEBRUARY 24, 1986 CONFISCATION WITHOUT-DUE-PROCESS OF HIS PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As a result of that position and of the expense in attending 90 additional days of testing, Joseph Newman did NOT IN ANY WAY wish to appear to endorse the NBS proceedings by being present for their so-called testing. Also, it should be noted that BEFORE the NBS ran any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, forwarded to the NBS a schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine. It plainly showed NOT to connect the energy machine to ground.



*****************************************
MOST IMPORTANT: Prior to conducting their "testing," NBS personnel issued their OWN test/wiring schematic protocol: IN THEIR OWN TEST PROTOCOL DIAGRAM, THE ENERGY MACHINE WAS NOT GROUNDED!

*****************************************



HOWEVER: IN THE ACTUAL TESTS THEY FINALLY CONDUCTED, THEY GROUNDED THE ENERGY MACHINE FOR EVERY SINGLE TEST!

[One would think that they would have had the curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the device.]

Prior to the expected release of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) test (conducted by three individuals) results on June 26, 1986, Joseph Newman issued a national press release --- sent to over 1,500 members of the press --- which predicted that the NBS test results would be negative and that a "mockery of justice is expected to continue in the chambers of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson."

On June 26, 1986, the NBS unsurprisingly said that Joseph Newman's device did not work. Moreover, Jackson set a trial date for December 8, 1986. (Up to this point, Jackson had held a series of expensive hearings to determine if a trial was warranted. Jackson refused to relieve himself from the case due to bias, and Jackson refused to give Joseph Newman a trial by jury. In fact, a Patent Office attorney once told Joseph Newman's attorney, "We would hate to see this case tried by a jury.")

It is ironic that as a consequence of the Patent's Office disregard of the Court of Appeals requirement that the NBS notify Joseph Newman of what tests they intended to run, Joseph Newman did not know how the NBS "tested" his machine until AFTER the NBS issued its report.

Consequently, Joseph Newman discovered that the NBS DID NOT ACTUALLY TEST HIS INVENTION AT ALL.

SUMMATION OF ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS:

GROUND: The NBS shunted energy from the Newman invention to ground without measuring and lost this energy.

RESISTORS: The NBS measured energy spent in resistors but not in or by Newman's invention.

Dr. Hastings: "In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to ground, thus eliminating the excess r.f. power from the system."

Dr. Hastings: "The NBS test is equivalent to stating that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by a light bulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit."



Principal points concerning deficiencies of the NBS test conducted by three individuals:

1) The input voltage into the energy machine was restricted. This is exactly opposite to the Technical Process taught by Joseph Newman who teaches that the input voltage should be maximized and the input current should be minimized. The three individuals at the NBS did the opposite.

2) As Dr. Roger Hastings wrote in his statement: "In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to ground." --- as a result, the excess output power was shunted away.

3) The NBS test did not measure the output of Newman's motor --- instead, he says, the tests measured the output of parallel resistors. As a result, Dr. Hastings says, "Their measurements are therefore irrelevant to the actual functioning of the Newman device."

4) No attempt was made by the NBS to measure the heat generated in the motor windings.

5) No attempt was made by the NBS to measure the mechanical output of the Newman motor --- only the electrical output.

Gary
:)

Bounced Check
2004-Sep-12, 01:37 PM
Volume of post does nto answer the sinmple fact that garynolan has not shown anywhere that the proposed device works. the mechanism does not need to be detailed, only public demonstration and results.

There is also an international agreement much like international copyrights covering petents. ALL members of the EU respect patents covered by other member nations so the accusation that one nations patent issuance would not be protected by other member nations is an out right lie.

Ref: http://www.european-patent-office.org

garynolan - I believe you are a front (ie:sockpuppet) for a con.

ktesibios
2004-Sep-12, 06:53 PM
It would be interesting to see how quickly you were faced with having to dismiss your "solutions" to methods of attempting to feed the output back in as input. Just endeavoring to totally harness a 3.5-foot electric spark that is manifest as a tremendous back-spike would be interesting. It's estimated that the back-spike of the new largest machine (7,500-lbs) exceeds the 100,000-watt back-spike of the earlier large machine (5,000-lbs).


Umm, you are aware that quantifying a pulse (or "back-spike") in watts is meaningless, unless you also provide the pulse duration and repetition rate. By way of example, if I build a signal generator which produces a rectangular pulse of 1000V across a 10 ohm load for 10 microseconds, the instantaneous power transferred to the load during the pulse would be 100,000 W, and the energy transferred to the load by a single pulse would be 1 J - enough to light a car taillight for about a third of a second. If the repetition rate were 1000 Hz, I would have a rate of energy transfer- that is, power- of 1000 J/sec, or 1000 W. If the repetition rate were only 1 Hz, the power delivered to the load would be 1 W.

Confusing basic quantities like power, energy and voltage, as well as throwing big numbers without adequate information to place the numbers in perspective is a common characteristic of free-energy cranks, and also speaks very poorly of the thrower's comprehension of what they purport to explain.



A constant, steady voltage "pressure" is needed to enable the machine to function as designed.


Precisely what a regulated DC power supply delivers. Derive that from the machine's output and there's your closed-loop test.



The timing is absolutely critical. Years ago, Ray-O-Vac Corp. verified that all of their batteries given to Newman when he was testing the effects of the back-spike and sent the batteries back to Ray-O-Vac for evaluation consistently came back with the same report: the back-charging effect of the energy machine as it operated caused the batteries to over-charge. Pat Spellman (Chief Engineer with Ray-O-Vac), observed that, "It was a though a laser had bored a hole through the batteries."


And the original document with the entire text of Mr. Spellman's purported quote (for the sake of context and of avoiding the mangling of meaning by selective quotation) is provided where?

Again by way of example, "It was a though a laser had bored a hole through the batteries." could just as easily mean "Good grief, he really messed up these batteries" as "wow, these batteries are hotter than when they left the factory". The only way to know is to have the entirety of Mr. Spellman's remarks.



But the interesting fact about Newman's largest unit is that the only form of energy being considered as output is mechanical energy, i.e., the energy output utilized to turn the shaft of the PTO Grainger generator. [That considerable mechanical output is independent of the tremendous back-spikes produced by the system as it operates.] A 1200-lb shaft rotates at 300+rpms, connected via a system of gears (with losses) to the shaft of a PTO Grainger generator causing it to rotate at sufficient rpms to provide electrical output for banks of lights, fans, and TVs. As I recall, Grainger engineers stated that it requires 4HP input to enable their conventional generator to reach sufficient rpms to provide electrical output.


Groovy. Now (assuming that it's an AC generator and that it's turning fast enough to produce an output at near nominal line voltage and frequency), plug a regulated DC power supply into it, connect the supply to the machine's input and presto! you have a closed-loop test.

BTW, you must surely be aware that the mechanical power input required to turn a generator is a function of the electrical load on the generator. There's a simple experiment you can do to verify this. Get a small permanent-magnet DC motor (you can find tham at Radio Shack and myriad other places), a DC voltmeter ( a cheap analog VOM will do) and a 10-ohm resistor.

First, connect the voltmeter to the motor terminals and spin the motor shaft. You'll see the voltmeter indicate a potential at the motor terminals showing that it's acting as a generator (you may have to reverse the leads of the meter to get the pointer to go forwards instead of backwards- or just spin the motor in the opposite direction). Note how hard it is to spin the shaft, how long it continues to spin due to its inertia, and the maximum voltage at the motor terminals.

Now connect the resistor across the motor terminals along with the voltmeter. Spin the shaft again, and take note of the mechanical resistance you feel, how much effort it takes to spin the shaft fast enough to achieve the same output voltage and how long the shaft continues to spin. The difference should be obvious- it will take more effort to spin the motor and it will spin down much more quickly due to the electrical load drawing power.

Stating the mechanical power input requirement of a generator without specifying the electrical load is a mistake that no qualified engineer would make.

Consequently I have to take your claim about Grainger's engineers with a shaker full of salt.



In the first place, Newman has never claimed that his device "puts out more power than it consumes." Period. He has stated that it "produces greater external energy output than external energy input."

Those two statements are NOT the same!


Power is the rate at which energy is transferred or transformed with respect to time. If the time interval is the same (and with a single machine it pretty much has to be) then the ratio of energy in to energy out will be equal to the ratio of power in to power out.

Example: suppose that the machine is run for one second. During that second it takes 1 joule of energy from the source and delivers 2 joules to the load. The ratio of energy out to energy in is, obviously, 2. The power input is 1 joule/second, which is equal to 1 watt, and the power output is 2 joules/second, which is equal to 2 watts. Therefore the ratio of power out to power in is also exactly equal to 2.

Since the claim appears to be that the machine delivers mechanical energy to an external load while simultaneously putting energy back into the batteries, I should point out that the relationship between energy, power and time applies irrespective of the number of output ports the machine has (one port being the shaft and the other the battery connection). The sumof the energy delivered from each output port, divided by the time interval taken to deliver them, is the total power output of the machine. The sum of the energy delivered by each source to each input port, divided by the time interval taken, is the total power input. Simce the machine can't exixt in two different timeframes, the time interval over which energy input and energy output are measured has to be the same, hence power out/power in must equal energy out/energy in.

Like it or not, the two statements are in fact the same, and the only way you can divorce them is if you've also got a time machine stashed in the garage. Unfortunately, playing word games with well-defined technical terms isn't going to do it.



I suppose that until you see the unit in operation and fully realize the magnitude of its performance will you begin to understand the fundamental and very important distinction between the above two concepts.


And I suppose that if you spend some time reading a basic text on electricity, electronics or physics you might begin to see the fundamental and unbreakable relationship between energy, power and time. At least I hope so.



It is preposterous to say that his device "puts out more power than it consumes."


At last, something we agree on. How'd that ever happen? :wink:

frogesque
2004-Sep-12, 07:53 PM
Guys, this thread is going nowhere. To inventors or proponents of any new miracle technolgy I would say "put up or shut up", it's that simple.

FP
2004-Sep-12, 10:40 PM
Anyone else bothered by the assertion in the quote from Newman's book that "heat is electromagnetic energy?"

I'm not a physicist, but even I know that isn't true. If it were, I could plug my toaster into my teapot and have breakfast.

Heat can, of course, be changed into EM energy, but it requires an intermediate device to do it (at less than 100% efficiancy.)

Alan
2004-Sep-12, 11:19 PM
It would be interesting to see how quickly you were faced with having to dismiss your "solutions" to methods of attempting to feed the output back in as input. Just endeavoring to totally harness a 3.5-foot electric spark that is manifest as a tremendous back-spike would be interesting. It's estimated that the back-spike of the new largest machine (7,500-lbs) exceeds the 100,000-watt back-spike of the earlier large machine (5,000-lbs).

and


I'd love to see you attempt to apply your "switched battery system" in attempting to address the critical timing which is demanded by the system's operation. I believe you would find it is not as easy as you think.

Bottom line: battery input can be measured at 400 watts. The mechanical output + the load on the conventional generator vastly exceeds that 400-watt input.

Gary
:)

So what you are saying is that the machine produces oodles of energy BUT that energy cannot be used for anything? No wonder no one is interested in producing it.

If the only useable energy the machine can produce is mechanical energy - for whatever reason, then why not use it to power a car or van and drive it around the country putting on his shows? Endurance runs around a race track? Replace the motor in a diesel locomotive and pull a series of loaded traincars using only the D-Cell batteries as input power? If this is not possible, then why not?

Just what can the output of the conventional generator be used for, if not powering the machine or a house?

1 Watts = 0.00134102209 horsepower

thus the 100,000 watts of the 5000 lb machine = 0.00134102209 * 100,000 = 134.102209 horsepower. Even if you had to mount the machine on a chassis weighing another 5000 pounds that gives you a power ratio of .01341 horsepower/pound. A Model T Ford produced 22 horsepower with a weight of 1200 pounds (0.018 hp/lb). World War I Tanks weighed 10+ tons with ~100 horsepower engines. It should be no problem for a (usable) vehicle to be designed powered by the device - if it works as claimed. Why hasn't it been done?

garynolan
2004-Sep-12, 11:30 PM
[Note: Up to now I have attempted/endeavored to correspond politely and with respect to the other posters. BC has chosen to notch the nature of the dialogue up a bit by calling me a "front for a con". So be it. Since you choose to "roll in the gutter" with initiated inflamatory accusations I will respond accordingly. However, the nature of my inflamatory response is only directed at BC, not at the other posters who have communicated in a civil and respectful manner (which I appreciate).]

Bounced Check wrote:

"Volume of post does nto answer the sinmple fact that garynolan has not shown anywhere that the proposed device works. the mechanism does not need to be detailed, only public demonstration and results. "

You've contradicted yourself, BC. In one breath you write that I've "not shown anywhere that the proposed device works" and in the next breath you write "only public demonstration and results". Well, BC, you've got pretty stinky breath. You're saying that (for you) only a public demonstration (and results) will suffice and also saying at the same time that I haven't shown anything --- and, since "anything" consists of a "public demonstration" (for you), then showing a public demonstration on this forum is not possible. Au contraire, BC: I've shown plenty that the technology operates as claimed --- only you are too stupid to realize it. Newman has held public demonstrations and demonstrated that the technology works as claimed. Will you attend the next one? I doubt it. Cretins such as yourself indulge in diarrhea of the mouth while not having a clue as to the nature of the technology.

"There is also an international agreement much like international copyrights covering petents. ALL members of the EU respect patents covered by other member nations so the accusation that one nations patent issuance would not be protected by other member nations is an out right lie."

Incorrecto, BC, and no lie. I understand that the attorneys for the Spanish corporation stated very emphatically that unless the patent rights could be secured in other countries, they could not proceed with development.

Ref: http://www.european-patent-office.org

garynolan - I believe you are a front (ie:sockpuppet) for a con.

BC: I believe you are an idiot who is educated beyond his level of intelligence.

Have a nice day!

Gary
:)

________________________

FP wrote:
"Anyone else bothered by the assertion in the quote from Newman's book that "heat is electromagnetic energy?"

I'm not a physicist, but even I know that isn't true. If it were, I could plug my toaster into my teapot and have breakfast. "

No, FP, heat IS electromagnetic energy -- and it consists of gyroscopic massergies moving in RANDOM motion. All electromagnetic enegy fundamentally consists of gyroscopic massergies moving in SOME type of motion. When that motion is along a conducter it is called "electricity"; when moving RANDOMLY it is called "heat"; when moving in a specific field with specific directions about a magnet it is called "magnetism". All such phenomena (including light, gravitation, inertia, etc.) have, as their unifying characteristic the motion of such gyroscopic massergies.

Gary
:)

garynolan
2004-Sep-12, 11:35 PM
Alan wrote:
"So what you are saying is that the machine produces oodles of energy BUT that energy cannot be used for anything? No wonder no one is interested in producing it."

Ah, the Brownian Motion Method of 'Communication' continues...

:D

Newman intentionally configured his latest unit/demonatration in such a way that the mechanical output ALONE would be used to demonstrate that the technology "produces greater exernal energy output than external energy input." And, Alan, rest assured that the mechanical output used to power the Grainger conventional general does produce useful energy.

Gary
:)

Fortis
2004-Sep-13, 01:31 AM
FP wrote:
"Anyone else bothered by the assertion in the quote from Newman's book that "heat is electromagnetic energy?"

I'm not a physicist, but even I know that isn't true. If it were, I could plug my toaster into my teapot and have breakfast. "

No, FP, heat IS electromagnetic energy -- and it consists of gyroscopic massergies moving in RANDOM motion. All electromagnetic enegy fundamentally consists of gyroscopic massergies moving in SOME type of motion. When that motion is along a conducter it is called "electricity"; when moving RANDOMLY it is called "heat"; when moving in a specific field with specific directions about a magnet it is called "magnetism". All such phenomena (including light, gravitation, inertia, etc.) have, as their unifying characteristic the motion of such gyroscopic massergies.

Gary
:)
Sorry, but heat is most certainly not electromagnetic energy. :)

If this Newman chap can't even understand this, then I really don't think that he's likely to get anything else correct. It's also interesting that his theory appears to be completely incapable of calculating any physical quantity. I've asked before if he can derive the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. If he is now claiming that according to his theory, heat is electromagnetic, then I assume that he has been able to derive some relevant thermodynamic quantity as well. So, any chance of a partition function? ;)

Gary, you clearly have a lot of faith in this guy, but I really don't think that he deserves it.

swansont
2004-Sep-13, 10:26 AM
No, FP, heat IS electromagnetic energy -- and it consists of gyroscopic massergies moving in RANDOM motion. All electromagnetic enegy fundamentally consists of gyroscopic massergies moving in SOME type of motion. When that motion is along a conducter it is called "electricity"; when moving RANDOMLY it is called "heat"; when moving in a specific field with specific directions about a magnet it is called "magnetism". All such phenomena (including light, gravitation, inertia, etc.) have, as their unifying characteristic the motion of such gyroscopic massergies.


No, it isn't. Objects emit EM radiation in proportion to their temperature, but they are not the same thing.

massergy?

Making up new words is one of the hallmarks of crackpottery. If one wants to be understand by scientists, one has to speak the language of science. When in Rome, and all that.

Demigrog
2004-Sep-13, 01:46 PM
The timing is absolutely critical. Years ago, Ray-O-Vac Corp. verified that all of their batteries given to Newman when he was testing the effects of the back-spike and sent the batteries back to Ray-O-Vac for evaluation consistently came back with the same report: the back-charging effect of the energy machine as it operated caused the batteries to over-charge. Pat Spellman (Chief Engineer with Ray-O-Vac), observed that, "It was a though a laser had bored a hole through the batteries."


And the original document with the entire text of Mr. Spellman's purported quote (for the sake of context and of avoiding the mangling of meaning by selective quotation) is provided where?

Again by way of example, "It was a though a laser had bored a hole through the batteries." could just as easily mean "Good grief, he really messed up these batteries" as "wow, these batteries are hotter than when they left the factory". The only way to know is to have the entirety of Mr. Spellman's remarks.


A better question to ask: how in the heck do you recharge a non-rechargeable battery (http://www.josephnewman.com/An_Interesting_Demonstration.html)? The chemical reaction is totally irreversible in most cases. Newman’s claims to have done it anyway are rather suspicious.

I think I’ll bow out now in the hopes that this thread dies a natural death… arguing with a true believer (benefit of the doubt that it isn’t just a sock-puppet) is not particularly worthwhile.

Edited for typo.

Alan
2004-Sep-13, 02:40 PM
Newman intentionally configured his latest unit/demonatration in such a way that the mechanical output ALONE would be used to demonstrate that the technology "produces greater exernal energy output than external energy input." And, Alan, rest assured that the mechanical output used to power the Grainger conventional general does produce useful energy.

Gary
:)

But not useful enough to run one of his units? Or can the new configuration run (power) itself or another unit? If not, why not? What makes dc voltage from a battery different from dc voltage from a well regulated power supply or a relay switched set of another battery? Can the unit run from an array of solar cells instead of chemical batteries?

Sammy
2004-Sep-13, 03:50 PM
garyolan wrote


No, FP, heat IS electromagnetic energy -- and it consists of gyroscopic massergies moving in RANDOM motion. All electromagnetic enegy fundamentally consists of gyroscopic massergies moving in SOME type of motion. When that motion is along a conducter it is called "electricity"; when moving RANDOMLY it is called "heat"; when moving in a specific field with specific directions about a magnet it is called "magnetism". All such phenomena (including light, gravitation, inertia, etc.) have, as their unifying characteristic the motion of such gyroscopic massergies. (emphasis added)

I'm not strong on theoretical physics but does this mean that Mr. Newman has also solved the issue of unified field theory? Can we extract energy from "inertia?"

ktesibios
2004-Sep-13, 07:25 PM
A better question to ask: how in the heck do you recharge a non-rechargeable battery (http://www.josephnewman.com/An_Interesting_Demonstration.html)? The chemical reaction is totally irreversible in most cases. Newman’s claims to have done it anyway are rather suspicious.

I think I’ll bow out now in the hopes that this thread dies a natural death… arguing with a true believer (benefit of the doubt that it isn’t just a sock-puppet) is not particularly worthwhile.

Edited for typo.

D'oh! That point went right by me. #-o #-o #-o :(

Although it's quite true that you can't reverse what happens in a primary battery as it discharges, what limits the usable life of ordinary carbon-zinc battery isn't so much that the chemical energy in the cell is completely depeted; instead the internal resistance increases due to the buildup of reaction products.

It is possible to temporarily lower the internal resistance of a partially-discharged carbon-zinc cell and squeeze more life out of it by passing reverse current through it. That isn't recharging; it's a trick for extracting more of the potential energy originally manufactured into the cell. Some call it "rejuvenating"; you can't do it more than 3-4 times maximum and the cell will reach cutoff under load more quickly after rejuvenating than a new cell will. It also increases the risk of leakage.

I think I'm done too. I haven't seen a direct or meaningful answer to any of the questions I or anyone else have raised about these claims. It's been a bit like talking to my cats- except they, at least, are cute and furry. :wink:

TriangleMan
2004-Sep-13, 07:51 PM
I think I'm done too. I haven't seen a direct or meaningful answer to any of the questions I or anyone else have raised about these claims.
garynolan has just been banned so I don't think he'll be responding anytime soon.

Demigrog
2004-Sep-13, 07:56 PM
I think I'm done too. I haven't seen a direct or meaningful answer to any of the questions I or anyone else have raised about these claims.
garynolan has just been banned so I don't think he'll be responding anytime soon.

Not under that name, anyway. :(

MrObvious
2004-Sep-16, 03:21 AM
Seems like everything has been pretty well covered. Have to laugh about the batteries looking like they'd been hit by a laser and diagnosing this as overcharging.

Get a 1.5Volt battery and place 350Volts DC across it for a millisecond. It won't be enough to explode the battery unless it's overly repeditive but it will "punch" a hole through the battery. This isn't overcharging, this is stress. The backemf of this motor design is providing huge currents for short periods into a battery that was not designed to take this type of stress.

I know that batteries come with an amp.hr rating for charging but this is not linear through an infinite range of charge current/times. A battery rated at 10A.hr needs about 10hrs at 1 amp to charge. It won't get fully charged if using 10A for 1hr. I can pretty confidently say that it won't be charged if subjected to 10000A for 1mS, damage is what would happen.

One day maybe people will realise that motors/generators can only approach 100% efficiency, I just don't think I'll live to see that wonderful day.

tom3peronne
2004-Sep-20, 12:54 AM
Fortis wrote:
" Sorry, but heat is most certainly not electromagnetic energy."

No, Fortis. Heat IS most certainly electromagnetic energy.

However, we need to define what we each mean by "electromagnetic energy".

Since you (or others) may have missed the earlier post on this subject, I will post it again:

HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

Regarding Nikola Tesla's dream of a "totally new source of power":

Tesla would only say that ".... the apparatus for manufacturing this energy and transforming it would be of ideal simplicity with both mechanical and electrical features." Tesla said, "The preliminary cost might be thought too high, but this would be overcome, for the installation would be both permanent and indestructible."

Of course, the disagreements between Einstein and Tesla over the nature of "atomic energy" are known. What is interesting as a speculation would be Tesla's view (were he alive) on the relationship between his proposed "totally new source of power" and the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how such would relate to Einstein's concept of E = mc^2. With such a speculation in mind, the following is offered:

NOTE:

The following is "out of context" from the detailed information featuring charts, diagrams, and photographs that are presented in Joseph Newman's fundamental book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman.

From the Chapter entitled, HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:

"....Heat is electromagnetic energy (consisting of gyroscopic massergies*). Gyroscopic massergies* (or electromagnetic energy) comprise all Matter. Alterations in the heat (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter cause a change in the amount of (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter in accordance with E=mc^2."


*Nomenclature note:

It's been said that "learning is a result of understanding which is a result of good communication which is a result of a consistent language which is a result of good NOMENCLATURE."

For over 30 years, Joseph Newman has referred to the fundamental 'entities' creating (electro)magnetic fields as "gyroscopic particles."

Over the past 14 years, some individuals have expressed to their problem with the word "particle(s)." That word sometimes causes them to wonder "to what "particle" the "gyroscopic particle" belongs?" Some individuals have wondered how does the "gyroscopic particle" relate to protons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc...

Several years ago, I began substituting the term "masergy" for "particle." More than anything it represents a 'refinement' of one aspect of Joseph Newman's paradigm. To employ a completely new word has the advantage of disassociating its old usage from previously used words and their connotations.... especially when Joseph Newman has described his "gyroscopic x" as being the fundamental unit out of which the larger units and sub-atomic "particles" are constructed.

The new term also immediately suggests the ongoing, simultaneous equivalence between "mass" and "energy" and that the important point (within the context of Joseph Newman's technology) is to focus on the word "gyroscopic," not the word "particle" or even the word "masergy."

A gentleman named Ben (with whom I've had several private email discussions) has acted as a "catalyst" to encourage me to pursue this new nomenclature.

Anyway, I have had a subsequent discussion with Joseph Newman about this issue of appropriate (and perhaps more explicit) nomenclature and he agrees with the new usage, with one slight correction (i.e., the addition of a second "s" to more explicitly indicate the "mass" involved). In other words, this "entity" is simultaneously both "mass" and "energy" --- and that its most important mechanical characteristic is its GYROSCOPIC nature.

So, henceforth, it is suggested that the "gyroscopic particle" be referred to as the:

Gyroscopic Massergy.

ERS

To continue quoting (out-of-context) from Joseph Newman's fundamental book:

32.

"I shall now proceed to constructively refute the negative doctrines that are a result of the present "Three Laws of Thermodynamics."

A. FACTS:

1. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding of the relationship between heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) and Matter.

2. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding that there is an energy relationship other than the simplicity of Work = Force X Distance, Power = Work/Time, and Force = Mass X Acceleration.

3. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without any knowledge, understanding, or anticipation of Einstein's equation of E = mc^2.

4. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without an understanding of Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Inertia, Matter, and Planetary Motion.

32-B.
QUESTION: If none of these things were understood at the time that the Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived, how can these three laws be so "all encompassing" as to be capable of predicting --- on a seemingly "infallible" basis --- the "Doom of the Universe" and the "Total Impossibility of Perpetual Motion?" Those who made such predictions must have understood the mechanical workings of the Entire Universe.

QUESTION: Did they?

32-C.
The "First Law of Thermodynamics" (1850) states:

"Energy can be exchanged in the form of heat or of mechanical work, but its total quantity remains constant."

The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the most positive scientific statements ever made, although this was not the initial intent of this Law.

QUESTION: What does this Law say?

ANSWER: If one cannot destroy energy, this means that energy always exists. If energy always exists, one can always use it. The Facts have indicated to me that the gyroscopic particle composition of all Matter is totally in accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics since it appears that the energy (spin speed) of the gyroscopic particle cannot be consumed.

32-D.
The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" (1850):

The First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are incorrect!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics represents a conclusion concerning the use of heat, based upon primitive, 19th century mechanical devices. The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" may well apply to such primitive mechanical devices, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the implications of E = mc^2.

As I have demonstrated earlier, many of the 19th century scientists believed heat to be only the result of motion. They did not understand that heat was simply the conversion of Matter into gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) as implied by the brilliant work of Joseph Black. Nor did they realize that heat (consisting of gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy) was convertible into Matter. They were completely ignorant concerning E = mc^2. In their ignorance, they would have said that anyone claiming such a statement was stupid. In my opinion, Joseph Black would have readily accepted the implications of E = mc^2.

In 1824, Sadi Carnot published a paper entitled "Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat." Carnot had discovered that heat must flow "downhill," i.e., heat must change from high to low temperatures to perform work. Such a conclusion was based upon the observation of primitive inventions and has no real connection with the essential nature of heat or E = mc^2. Joseph Black understood the nature of heat as early as 1760 --- others did not.

By 1850, it was concluded throughout the scientific community that Carnot's discovery of a definite direction for heat flow laid the foundations for one of the basic laws of physics: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law was first formulated in 1850 by the German physicist, Rudolf Clausius, who stated, "It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature."

The essence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is this: heat will not flow of its own accord from a cold place to a hot one. Again, I repeat that this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the essence of heat and demonstrates a total lack of understanding that heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) which comprises all Matter and that E = mc^2.

In physics it is presently believed that this unidirectional flow of heat, as stated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, implies the "Doom (or heat death) of the Universe." I vigorously disagree with this unfounded statement! All of the facts now presented in science prove this close-minded statement to be totally incorrect! This negative statement has been an extreme hindrance to the diligent progress of science since it closes one's mind to creative thought and has succeeded in unjustly influencing young minds that were taught to accept it.

Electromagnetic energy is perpetually changing from energy to Matter and from Matter to energy. [While I fully realize that the use of the word "perpetual" violates current scientific taboos, I will do so anyway!] The gyroscopic entity I have described in this Book perpetually spins and travels at the speed of light in accordance with E = mc^2. Even if all physical Matter could become exactly the same temperature, the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) within Matter is still moving at the speed of light. Any Matter could still be caused to release its incredible electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy) composition!

A chain reaction could be induced within a mass the size of a planet, thereby causing the mass to release its electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy composition) at a rate as rapid as that of the Sun. The mass would then cause a source of heat greater than its surroundings which were retaining the major portion of their gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) composition within the physical boundaries of the materials. All heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter can release its gyroscopic massergies in the form of heat, light, electrical current, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic radiation, or in smaller quantities of its total physical form. However, it makes no difference in what form Matter is released, since it is always composed of gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy).

The reverse is also true: all gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) can be converted into physical Matter! Having a basic understanding of the ingenious properties of the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) composition of all Matter in the Universe, the mathematical law of probability tells me that the probability of the Universe undergoing a "heat death" is zero.

One of Joseph Black's important discoveries was that different substances have different capacities for absorbing or emitting heat (electromagnetic energy)!

EXAMPLE:

If 1 kg. of iron at 80 degrees C. is immersed in 1 kg. of water at 40 degrees C., then the equilibrium temperature is found to be 43.7 degrees C. In other words, the same amount of heat (electromagnetic energy) has resulted in a much greater temperature change in the iron than
in the water.

The same unfounded statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also used in present physics to have stamped the final label of "FUTILE" on the quest for "Perpetual Motion." I would agree that "Perpetual Motion" would be futile as long as one accepts the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as explaining everything in the Universe for all time. However, I challenge such validity. It is easy to recognize that in this sense, the Second Law has operationally been a deliberate attempt to close young minds who would be otherwise willing to question the "finality" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am sure that there are many who read this Book who have been so unjustly influenced. Please recognize that the conversion of physical Matter to electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) and from electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) back to physical Matter is "perpetual" throughout the Universe and this phenomenal energy change can be conceptually understood and technologically harnessed in the immediate future for the incredible benefit of humanity!

32-E.
The "Third Law of Thermodynamics" (developed 1888-1902):

In 1902, measurements of the heat reaction of various substances were examined, and it was found that the free energies experienced an increasingly small variation as the reaction approaches absolute zero.

This line of thought was initiated in 1848 by Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). Knowing that when cooled one degree from 0 degrees to -1 degrees C. a gas loses 1/273 of its pressure, Kelvin reasoned that at -273 degrees C., gas should have no pressure and he called -273 degrees C. "absolute zero". Scientists at the time further reasoned that if "cold" is simply the absence of "heat," then there should be a point when there is absolutely no heat. This reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of understanding that heat is actually electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) which comprise all Matter and that E = mc^2. [Kelvin's knowledge is valuable, however, in terms of designing my Pioneering Invention where atom unalignment is important since heat causes random motion and rapid atom unalignment.]

In accordance with the above concept regarding the absence of heat, the Third Law of Thermodynamics was proposed. It states that every substance known to man undergoes entropy, i.e., a measure of the availability of energy to perform work that approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero (-273 degrees C. or -459.69 degrees F.).

Einstein's equation of E = mc^2 and the work I have accomplished prove that this statement concerning entropy is totally incorrect.

Kelvin's results are explained by my prior discussion that heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) loss from Matter causes the atomic entities to demand a smaller area. This is why gases lose pressure at low temperatures since they are becoming a liquid state.

The concept that cold is the absence of heat should be corrected as follows: Cold is simply a condition of less gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) in Matter. As long as one has Matter, one still has gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy or potential heat). Matter at -459.69 degrees F. STILL contains tremendous electromagnetic energy (or heat if properly released) or vast quantities of gyroscopic massergies spinning at the speed of light. Only when Matter is gone, is all potential heat gone. The mechanical essence of E = mc^2 is the gyroscopic-action-massergy which is the basic building entity of all Matter.

32-F.
It is totally amazing to me that these three laws of thermodynamics have been so long accepted, knowing that their total premise is one of negativism which completely stops the creative thinking processes of a student who is motivated to question or discover a method for a better energy invention that would ultimately be of service to humanity. However, in spite of the negative intentions of those who developed it, THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROVES JUST THE OPPOSITE!

It is a most positive, scientific statement.

Although this may seem superficially paradoxical, I will make the positive statement that:

"there is NO PLACE in science that negativism should be allowed to exist!"

The entire history of science has proven over and over again that, whenever it has been thought that something was not possible, it later turns out to be possible. Therefore, as the facts have proven, science should put forth positive statements of hopes and dreams that will perpetually stimulate the creative processes of the human mind. In contrast, throughout my sincere, scientific efforts of nearly two decades, I have had to fight against many negative "scientific statements" that were and are wrong. Such injustice has not been unique to my efforts, but, on the contrary, it has been the common fate of most creative individuals throughout the History of Science......"

Joseph Newman

_______________________________________________

swan wrote:

ditto my comments above regarding the fact that heat IS electromagnetic energy.

"Making up new words is one of the hallmarks of crackpottery. If one wants to be understand by scientists, one has to speak the language of science. When in Rome, and all that."

I could frankly care less if you have a hang up about "new words" --- which are coined all the time. In this case, the new terminology precisely describes the mechanical "x" described by Joseph Newman ... hence, it is most useful.

_______________________________________________

Demi wrote:
"And the original document with the entire text of Mr. Spellman's purported quote (for the sake of context and of avoiding the mangling of meaning by selective quotation) is provided where?"

The full REPRODUCED letter from Ray-O-Vac is published in Joseph Newman's book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, editions of which are freely available via the library system.

_______________________________________________

Alan wrote:
"But not useful enough to run one of his units? Or can the new configuration run (power) itself or another unit? If not, why not? What makes dc voltage from a battery different from dc voltage from a well regulated power supply or a relay switched set of another battery? Can the unit run from an array of solar cells instead of chemical batteries?"

Yes, Newman has run an earlier version of his energy machine from a solar panel array --- and the same results were obtained: the system produced greater external energy output than external energy input.

I understand that Newman has recently discovered how to harness 99%+ of the huge back-spike generated by the machine. He apparently plans to post on the internet videos of recent tests conducted.

Realize this: Newman has very specifically claim the following -- from the very beginning: that his technology generates greater external energy output than external energy input. Now, let's talk about measuring: a) the INPUT and b) the OUTPUT. Then: c) COMPARE. I do not believe that is an "impossible" task. In fact, to the contrary.

With only 400 watts he is powering a 10kW Grainger conventional PTO generator with losses inherent in the gear connections, turning a 1200-lb rotar at over 300rpms, producing a 3.5-foot back-spike (that he has now discovered how to harness), AND powering a load of lights, appliance fans, and TVs. Those results verify that the system is performing as stated.

_______________________________________________

Sammy wrote:

"I'm not strong on theoretical physics but does this mean that Mr. Newman has also solved the issue of unified field theory?"

Newman has provided a specific MECHANICAL explanation for field unification. I belive that is a precursor to a mathematical understanding of such unification. As the history of science has demonstrated, the first step in major scientific understanding has been the development of a mechanical model (explanation) for observable phenomena.

_______________________________________________

And, a little bit extra:

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

FOR ROTATING MAGNET

NEWMAN MOTORS

Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from submissions by other individuals interested in the technology



(C)opyright 1991-2004

by

R. M. Hartwell II

*

The motors demonstrated by inventor Joseph Newman to date have been of two types. The rotating magnet armature version, similar in appearance to a conventional DC electric motor, and the reciprocating or "vertical" design, which resembles a giant solenoid magnet. This discussion will concern itself with the first type of motor, the rotary Newman machine.

NOTE: Since this document was prepared, many advancements, improvements, and/or variations have been made to the Newman Motor designs.

OVERVIEW


The rotating magnet Newman motor is deceptively simple, apparently consisting of nothing more than a large coil of wire,
a rotating magnet armature, and a commutator. Unlike a conventional DC electric motor, however, the Newman motor has no
iron or other ferromagnetic materials in the magnetic circuit. In fact, the presence of any ferromagnetic materials except for
the magnetic armature severely degrades the performance of the machine.

A Newman motor is assembled sort of "inside out" when compared to a regular DC electric motor; that is, the coil is wound around
the magnet, and the magnet rotates, while the coil remains stationary. A commutator is necessary to perform the dual
function of reversing the polarity of the voltage applied to the coil as the magnet reverses position twice per revolution, and to interrupt the current flow through the motor coil many times per revolution according to Newman's theory. The design of this commutator is quite critical to the proper operation of the motor, and is covered in a separate paper written by this author.

THE COIL: OPERATING VOLTAGES

*

The coil is usually a simple solenoid design, with multiple layers of wire wound on it. Depending on the applied voltage, the wire gauge will vary from 8 gauge to about 32 gauge. The lower voltages use the larger diameter wire, and the high voltage machines will use the finer wire. Newman has used both extremes on his various designs. Note that while Newman prefers the high voltage designs (he feels the high voltage devices have less loss because of the lower current in the windings) he has successfully demonstrated a machine operating on 12 volts DC power input.

My suggestion is to use a voltage no higher than 300, due to the problems with the very high back voltage generated by the
device. Output voltages of 50 times the input voltage are not uncommon with the larger units. These great voltage spikes are difficult to control, and tend to destroy test equipment connected to the Newman motor*. Also, high voltage machines require many more turns of fine wire, with a rather rapid increase in construction effort and cost.


*Note: the voltage spiking problem has been solved with the latest commutator designs.

That permits the utilization of higher voltages without the earlier back-emf problems.


THE MAGNET

I have been asked many times about sources for magnets for Newman motors. My recommendation is to try surplus houses, such
as Fair Radio, Jerryco, or suppliers such as Edmund Scientific Co. These folks usually have surplus magnets in various sizes
at reasonable prices --- at least when compared to new magnets.

What is the best type of magnet*?

Well, for the experimenter, it's most probably whatever you can get at a good price. Newman motors have been built with everything from Alnico (C) magnets to the latest super-powered rare-earth magnets (neos). A popular material is ferrite composition, of the kind commonly used in loudspeakers. These magnets are usually readily available in surplus catalogues, and are not too unreasonably priced. They also are usually made available in large quantities on the surplus market, which is a good thing, since you will probably need quite a few of them, depending on the size of the motor you are building. [Note: neodymium magnets have been used]

If you use magnets such as ferrite loudspeaker magnets, they are usually stacked end to end and covered with something such as epoxy or fiberglass to prevent the assembly from flying apart due to centrifugal force while in high-speed operation. If a single stack is not as powerful as you would like, you can place several stacks side-by-side to increase the magnetic field. The magnets may also be placed inside a non-metallic tube to hold them in place.

How large should the magnet be? I suggest that the weight of the magnetic material in the rotor be made about 1/4 the weight of the wire used in the coil of the motor. That is not an absolute rule, just a first approximation for testing, but it has worked well in previous designs.

THE COIL

What about the coil size? Remember that as the machine grows bigger, everything interacts to cause the price of the parts needed to increase! Design the coil so that it's axis is about 3/4 to 4/5 as long as the rotating magnet assembly. The coil should be close in dimensions to a so-called "square" coil design; that is, a coil which is as wide across its diameter as it is long. That design comes close to giving the greatest inductance with the smallest mass of wire, and also keeps as much of the wire as close to the magnet as possible.

Since the magnet rotates end-over-end inside the coil, the length of the assembled magnetic rotor determines the inside
diameter of the coil. Let's take a few figures as an example. The following is not necessarily a recommendation, but just
serves as an example...


Note: in the newest designs, the magnetic rotor configuration is designed differently.


Suppose the magnet when assembled is 11 inches long. If we allow 1/2 inch clearance between the ends of the magnet and the inside of the coil form, that will make the coil form inside diameter about 12 inches. Allowing 3/4 of that size, the coil would be about 8 inches long.

Since this is a small motor, we might want to make the coil a bit longer, perhaps a full 12 inches. That will allow us to
have a bit more copper wire in the magnetic field of the magnet. The extra wire won't be as effective as the wire near the center of the coil, but every bit helps.

WINDING THE COIL

The thickness of the wire wound on the coil depends upon the size of the motor, and the strength of the magnets. The bigger the motor, naturally, the bigger the magnet, so the more wire is required. I suggest making the wire thickness about 1.4 to 1/3 the inside diameter of the coil. In this example, that would make the winding thickness about 3 to 4 inches. That makes the outer diameter of the coil about 16 to 18 inches in diameter, with a winding thickness on each side of the form.

You can calculate the amount of wire needed by computing the area which will be occupied by the windings. To do that, take the length of the coil, in this case, 12 inches, and multiply it by the winding thickness, which is 4 inches in this example. So, 12 X 4 = 48 Square inches.

The wire will not occupy the entire volume, since the wire is round, and when wound on the form, will not fill the entire
volume. About 70% of the space will be filled by the wire. A table of wire data, such as the one found in the Radio Amateur's Handbook, will allow you to figure how many turns of wire will be required.

Then, you can calculate the length of an "average" turn on the coil by figuring the length around the coil when the coil form is half full, which, in the case of our example here, will be about 16 inches. (12 inches for the inside of the form, plus 2 inches of wire on each side of the form when it is half full). So, 3.1415926 X 16 = 50.26 inches per turn.

Let's suppose the wire we have chosen measures 0.05 inches in diameter. If we were able to wind it evenly so that each turn were side by side, we could get 1 inch / 0.05 inches per turn = 20 turns per inch. So, 20 TPI X 48 square inches = 960 turns on the coil. Since we won't be able to get all those turns on the coil so neatly, we can assume between 70-80% of them will fit. Therefore, 960 turns X .75 = 720 turns expected. Always buy a bit more wire than you figure you'll need, just in case your calculations are a bit off, or in case you really can wind the wire really neatly!

Figure how much wire is needed --- 720 turns needed; let's allow an extra 15%, so 720 X 1.15 = 828 turns. 828 turns X 50.25 inches per turn = 41615 inches, or 3468 feet of wire required. The wire table will tell you how many feet of wire are in a pound for the size wire you have chosen.

A suggestion at this point --- It will probably be cheaper to buy a 50 pound spool of wire then to buy only a couple of smaller spools of wire if you need only 25 pounds or so .... check with several wire suppliers before buying!

INSULATION CONSIDERATIONS

Beware of winding a coil for a motor which will operate on high voltage without using insulation between layers of wire in the coil. It is entirely possible to have a flashover between windings when the motor runs, due to the very high pulse produced by the motor. That is the reason I suggest starting with relatively low voltages. It also makes the commutator design easier.*

Copyright 1991-2004, R. M. Hartwell, II

_________________________________________


*The latest commutator design enables higher voltages to be utilized. Note: The above article was written several years ago. The principles described above are generally applicable "across the breadth of the technology." However, considerable improvements to the commutator design have been made in the recent past. Those improvements are intended to actually reduce the intensity of the sparking by distributing the physical connections over a wider area. The reader should bear in mind that witin the context of this discussion there are TWO totally different design systems (but many sub-configurations within each basic design): there is one commutator design when the energy machine is intended to function as a GENERATOR and a totally different commutator design when the energy machine is intended to function as a MOTOR. The latest design improvements to the commutator system apply to the machine operating as a MOTOR. Subsequent torque can be utilized for mechanical systems or can be used in conjunction with a conventional generator. In general, there are many possible designs using the pioneering technology innovated by Joseph Newman.


"The Theory I propose may ... be called a Theory of the Electromagnetic Field because it has to do with the space in the neighborhood of the electric or magnetic bodies, AND IT MAY BE CALLED A DYNAMICAL THEORY, BECAUSE IT ASSUMES THAT IN THAT SPACE THERE IS MATTER IN MOTION, BY WHICH THE OBSERVED ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA ARE PRODUCED."

--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
________________________________

JOSEPH NEWMAN'S STATEMENT TO UNIVERSITIES

The great 19th century innovator of electromagnetism, Michael Faraday, gave personal praise to Professor Thompson of Glasgow as being almost the only one who understood him, when Michael Faraday wrote:

"How few understand the PHYSICAL lines of force! They will not see them, yet all the researches on the subject tend to confirm the views I put forth many years since. Thompson of Glasgow seems almost the only one who acknowledges them. He is perhaps the nearest to understanding what I meant. I am content to wait convinced as I am of the truth of my views."

Michael Faraday recognized that the lines of force of a magnetic field are real, kinetic, physical, and mechanical in nature. This has been ignored in the past 150 years.

Now, ironically and appropriately, history repeats itself in this century.

The following is quoted from Professor Yun Li of E&EE of Glasgow following information sent to him about my work:

"Thank you for sending me such an interesting article (SPECIAL REPORT). I have forwarded the following information to some 100 colleagues. You may get queries from them. If you send further details regarding the motor, I'd be very interested in receiving them."

The following letter was sent to approximately 100 colleagues of Professor Li in response to the article about my work:

"What an interesting article to read! The following mentioned two Glasgow Alumni. One is "Thompson of Glasgow", i.e., William Thompson (Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907, who entered Glasgow University at age of 10). The other is James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879).

"The article described that an electric motor provides an energy as high as the nuclear energy. Do you believe it? You may not believe, probably correctly, that Maxwell's conclusion that electricity, magnetism and light were part of the same phenomenon is true for static (not steady-state) magnetism. Have magnetic mono-poles been found? We know that permanent magnet comes from the aligned gyroscopic self-spin of iron atoms. Owing to the absence of monopoles, the PM can magnetize (almost without losing its own energy) many steel iron pieces (since the flux can always close its loop on its own without the help of further external energy). On contrast, electricity cannot do static charges like this. So I believe in this article, for the energy the motor generates perhaps comes from the coil or PM losing a couple of their spinning atoms.

"The underlying engineering point that this article tries to make is that atoms of a copper wire are aligned by the input voltage and thus the voltage, not the current, should be the driving force of a motor. Thus the motor needs zero current at steady-state. I remember in Wen Soong's PhD thesis, he also mentioned that in an optimal operation the back e.m.f. would be as high as the input voltage at steady-state, which means zero current and power consumption.


Happy reading,


[Signed]
Dr. Yun Li"
Professor, Electrical Engineering, Glasgow

*A return letter was sent to Professor Li, thanking him for his sincere efforts on behalf of this important technology. Professor Li responded:

"You are welcome. That was at least what I as an academic engineer should and could do, as I believe new inventions should not be dismissed before people understand them.


Thanks again,
Professor Yun Li, Glasgow"

FACT:

I now have constructed a prototype of my new energy Motor/Generator such that with a load of a 42-inch fan blade, would cause the voltage within a battery pack consisting of 6-volt dry cell batteries to increase. That has been verified by oscilloscope readings measured properly across the battery pack.


FACT:

All conventional teachings state that the battery voltage should decrease with such a load being placed upon a conventional motor.

In light of the courage and scholarly honesty of Professor Li of Glasgow, I thank Professor Yun Li for his overseas support.

[Signed]
Joseph Westley Newman


Additional Note:

Conventional motors are designed with small coils and operate on HIGH CURRENT, low voltage.

Joseph Newman's Motor/Generators have generally been designed with the optimal purpose of "achieving the LEAST amount of current inputted to have the GREATEST amount of atom alignment in the conductor material (which causes the GREATEST magnetic field)."

It is Joseph Newman's position that because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of electromagnetism, all conventional motors have been designed with built-in inefficiencies.


"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a PHYSICAL existence in that intermediate space."

--- MICHAEL FARADAY
________________________________

COMMENTARY REGARDING EINSTEIN'S EQUATION OF E = mc^2

Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from submissions by other individuals interested in the technology

Most physicists are unaware that Einstein's famous equation was originally written by Einstein as EL = mc^2.

Since all things happen for a reason, it is interesting to speculate on why Einstein originally used that nomenclature.

With respect to the importance and implication of that ORIGINAL description of Einstein's famous equation, I am suggesting that the use of such nomenclature demonstrated Einstein intellectual linkage to the work of James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday --- both of whom preceded Einstein and for whom Einstein had great respect.

When one begins to understand the work of Joseph Newman, one realizes that something very important regarding the fundamental nature of ELectricity and ELectromagnetism has been overlooked in the past 100 years.

The article which described the nature of the original EL equation was published in 1996 in The New York Times under the by-line of Robin Pogrebin and it was entitled, "Einstein Paper Shows Science Can Be Artwork" --- subhead: "It's expected to fetch $6 million."

The Einstein manuscript was scheduled to be auctioned by Sotheby's in 1996.

To quote from The NY Times article:

"The manuscript in which Albert Einstein elaborated on his special theory of relativity is both momentous as one of the central scientific tenets of the modern age, and captivating as a window into how the gears turned in one of the greatest minds in history."

"The 72-page untitled manuscript was written in 1912, seven years after the 'special' theory was first published. the manuscript's further insights were widely disseminated, but the paper itself was not published; and except for a fleeting moment when the document was put up for auction in 1987, it has never been available to scholars or the public.

"Today, at Sotheby's the manuscript is to be auctioned once more. It is expected to bring $6 million, more than what a classic example of Monet's Water Lilies sold for last fall.

"Its value lies as much in its form as in its substance. In addition to offering a detailed review of Einstein's ground-breaking thesis on the relationship between mass and energy, E (equals) mc (squared), the document is also thought to be one of the few remaining Einstein rough drafts, rich with extensive revisions in the scientist's graceful handwriting.

"And in perhaps the manuscript's most striking example of Einstein's scientific gymnastics, he takes the equation EL (equals) mc (squared) and crosses out the "L," thus rendering the historic special theory of relativity -- energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light -- right before the reader's eyes."

I specifically contacted Sotheby's [telephone number: 1-212-606-7385, Book & Manuscript Department] and spoke with Ms. Jean Griffin-Borho. She informed me that the manuscript by Albert Einstein from 1912 was put up for auction at Sotheby's on March 16, 1996 and was designated LOT 1. It was expected to realize a sale of $4-6 million, but since the minimum amount acceptable to the seller was not realized, the book was not auctioned on that date. It was subsequently sold privately and is now on view at the Museum of the Book in Israel. She added that the manuscript was later published in facsimile, but she did not know the publisher. She also showed in her records that it was successfully auctioned earlier in 1987 for $1 million.

________________________________

THE MAGNETIC CURRENT AND SINGLE MAGNETIC CHARGES

Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from submissions by other individuals interested in the technology


THE RESEARCH OF DR. FELIX EHRENHAFT

BACKGROUND:

Regarding lectures concerning Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft's experiments with Photophoresis:

There exists microphotographs of a Photophoresis phenomena for which there is no general explanation. The microphotographs were most interesting in their depiction of the activity of submicroscopic particles suspended in liquids and/or gases.

What is most unusual about the activity of these small particles is the following:

During the course of the experiment, the motion of the particles traced out a "spiral" path. However, upon magnification of a given section of a given spiral, one saw a "spiral" path within the path of the larger spiral. When a section of that second order magnitude spiral path was magnified, one saw an even smaller "spiral" path comprising that second order magnitude spiral path..... and when the third order magnitude spiral path was magnified, an even smaller spiral path was detected.

Continuing "spirals with spirals" paths were detected down to the limits of the magnification technology available to Dr. Ehrenhaft.

Are these "spirals within spirals" are related to the hypothetical motion* of the gyroscopic particle throughout the "shells of force" comprising magnetic fields, as pictured on pages 10/11 of the book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? [*spiraling helix and/or 3-dimensional toroid?]

Also curious is the fact that the winding shapes of some of these spirals in the microphotographs reminds one of the shapes described by Nikola Tesla with respect to Plate XLVIII in which Tesla wrote:

"One of the streamers is wonderfully interesting on account of the curiously twisted and curved appearance. It is hard to conceive how a discharge can pass through the air in this way when there exists a strong tendency to make it take the shortest route."

In viewing these microphotographs by Dr. Ehrenhaft, one has the distinct impression that something phenomenal was occurring, but no definitive explanation for the observations is known at this time.
____________________________________

The following is a paper (one of many) written by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft:
*

THE MAGNETIC CURRENT

[Published in SCIENCE, Volume 94, No. 2436]

Not only electric current but also magnetic currents flow through the universe.

I reached this conclusion by consecutive and persistent observation of single submicroscopic particles suspended in gases.(^1) Using this method in my small condenser, I can measure forces of an order of magnitude down to 10^-10 dynes. Therefore, my measurement of forces is more sensitive by the factor of 10^4 than any direct measurements of forces made so far. I was able to find new facts because methods of the highest possible sensitivity were used.

These observations can be summed up in two sentences:

(1) PARTICLES OF MATTER, IRRADIATED BY A CONCENTRATED BEAM OF LIGHT, MOVE IN A HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC AS WELL AS MAGNETIC FIELD IN OR AGAINST THE LINES OF FORCE.

(Electro-photophoresis, magneto-photophoresis). I have therefore concluded that these particles are charged under the impact of light. There exist not only electric, but also magnetic charges.

(2) PARTICLES OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE MOVE SIMULTANEOUSLY TOWARD AND AGAINST THE PROPAGATION OF THE LIGHT.

I called the movement away from the light, lightpositive, and that toward the light, lightnegative longitudinal photophoresis.(^2) I have therefore concluded that the light beam has potential differences along its propagation which cause the particles on which charges are induced to move in or against the direction of propagation. To the well-known oscillating fields in the beam of light have to be added these stationary electric and magnetic fields.

Before such fundamental conclusions can be drawn, one must first see if there is no other explanation possible in accord with existing theories. Working for decades on the experiments and their interpretation, I was forced to believe that only such an electromagnetic interpretation can be in accordance with all observable facts.

Heat or mechanical effects --- so-called radiometer forces (Crookes) --- cannot account for these phenomena for the following reason: There is a photophoretic force in liquids which is of the same order of magnitude as in gases, although no radiometer forces exist in liquids. Silver or copper particles in gases which are reflecting strongly exhibit a tremendous lightnegative movement, though they ought to be most heated on the side toward the light, and one would expect a movement away from the light. It seems impossible to explain the reversibility of the particles with corresponding reversals of the field. The energy of the fields alone is responsible for the orientation of the particles and is a quadratic function of the potentials. One therefore should not expect a change of direction in the motion of uncharged particles if the field is reversed.

Were the movement due to heating effects, one could not explain why the particles move across and along the inner part of the beam instead of going entirely out of it. It would also seem strange that the movement of nickel particles under the influence of the geomagnetic field, as
it was observed in my Institute in Vienna, Austria, could be compensated by a superposed magnetic field of about 0.4 gauss.

Furthermore, the movement of the particles always follows the lines of force, no matter from which direction the light may come. This would be impossible if the movement were due to heating effects. That some particles start to move suddenly from rest, that the photophoretic movement suddenly disappears and sometimes increases or decreases gradually, and many other observations cannot be explained by mechanical or heat effects.

When I came to the conclusion that there are single magnetic poles (magnetic charges), it was therefore not necessary to ask if this agreed with existing theories, but rather whether there are any experimental facts that contradict it. It can be stated here that so far there are no experimental facts which contradict this conclusion of the existence of single magnetic poles. A study of the literature made with Leo Banet showed the following situation:

It has been the predominating opinion up to the present time that a real quantity of positive or negative electricity can be enclosed within an arbitrarily chosen geometric surface. But no matter how the surface is chosen, it will always enclose the same amount of south and north magnetism. In other words, there are true quantities of electricity of either sign, but no true magnetic ones. This statement has been made quite clearly by James Clerk Maxwell in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism." Maxwell tried to prove that there was no such thing as
true magnetism. May I remind you here that in principio it is impossible to prove from experiments that something is non-existent. Furthermore, the two experiments which Maxwell quotes are not conclusive:

The first one states that a broken magnet gives two entire magnets with equal poles. If a non-magnetic piece of iron is broken, it can be observed that the fragments become magnetized in various ways on the broken ends. The effect is the same when a non-electrically charged glass or sulfur rod is broken, and shows at the ends various kinds of electric charges. This phenomenon is easily explained, since each breaking creates constriction. Each constriction, however, creates electricity and magnetism. The breaking experiment therefore, does not prove that true magnetism does not exist, as Maxwell stated.

The second experiment, which probably originated with the ancient Chinese and is quoted by P. Peregrinus (anno 1269), indicates that a magnet floating upon water directs itself, but does not move. From this has been concluded that the amount of north and south magnetism is
equal in each magnet. It is easy to perceive that the mobility of such a big floating magnet is much too small to show slight differences of charge. The particles on which my observations were made have a mobility a million times greater than that of the floating magnet of
Peregrinus. Such particles irradiated with light move in a homogeneous magnetic field in the lines of force. Thus my sensitive experiment gives evidence of the existence of true magnetism. In other words, the Peregrini-Maxwell experiment turns out to be positive in my small condenser, when light is used.

My interpretation not only explains all observations in a rather simple manner, but also makes a number of new conclusions possible. One of these is that light magnetizes matter. Leo Banet and I succeeded in magnetizing small pieces of iron by means of irradiation with ultraviolet rays. Lilly Rona has expressed the idea that, concluding from these experiments, it should be possible to extract electricity from the beam of light originating from these stationary components. I believe that she is right, and that it could be done without the use of the photoelectric effect, that means with deteriorating and decomposing matter itself.

Under the influence of the light, matter coagulates more readily because of the induced poles (charges). Sometimes the light separates amorphous and crystalline particles, and sometimes it makes crystals grow toward it (heliotropism of crystals).

Light causes irregularities in Brownian movement and therefore also in diffusion because of photophoresis.

Light causes ponderomotive forces to act upon matter apart from the effects of the light pressure. These ponderomotive forces are produced by the stationary components and induced charges. The latter have attracting or repelling effects.

I determined the magnitude of the charge of the magnetic ion and found it to be of the same order of magnitude as the electric one.

A new phenomenon which I called the trembling effect found a simple explanation, the frequent change of the magnetic charge occurring predominantly in weak magnetic fields in the beam of light.

Leo Banet has drawn important conclusions in regard to the effects on the sun and the earth that will be described in another paper.

Now I shall say a few words about the MAGNETIC CURRENT.

We have shown the existence of unipolar magnetic charges, which flow in a homogeneous magnetic field in or against the direction of the lines of force. This can be observed directly by means of a microscope. Therefore we have to deal with magnetic currents in a physical and technical sense. Around a magnetic current there exists an electric field. Furthermore, a magnetic current produces heat in a medium conducting magnetism.

I have attempted to show that a beam of light causes or induces not only heat and electricity, but magnetism at the same time.

--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.


(^1) F. Ehrenhaft, Annalen der Physik, 56: 81, 1918; Philo. Mag.,11: 141,1931; Annales de Physique, (Paris) 13: 151, 1940; Phys. Rev., 57: 562 and 659, 1940; Jour. Franklin Inst., 230, 381, 1940; Nature, 147: 25, January 4, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft and L. Banet, Nature, 147: 297, March 8, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3, 1941, "The Microcoulomb Experiment" (charges smaller than the electronic charge), see p. 36; F. Ehrenhaft and Leo Banet, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3, 1941. The older references about photophoresis are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151, 1940.


(2^) I have constructed the apparatus on which the above-mentioned phenomena could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New York. Descriptions of the apparatus and of the experiments are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151,1940.


FURTHER FACTS CONCERNING THE MAGNETIC CURRENT

Published in the Journal of the American Physical Society

The hypothesis of the electric current was founded chiefly upon three facts: The existence of electric ions, the decomposition of water (electrolysis), the circulation of the single magnetic pole around the constant electric current. Now those three facts have been observed in magnetism as well: the existence of magnetic ions, the decomposition of water through the magnet (magnetolysis), the circulation of a single electrostatic charge around the constant magnetic current.

In the microscope one observes that different gas bubbles as well as solid particles move in circles around the axis of the magnet simultaneously in opposite directions. Each of them reverses its direction of motion with the reversal of the magnetic field. The bodies carry positive or negative electrostatic charges. The existing laws of electrodynamics (Biot-Savart, H.A. Lorentz) cannot explain the new facts because the electrostatic charges in question are resting ones, etc. Just as the line integral of the magnetic force defines the intensity of the electric current (Ch. Oersted, A. M. Ampere), the line integral of the electric force defines the intensity of the magnetic current. Electricity and magnetism represent an indivisible union, reaching far above the union established by Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz.

The electrodynamic equations must be extended to include the term of magnetic current. These theses will be illustrated by microphotographs of the experiments.*

*The experiments could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New York City.

--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.

*
See also:

Physical Review, Vol. 65, Nos. 9 and 10, May 1 and 15, 1944, page 287 for letter entitled, "The Decomposition of Water by the So-Called Permanent Magnet and the Measurement of the Intensity of the Magnetic Current" by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft.

See also:

"Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science" --- Ten Lectures delivered at the University of Vienna during the summer semester of 1947 by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, U.S. Visiting Professor [compiled with the assistance of Professor Ehrenhaft, and Dr. Schedling, by J. Ferber and P.K. Feyerabend].

See also:

Lectures delivered in 1949 at the European Forum Alpbach by Felix Ehrenhaft, Karl Popper, Rosenfeld, M.H.L. Pryce, Max Hartmann, Duncan Sandys, Von Hayek, and Hans Thirring.

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman
E-mail: josephnewman@earthlink.net

Gullible Jones
2004-Sep-20, 01:49 AM
Heat is not electromagnetic energy, as anyone who remembers their high school science classes knows. And you're hogging up valuable bandwidth with that long post...

tom3peronne
2004-Sep-20, 02:15 AM
Sorry, Gullible:

But the earth is round (not flat) and heat IS electromagnetic energy.

Specifically: as Joseph Newman has discovered (based in part upon the pioneering work of Joseph Black) heat represents the RANDOM flow of gyroscopic massergies which represent the mechanical essence of all forms of electromagnetic energy.

Eta C
2004-Sep-20, 02:36 AM
Sorry Tom, I'm a physicist, and all of those people you've quoted out of context would all agree that Newman is simply wrong. In your hands it amounts to a lot of noise, signifying nothing.

People may say that objects radiate heat, but that's not the same as saying that heat is electromagnetic radiation. As many others posted when your "friend" Nolan was here heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of an ensemble of particles. They may lose energy by emitting EM radiation, or gain energy by absorbing it which cool or heat the ensemble. May I suggest reading Steven Chu's 1997 Nobel prize lecture (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1997/chu-lecture.html) for a better description of the relationship between EM radiation and temperature. It actually makes sense, and has been verified by other scientists. Something that Newman's claptrap never will achieve.

russ_watters
2004-Sep-20, 02:37 AM
Sorry, Gullible:

But the earth is round (not flat) and heat IS electromagnetic energy.

Specifically: as Joseph Newman has discovered (based in part upon the pioneering work of Joseph Black) heat represents the RANDOM flow of gyroscopic massergies which represent the mechanical essence of all forms of electromagnetic energy. Sorry, garynoylan, heat still isn't electromagnetic energy, Mr. Newman's free energy device is still a hoax (or, at best, a self-delusion), spamming is still not allowed, and coming back after being banned is still not allowed.

Bye, bye.

tom3peronne
2004-Sep-20, 03:10 AM
Sorry, Russ, but heat IS electromagnetic energy.

Have a nice day.

Humphrey
2004-Sep-20, 12:59 PM
Prove it, give us the numbers.




P.S. read the F.A.Q. linked at the top of every page here. There is some very interesting info for you there. Especially this one: Rule 9: Sock puppets (registering twice using different names) will not be tolerated. Both accounts will be banned without warning.:-)

R.A.F.
2004-Sep-20, 01:24 PM
I think I'm done too. I haven't seen a direct or meaningful answer to any of the questions I or anyone else have raised about these claims.
garynolan has just been banned so I don't think he'll be responding anytime soon.

Not under that name, anyway. :(

Demigrog, it seems that you were right!!... Unfortunately

Alan
2004-Sep-20, 02:32 PM
Tom or Gary or whoever you are, can the input power to the machine be an array or solar cells (thus making the machine useful for space work and somewhat on topic). If not, why?

tom3peronne
2004-Sep-20, 02:33 PM
Someone said, "I see updates in the future."

Good point!

Demigrog
2004-Sep-20, 03:10 PM
I think I'm done too. I haven't seen a direct or meaningful answer to any of the questions I or anyone else have raised about these claims.
garynolan has just been banned so I don't think he'll be responding anytime soon.

Not under that name, anyway. :(

Demigrog, it seems that you were right!!... Unfortunately

<Garibaldi Voice>I hate it when I'm right...</Garibaldi>

sts60
2004-Sep-20, 04:10 PM
Someone said, "I see updates in the future."

Good point!
Unfortunately, tom3peronne/garynolan, your point is undermined by failure to grasp the difference between heat and electromagnetic radiation - an elementary failure of understanding which directly subverts your credibility.

Use of made-up physics like "gyroscopic massergies" doesn't help, either. You (or Newman, I should say; or are you Newman?) can't get around not learning physics by making up your own. You can't fool people on this board, many of whom are scientists or engineers, and most of whom have a good grasp of the fundamental principles. You certainly can't fool Nature that way.

Enormous postings of self-congratulatory tracts, out-of-context quotes, and irrelevant material does nothing to advance your case, either. Quite apart from copyright issues, bulk deliveries of words don't equal a valid technical argument.

Finally, if you came back and are reading this, once you're banned from the board, it's a further violation of the AUP to reregister. You should probably content yourself by telling stories about how you kicked the a**es of all those close-minded mainstream suppressors of innovation on the BABB. :roll:

hkscientist
2005-Mar-11, 03:34 PM
Is there anyone continue on this old topic?

I have seen the Discovery programme about Newman's Machine recently, and it raised my interest. But I have not yet decided on believe it or not. The information on the Internet is mostly unauthenticated. Then I found this forum, I saw several posts and some of them have resonable points but they are not yet strong enough to neither prove or negate it.

The only way to prove Newman's Machine is not arguing here, it is to get Newman's maquette of his machine and then make it and test it or to get his machine and test it. The tests should be all done by independent bodies, most probably universities. A test is better than millions of words because it wouldn't lie.

I believe if Mr Newman is lying, not only his machine will surely fail to pass any test, he will never take his machine out to test by a individual body.

I don't care if he has a degree or if he is trained as a professional scientist. Also, I don't care if his idea violates the theories or laws because new science always do this. Like in Einstein's time, the theory of relativity seems to be unbelieveble to many people as it violates the enrooted Newton's idea.

A final conclusion about Newman's Machine is essential. Because if it is not one of the greatest discoveries, it will be one of the largest lies.

R.A.F.
2005-Mar-11, 03:47 PM
Is there anyone continue on this old topic?

Not I. :wink:


The only way to prove Newman's Machine is not arguing here, it is to get Newman's maquette of his machine and then make it and test it or to get his machine and test it.

Well, no one is stopping you from investing your money...I just don't think you'll find a lot of folks on this board willing to invest theirs.

BTW...welcome to the board.

Sammy
2005-Mar-11, 03:52 PM
hkscientist wrote


A final conclusion about Newman's Machine is essential. Because if it is not one of the greatest discoveries, it will be one of the largest lies.

You're right on the first point, but IMO, wrong on the second. There have been uncountable charalatans/quacks/delusional individual who have "invented" or "discovered" various "free energy" or "perpetual motion" devices. These are documented back into the 1890s (and probably earlier).

Eta C
2005-Mar-11, 04:13 PM
Is there anyone continue on this old topic?

Not really, but it looks as if it may experience a brief renewal


The only way to prove Newman's Machine is not arguing here, it is to get Newman's maquette of his machine and then make it and test it or to get his machine and test it. The tests should be all done by independent bodies, most probably universities. A test is better than millions of words because it wouldn't lie.

The problem is, Newman has no interest in providing his machine for an independent assessment in the future. Several have been done, noteably by NIST, (I believe they have been linked to before in this thread, although you'll have to wade through a lot of junk to find them) and all have found no evidence for the performance Newman claims. Of course, he simply said they did the test wrong and refuses to sanction another. One sure sign of voodoo science is when only the inventor can get the machine to "work."


I believe if Mr Newman is lying, not only his machine will surely fail to pass any test, he will never take his machine out to test by a individual body.

Newman may not have been lying at first, but many believe he is now. As Robert Park put it, at some point Newman passed from foolishness to fraud.


I don't care if he has a degree or if he is trained as a professional scientist. Also, I don't care if his idea violates the theories or laws because new science always do this. Like in Einstein's time, the theory of relativity seems to be unbelieveble to many people as it violates the enrooted Newton's idea.

Read some science history. Physicists were not that hidebound at the turn of the 20th century. Einstein was a trained physicist, not some outsider with an idea out of the blue. His theories did not meet as much resistance as popular accounts would have you believe.


A final conclusion about Newman's Machine is essential. Because if it is not one of the greatest discoveries, it will be one of the largest lies.

Conclusion reached already. Newman's machine violates just about every basic principle of thermodynamics and electromagnetism. It has been tested by reputable labs and found not to work as claimed. No more needs to be said. The fat lady has sung and the audience has gone home.

TinFoilHat
2005-Mar-11, 04:23 PM
Back in 1986, the National Bureau of Standards conducted an independant test of Newman's machine. They concluded that it was merely an inefficiently designed motor, not a free energy machine. You can read their conclusions here:

http://www.ncas.org/nbsreport/factsheet.html

Since then, Newman hasn't allowed anyone to conduct independant tests of his hardware. Draw your own conclusions.

papageno
2005-Mar-11, 04:25 PM
I don't care if he has a degree or if he is trained as a professional scientist. Also, I don't care if his idea violates the theories or laws because new science always do this. Like in Einstein's time, the theory of relativity seems to be unbelieveble to many people as it violates the enrooted Newton's idea.

Read some science history. Physicists were not that hidebound at the turn of the 20th century. Einstein was a trained physicist, not some outsider with an idea out of the blue. His theories did not meet as much resistance as popular accounts would have you believe.
At that time, there had been already a lot of people working on the problem.
The time was ripe for the Theories of Relativity.

rapali
2005-Aug-31, 06:43 PM
I don't know if this device is real or imaginary, but if someone could power my house out of this, I would be a believer; addtionally, if they could design an automobile that didn't require the use of $3 plus gasoline.

publiusr
2005-Aug-31, 07:24 PM
It seems that--as rickshaws are being banned over seas--we may see more over here :D

tracer
2005-Aug-31, 10:59 PM
Joseph Newman claims that the reason he hasn't gone into production of his Energy Machine is that he hasn't been granted a U.S. Patent for it.

As others earlier in this thread have pointed out, this is ridiculous. He could just slap the words "patent pending" onto the side of his machine and start selling them now. If anybody else tries to sell machines similar to his Energy Machine, he'd have more than enough proof that he invented the thing to be able to secure patent protection.

So why doesn't he do this?

Well, there's a simple, if somewhat dirty, explanation. Hucksters out to sell snake oil long ago discovered that a patent lends an air of legitimacy to their products. In the public's mind, anything that's patented must actually work. (This is not true; a patent only prevents others from copying your invention. It gives no guarantee that the invention works as advertised.) So, if your late night TV infomercials say "It's patented!", you can rake in a lot more cash from gullible buyers than you could if your late night TV infomercials merely feature Suzanne Sommers using your product.

And, likewise, many bogus inventions in the past have been known to be able to attract gullible investors if they were patented. The purveyors are usually long gone by the time the investors discover that they've been had.

Sam5
2005-Aug-31, 11:56 PM
This is fake right?

http://www.josephnewman.com/

saw a program on the Discovery Channel about his invention. No validity to it, right?


I glanced at the website and that seems to be his same old type of machine. I did some news reports about this guy some years back. What he showed me in his lab was a large motor/generator that had a big permanent magnet and was run by batteries. The day I visited his place, his machine would not work because he said all of his batteries were run down. So, there from the start I figured he didn’t have anything at all.

So when he sets the machine up for his press conferences, he has fresh batteries and starts the machine to running and claims it puts out more energy than it takes in.

He has coils wired so that most of the time it is drawing energy from the batteries, and some of the time (fractions of a second) it is charging the batteries, using the inertia of the big armature to keep it running during the brief moments of charge.

But always, the batteries eventually run down, and the machine has almost no torque and can’t be used to turn anything or run anything that requires any power or strength.

He used a bunch of pseudo-electrical terms when I interviewed him, and that also told me his machine was worthless.

So, the last story I did on him, was at a public press conference, and I asked him to open up his smaller versions of the motors and let us see the batteries (he seemed to be hiding the batteries inside the metal cases of the small motors). He got really mad at me. I kept asking him to open up the motors to show us what was in them, and he started calling me rude names and saying I was too stupid to understand what was inside them, then I had to shut up and back off because he seemed like he was just about to hit me, and I didn’t want my camera damaged.

We ran that video on the local news that night. It was really funny. The first self-exposé of Joe Newman, and I didn’t have to call him a “crackpot”. The audience could see for themselves.

What he used to do was sell interest or stock or something in his “invention”, telling investors that the government and the oil companies were trying to suppress his invention, therefore he needed some private investment money to finish developing his machine. Apparently there are a lot of people who see his press conferences and contact him to invest money in his project.

He told me that his machine doesn’t run the batteries down, he said it put so much electricity into the batteries it ruins them. I started to ask him why he didn’t hook up thousands of batteries to take in that energy, so it would be stored and not ruin his small group of batteries that ran the machine, but I was afraid he would punch me if I asked him that.

So, my personal opinion is that his machine does not work, or else he would be selling them by the thousands and we'd be running our cars with them.

genebujold
2005-Sep-01, 12:34 AM
This is fake right?

http://www.josephnewman.com/

saw a program on the Discovery Channel about his invention. No validity to it, right?

Umm.. YES. It's FAKE.

Questions? This is the normal avenue by which those of us who actually understand physicics initiate debunkery....

Personally, I would love nothing better than someone to come forth with an engine generating just 10 degrees more than it's surroundings. Giving the right tweakings, it might actually work.

Actually, it does work, and it's called nuclear power, and in prevalent in most premier countries designes for power. This is by no means personaly - merely necessary.

papageno
2005-Sep-01, 10:15 AM
Sam5's post describes very nicely a classical crackpot. :lol:

=D>

publiusr
2005-Sep-02, 06:09 PM
Yep.

It is sad that the universe is not free with energy at human scales except through energy dense hydrocarbons and fission. You need a star for fusion (too big) and we can't get at zero point (too small).

It is probably just as well. If the universe were that free with energy that his invention would have worked--I'd be afraid to light up a match--let alone conduct nuclear tests--for fear of an ongoing reaction!

Matter is tough--thankfully--but will not liberate itself into energy without a big fight (sadly).

I wonder if the only thing that would work with fusion is a ring of tokamaks funneled into a laser fusor aimed at a palladium target with a Farnsworth device too.

Just hit it with everything.

As far as perpetual motion is concerned--the closest thing to that was the old barometer clock that used a change in pressure to keep itself wound.

And even that needed crap-loads of mercury.

Interesting site:

www.longnow.org

ToSeek
2007-Jun-20, 03:26 AM
Message posted by jbignes5 removed as it reproduced an email without permission, plus said email contained inappropriate language. jbignes5, please review the rules of this forum (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864). Thanks.

riddell
2007-Jul-06, 02:23 PM
I first became aware of this guy Joseph Newman the other day by watching a TV show about his "energy machine". Since then I've researched his claims on the Internet trying to figure out if his claims could represent the discovery of a "new' understanding of the laws of physics.

After watching his videos I started to think that he is nuts, however, being nuts doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong about his ideas.

I've read all the post on this forum and it seems that most of you think he is a fraud.... and you give good reasons to support that.

I do have a couple of questions:

1) What about the claim of "back spikes". 3 foot lightning bolts?
Do these represent excess energy not provided by the batteries he used?


2) What about R.M. Hartwell's mathmatical formulas representing his work.
http://www.josephnewman.com/JN_Theory_by_Hastings.html

Are they correct?

I'd be interested in this boards sceptical opinion on these two questions only. I already know that you believe him to be a fraud.

cjl
2007-Jul-07, 08:49 AM
Back spikes can contain remarkably small amounts of energy if they are of sufficiently short duration. For example, a 100,000 watt spike for 10 microseconds would only contain one joule (as stated earlier). 1 joule is easily provided by a standard AA battery in a second or two. The spikes tell you nothing unless you know duration and frequency of the spikes in addition to their power.

Zachary
2007-Jul-07, 03:34 PM
Sorry, Russ, but heat IS electromagnetic energy.

Have a nice day.

Ha!

Heat is the bulk kinetic energy of the molecules in your system.

Q ? U ? (3/2)kT ? (1/2)M(v^2). Simple, elementary kinetic theory. Have a nice day.

swiss1
2007-Sep-22, 10:23 AM
I just saw the Joe Newman machine "infomercial" on TLC today...surprisingly, that's first time I've heard of it (it did sound way too good to be true) ...googling provided some interesting reading and also led me to this thread. Pretty entertaining but also kind of sad that the believers in the machine seem to rely so heavily on pseudo-scientific emotional arguments over logic....maybe a symptom of our times? I was rooting for garynolon/tom3peronne not to blow it when he surreptitiously re-registered. He couldn't, however, help himself and HAD to post one of his rambling cut-and-paste half page diatribes...thus giving away his true identity and getting banned again! If only he'd forced himself to submit some short replies, he could have kept his secret longer. :)

Gillianren
2007-Sep-22, 06:33 PM
Welcome aboard.

I have to say, though, that I don't much want someone to stay longer who's violating one of the simplest rules of the board. Sock puppets are against the rules, and people who use them get banned as soon as the mod team figures it out.

Eta C
2007-Sep-23, 12:47 AM
I first became aware of this guy Joseph Newman the other day by watching a TV show about his "energy machine". Since then I've researched his claims on the Internet trying to figure out if his claims could represent the discovery of a "new' understanding of the laws of physics.

After watching his videos I started to think that he is nuts, however, being nuts doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong about his ideas.

I've read all the post on this forum and it seems that most of you think he is a fraud.... and you give good reasons to support that.

I do have a couple of questions:

1) What about the claim of "back spikes". 3 foot lightning bolts?
Do these represent excess energy not provided by the batteries he used?


2) What about R.M. Hartwell's mathmatical formulas representing his work.
http://www.josephnewman.com/JN_Theory_by_Hastings.html

Are they correct?

Only if every physicist in the world is a deluded fool. In other words, no.


I'd be interested in this boards sceptical opinion on these two questions only. I already know that you believe him to be a fraud.

Correction. We know he's a fraud. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Now let's all let this thread vanish back into the oblivion it, and Newman, richly deserve.

tassimau
2007-Oct-04, 02:58 AM
I've been into alternative energies for a couple years now, and I read about this guy along time ago. I decided to revisit it after I guy in my class rambled on about him, stating the government is in cohoots with big oil. At first glance it is somewhat skeptical because no one completely understands how to efficiently control electricity. I'm a bio major and know very little about physics, but the senior members on here made excellent rebuttal statements and I'm no longer a skeptic.

Word to garynolan/tom3peronne/?Joseph Newman?:

You claim you hold one of the keys to pandora's box, but you will not prove it until someone financially backs your claim?
You say God told you these things?
You think God would like that you are being greedy over and idea that you already gave him credit for, He told you to commit one of the deadly sins?

Yes we live in a capitalistic society and we should be compensated for our good ideas, but you need to know where to draw the line before someone else gets the claim for you're supposed brilliant idea.

Krel
2007-Oct-04, 04:53 PM
I knew a guy back in the 70s that was fascinated by the Newman machine. He went to see a demonstration at the Superdome, and even got to talk to Mr. Newman. He conclusion was that Newman was sincere, but pretty much a kook.

David.

1337_Stalker
2007-Nov-02, 03:01 AM
Listening to Newman on his videos is irritating to say the least.

However watching that big heavy flywheel spin up rather quickly to even an albeit slow speed from a small pack of 9v batteries is pretty amazing.

He shouldn't be hawking his process as overunity or even intimating it generates more power that it consumes. In his demos including the one using the sports car he states that eventually the process will run down. Of course he also says that if he had proper funding this wouldn't be an issue.

Getting that giant flywheel to move at all from such a small amount of current is quite a feat in itself if those batteries are all the energy that is being feed into the device and there is on other source of propulsion involved.

I have to admit when I saw the first videos and heard the sound his machine makes I suspected compressed air was involved somehow.

Can anyone explain to me why his machine using only rotating magnets and segmented commutators as control and energy feed would make such a chuffing noise as observed in the video?

Also if he has been at this for so long then how come he has no better model constructed. Even if he has to cannibalize the current machine for the expensive components, rebuilding it to better demonstrate the process wouldn't cost that much.

Why has he no permanent rpm measuring device operating directly off the flywheel? Why does he not have a full bank of meters installed to accommodate different operating modes.

The machine just looks too hokey to be taken seriously. If it were a first construction attempt it would be understandable that it might appear so rough and poorly constructed. But, he has been at this for many many years. If he were sincere he should have produced a more polished version by now. He should have moved it out into the open, pulled the tarp off of it and allowed a complete walk around.

Nevertheless if it can spin up that flywheel so quickly, or even at all from only those 9v batteries it has potential applications.

Using wiki specs for one large prototype lists a coil resistance of 770 ohms for 55 miles of wire. Using a pack of 18 fresh 9v batteries in series gives 144v into 770 ohms and only allows a maximum start up current of 187 milliamps.

Given the 144v even at 200 milliamps hardly seems sufficient to bring that huge flywheel into motion so quickly if it weighs as much as specified.

Even in that video though he shows the rpms slowly drop off over time so I'm not sure where the claim that it outputs more energy than it consumes comes from.

But again, getting that monster into motion at all from that current ... err voltage source, deserves some credit. No?

shadowdoc31
2007-Nov-06, 01:25 AM
Greetings-- just stumbled on this thread while researching some stuff on "Newman's free energy machine". As an aside, the guy has been pushing this "machine" since the 1980's at least, without any success [my point in mentioning this is simply that he's had 25 years for "the people of the world to get behind it" as he would say, 25 years for it to be shown to work, and at least 25 years that it hasn't worked...]

Anyway, this post concerns statements Newman makes in this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5684495902617203266&q=Joseph+Newman&total=149&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=0). If you can listen to him babble on, he eventually says that his machine can take a 120W solar panel, and run water up a 10 ft. head @ 9gpm. Doing some simple calculations, we see straight away that his machine is 14% efficient. So my conclusion would be two-fold...

(i) I concede that Mr. Newman may have constructed a 14% efficient electric motor in his garage, but unfortunately...

(ii) Conventional science/engineering surpassed this a long time ago [a quick internet search suggest conventional efficiencies in the 80-90% range]

I am actually surprised that his shenanigans still stir up so much debate; as a number of people have noted (on other sites), Mr. Newman's house is still hooked up to the local electricity grid... and why does he ramble on about scientists who "endorsed" him back in the 1980's; why nobody since then? Is it a conspiracy? My take on him, after watching his videos, is that he's an uneducated [in engineering, at least] crank.

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-06, 02:37 PM
Hrmph. I put links to JREF on Mr. Newman's two Yahoo video clips, and he immediately turned off commenting on both items.

Some people can't take constructive criticism.

HoustonScience
2007-Nov-28, 04:30 AM
After reading the post here, it appears as if I am the only one who has had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Newman and inspecting his invention. I can honestly say that he is not only one of the most intelligent men I've ever met but that his machine does work just as he says. I truly believe that this technology will soon change the world. Anyone who complains about paying $150 for his book obviously either hasn't read it or knows little to nothing about science. This technology is amazing and hopefully Mr. Newman will be recognized for it.
Anyone who is seriously interested in this technology, can respond to me on this post.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-28, 07:30 AM
How did you inspect the machine in order to make this extraordinary claim?
Details please, lots of details.
Which meters put where, in which circuit, who calibrated them, what formulae you used on the readings, etc.


You have to persuade a lot of smart knowledgeable people who are very skeptical about his claims.

Note that I'm giving you one post to substantiate your claim that your inspection of the machine shows it works as claimed, if you can't show anything substantial in that post this thread will be closed.

The rest of you, please refrain from commenting until HoustonScience has had a chance to explain his thoughts.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-28, 07:45 AM
After reading the post here, it appears as if I am the only one who has had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Newman and inspecting his invention. I can honestly say that he is not only one of the most intelligent men I've ever met but that his machine does work just as he says. I truly believe that this technology will soon change the world.


I would be impressed if, after it was verified there weren't hidden wires, no big banks of batteries, etc, it was shown that a machine could have its output tied to its input, and keep a bank of lightbulbs (perhaps a total of a thousand watts) lit for a year. Was the demonstration anything like this?



Anyone who complains about paying $150 for his book obviously either hasn't read it or knows little to nothing about science. This technology is amazing and hopefully Mr. Newman will be recognized for it.
Anyone who is seriously interested in this technology, can respond to me on this post.

I'll be willing to buy an independently tested and verified magic generator when it is on the market, assuming it can provide electricity cheaper than already available alternatives.

Swift
2007-Nov-28, 03:01 PM
<snip>
Anyone who complains about paying $150 for his book obviously either hasn't read it or knows little to nothing about science.
Well, please don't tell the graduate school I attended that, they'll take away my degree in chemistry. I too await some actual evidence.

Celestial Mechanic
2007-Nov-28, 03:46 PM
[Snip!] Anyone who complains about paying $150 for his book obviously either hasn't read it or knows little to nothing about science.
Anyone who thinks someone should not complain about paying $150 for a book doesn't really understand the economics of book publishing and, more importantly, the market for books. There is no reason for that book to cost so much. US$ 39.95 would be more reasonable -- assuming that it has real content such as equations, etc., to back it up. If it is just some 150-page piece of fluff full of "testimonials" without any real information then even US$ 15.95 is too much.

This technology is amazing and hopefully Mr. Newman will be recognized for it. [Snip!]
The question is, if the technology is so amazing, why isn't he recognized already? Can you answer that without descending into the usual conspiracy theories about big oil and power utilities? :think:

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 03:39 PM
Yes. And please, tell us why he isn't powering his own home from this machine. Also, while you are at it, explain how he achieves "Over-unity" / "Perpetual Motion" / "Zero point energy". And please, don't give me the old "It's not a perpetual motion machine!!1!" claim. It has moving parts, and he says it can power itself. That's a perpetual motion machine.

Celestial Mechanic
2007-Nov-30, 04:18 PM
Yes. And please, tell us why he isn't powering his own home from this machine. Also, while you are at it, explain how he achieves "Over-unity" / "Perpetual Motion" / "Zero point energy". And please, don't give me the old "It's not a perpetual motion machine!!1!" claim. It has moving parts, and he says it can power itself. That's a perpetual motion machine.
{Emphasis mine}

Yes, right there is the $64,000 question. This question should be asked of every "Magick Energy Machine" inventor.

torque of the town
2007-Nov-30, 04:36 PM
Whenever I come across Newman's claims, it's always very black and white for me, You don't get a free lunch in physics.

Infinite Horizons
2007-Nov-30, 04:49 PM
An interesting side-topic to this matter would be Johann Bessler's gravity wheel..
As I understand it he exhibited the machine in 1712 and no scientific evidence could repute it as it run for (I believe) 30 days in a sealed room without slowing.
It is said that as no-one believed him or took him seriously he destroyed it in a fit of rage and died a pauper..
Any comments..

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 05:33 PM
Sure, I'll comment. Give us some documentation to support this claim. The "Gravity wheel" has been reinvented over and over again for over three hundred years, and to this day still hasn't been utilized or mass-produced. Out of the world's energy demand totals, exactly 0.0000% of that demand is supplied by the energy wheel. Care to guess why?

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 05:45 PM
It's the same story with Mr. Neuman. He's been "perfecting" his energy machine for thirty years plus, and not once in all of that time has he powered his own home with it.

Infinite Horizons
2007-Nov-30, 08:01 PM
http://www.free-energy.co.uk/
The best I could find on Johann Bessler.. Perhaps if they had electricity then... who knows:)

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 08:06 PM
If you have that much faith in the design, you can always construct it and go for the JREF million. Are you up for it? I can email you a copy of their application. I'll also note you did not answer my second question. To repose the question, why do you think this device is not currently being used, assuming it works?

Infinite Horizons
2007-Nov-30, 08:21 PM
If you have that much faith in the design, you can always construct it and go for the JREF million. Are you up for it? I can email you a copy of their application. I'll also note you did not answer my second question. To repose the question, why do you think this device is not currently being used, assuming it works?

If I was up for it I'd be a multi-millionaire wearing sunglasses on a tropical beach and selling get-rich-quick-schemes on the net with attached photographs:)

My point, was that the man was never disproved.
I do realise that this is a very grey area accompanied by a lot of scoffing... as is with these things.
But then they scoffed at man travelling at over 30mph - scoffed at man flying and then scoffed at man walking on the moon.
Now I'm not saying there is such a thing as perpetual motion or ever will be.
But sometimes an open mind is better than one that rips apart only that which it is presented with.
Many get it wrong but it doesn't make the objective wrong.
Again, very grey and perhaps PM is not the subject to say that on, but, if you have a mathematical formula that debunks PM utterly and totally for ever and a day, and backed up by other respected mathematicians, than by all means tell me. You cannot dispute 2+2=4!
Unless your quantum - which seems to have an answer for everything:)

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 08:22 PM
Also, I have emailed the site's proprietor and invited him to take part in the JREF challenge as well.

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 08:24 PM
If I was up for it I'd be a multi-millionaire wearing sunglasses on a tropical beach and selling get-rich-quick-schemes on the net with attached photographs:)

My point, was that the man was never disproved.
I do realise that this is a very grey area accompanied by a lot of scoffing... as is with these things.
But then they scoffed at man travelling at over 30mph - scoffed at man flying and then scoffed at man walking on the moon.
Now I'm not saying there is such a thing as perpetual motion or ever will be.
But sometimes an open mind is better than one that rips apart only that which it is presented with.
Many get it wrong but it doesn't make the objective wrong.
Again, very grey and perhaps PM is not the subject to say that on, but, if you have a mathematical formula that debunks PM utterly and totally for ever and a day, and backed up by other respected mathematicians, than by all means tell me. You cannot dispute 2+2=4!
Unless your quantum - which seems to have an answer for everything:)

1.) The burden of proof is on the inventor, not those examining his device. He does not have to be "Disproved". He has to prove that the device works. I realize he is dead, so I nominate you for this position, since you are claiming this device works.
2.) An open mind is good, but you don't want it so open your brain falls out.
3.) Surely you can use a million dollars. Think of what you can do with it. With a sleek new veneer, you could patent the device yourself, and make billions on the open market.

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 08:30 PM
My email to Jeremy Collins, proprietor of that site you referenced:

Good morning/afternoon/evening, Mr. Collins!

We've taken to discussing this device you explain on your site, http://www.free-energy.co.uk. We've been talking about it on the Bad Astronomy forums, on a thread topic regarding Joeseph Newman's claims. Feel free to join in at http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/13262-energy-machine-joseph-newman-5.html#post1124285. Reading the site, it appears that you are convinced that such a device could work. This is considered an "Overbalanced Wheel" and would most likely qualify for the official JREF challenge. I'd like you to read James Randi's million dollar challenge, located here: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/. If you'd like to construct one of these devices, and prove that it works, fill out a form here: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32/. I'm sure a million dollars would go a long way towards patent law and initial production. Cheers!

~Mister Earl

Infinite Horizons
2007-Nov-30, 08:30 PM
1.) The burden of proof is on the inventor, not those examining his device. He does not have to be "Disproved". He has to prove that the device works. I realize he is dead, so I nominate you for this position, since you are claiming this device works.
2.) An open mind is good, but you don't want it so open your brain falls out.
3.) Surely you can use a million dollars. Think of what you can do with it. With a sleek new veneer, you could patent the device yourself, and make billions on the open market.

Hahahaha.... great answers (especially point 2)...
I bet Aristotle never had to put up with this:silenced:

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 08:44 PM
So, do you believe this device works? If yes, will you take the JREF challenge? Why or why not? What supporting evidence, other than a home-made website, leads you to believe that this device works? Have you built a test model? Have you found any supporting evidence, other than websites, that lends credibility to the existence or practicality to this device? Or are you basing your opinion entirely on one website you've read? Did you contact the site owner for more information? Did you question anything you read there, or did you just assume it was all fact?

Infinite Horizons
2007-Nov-30, 09:28 PM
Whoa! Back up a bit! I never said I believed it worked or do I go round wearing a placard advertising it.
Nor do I believe every site I stumble across (the one I gave was the best one I could find to who was Johann Bessler) - beware your own backyard!
What I was saying was this man - it is well documented - designed, built, and ran a PM machine for which no scientific mind of the day could disprove.
Now taking that the scientific minds of that day were not running around in loincloths making UG UG noises, you either assume he was very clever man who pulled the wool over their eyes - or he was a very clever man!
And to the point of blueprints for his machine - he destroyed the only one he built and took the secret with him when he died.
So the patent goes to the best medium in the house.

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 09:37 PM
Ah, I see. You were bringing up the topic for debate, not using it as a factual example. My apologies!

Infinite Horizons
2007-Nov-30, 09:39 PM
PS.. J. Bessler wasn't something I hooked up after reading this site to throw at you

Infinite Horizons
2007-Nov-30, 09:41 PM
Apology accepted.. My apologies if I did not make myself clear in the first place:)

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-30, 09:42 PM
http://www.free-energy.co.uk/
The best I could find on Johann Bessler.. Perhaps if they had electricity then... who knows:)

This page is amusing:

http://www.free-energy.co.uk/html/why_gravitywheels_work.HTM

Straight woo-woo. Given that attitude, I have to wonder how carefully he researched the story around Bessler.

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 09:42 PM
It'll be interesting to see how he replies to the email I've sent him.

Mister Earl
2007-Nov-30, 09:43 PM
Dual post! You owe me a beer, Van Rijn! ;)

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-30, 09:46 PM
What I was saying was this man - it is well documented - designed, built, and ran a PM machine for which no scientific mind of the day could disprove.


It appears, from a quick reading of that site you mentioned, that the internals were not available for inspection. That would make it difficult to validate the results. By the way, I can name a number of modern day examples where scientists were fooled by one trick or another.

Infinite Horizons
2007-Nov-30, 10:00 PM
Fine.. I opened it for debate.. As it was a trick then good for him.. Perpetual motion is unreachable. Entropy wins the day. I bow to your superior intellect...

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-30, 10:30 PM
Fine.. I opened it for debate.. As it was a trick then good for him.. Perpetual motion is unreachable. Entropy wins the day. I bow to your superior intellect...

Intellect isn't the issue. Rather, evidence is. We do have good reasons to think that magic energy machines won't work, but I for one am certainly willing to change my mind if good evidence is provided. Good evidence means an experiment that can be independently tested and inspected, and does actually show true energy generation that continues for some reasonable time. For something that would necessarily overturn physics if it worked, nothing less would be acceptable.

captain swoop
2007-Nov-30, 11:25 PM
A simple clockwork device would work for 30 days, easy to do if no one is allowed to inspect the mechanism.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Dec-01, 06:28 AM
2.) An open mind is good, but you don't want it so open your brain falls out.
An open mind is good, but you need a screen or the bugs will get in.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Dec-01, 06:36 AM
A simple clockwork device would work for 30 days, easy to do if no one is allowed to inspect the mechanism.
I've seen a design for a clock that was wound by changes in air pressure, which meant it would work pretty much forever. Or at least until the 3/4 tonnes of mercury it contained evaporated.

ToSeek
2007-Dec-04, 04:50 AM
Numerous posts moved to ATM (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/67704-besslers-perpetual-motion-machine.html) since a poster was claiming that a specific perpetual motion machine was successful.

Mister Earl
2007-Dec-04, 05:01 PM
That thread was closed, so I've moved my discussion with him to E-mail. I'm still interested in why he'd consider old personal statements as fact without supporting evidence. To get back to the subject at hand: Regardless of what Mr. Neuman has said, the machine he promotes is an over-unity machine, and it doesn't work. He's had 30 years now to refine his product, and not once has it stood up to a serious test. He claims he's had 20 scientists verify the energy machine, but doesn't give names. There can be no outside verification as he will not allow anyone to disassemble or test his machine, and must go on his say-so alone. I refuse to do so, and challenge his claims. The only evidence presented, through his own statements and actions, are grainy yahoo video clips he's disabled the comments on, and a rambling, word-salad web page.

Swift
2007-Dec-04, 05:35 PM
<snip>
He's had 30 years now to refine his product, and not once has it stood up to a serious test.
I find that curious too, about both Newman and about Bessler's machine, where there have been hundreds of years for someone to repeat it. If it was possible, I don't understand why it is so hard to reproduce, other than the idea that the devices don't work.

Mister Earl
2007-Dec-04, 07:49 PM
They're actually two separate devices. The Bessler machine is a glorified "Overbalanced wheel". Neuman's machine isn't really known. Too much word salad and he doesn't allow close inspection of the machine. Could be anything.

Swift
2007-Dec-04, 08:45 PM
They're actually two separate devices. The Bessler machine is a glorified "Overbalanced wheel". Neuman's machine isn't really known. Too much word salad and he doesn't allow close inspection of the machine. Could be anything.
I understand. But my point is, just do it already and stop talking about. Otherwise, it is just day-dreaming.

Van Rijn
2007-Dec-04, 10:01 PM
I understand. But my point is, just do it already and stop talking about. Otherwise, it is just day-dreaming.

Agreed. That's what I was getting at too: Opinions about old stories don't matter, opinions about whether one or another person is a fraud or not don't matter. Nothing matters until and unless there is independent expermental confirmation one of these gravity or magnet based machines actually works "over unity."

Van Rijn
2007-Dec-04, 10:06 PM
That thread was closed, so I've moved my discussion with him to E-mail. I'm still interested in why he'd consider old personal statements as fact without supporting evidence.


I see the same attitude with UFO, psychic and other "paranormal" stories. Even without any physical evidence many people will believe the story they hear from someone they want to trust. And the person giving the story may well believe it as much as anyone - but it just doesn't matter without physical evidence.

Maksutov
2007-Dec-04, 11:26 PM
"Pay no attention to that machine behind the curtain..."

Mister Earl
2007-Dec-05, 02:08 PM
From Neumann's own site...

It's Done!
A life's work.
The 7500-lb energy machine will now try
to reach the SPEED OF LIGHT!
Not by batteries or solar panels.
But by GENERATOR ONLY!
THIS IS A CLOSED SYSTEM.
Any size can now be built!

Such claims, and we're expected to take it all on faith :rolleyes:

#EDIT: I hereby make my own prediction: This "energy machine" will not reach the "Speed of light". It'll attain only the slightly slower and more entertaining speed of Woo.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Dec-05, 05:56 PM
The 7500-lb energy machine will now try
to reach the SPEED OF LIGHT!
His statement can easily be 100% correct, note the highlighted word.

Swift
2007-Dec-05, 06:37 PM
Originally Posted by Mister Earl
The 7500-lb energy machine will now try
to reach the SPEED OF LIGHT!His statement can easily be 100% correct, note the highlighted word.
@ HenrikOlsen :lol:

It is kind of a stange comment. He's making a power generator not a rocket. Even if it worked, how does it reach light speed, is there some means of propulsion too?

Mister Earl
2007-Dec-05, 08:55 PM
I assume he'll try to get his flywheel to rotate at the speed of light. Even if his magical contrivance did have that kind of power, that flywheel would have to be made of unobtanium before it'd hold together at near-relativistic speeds.

Demigrog
2007-Dec-06, 07:20 AM
I assume he'll try to get his flywheel to rotate at the speed of light. Even if his magical contrivance did have that kind of power, that flywheel would have to be made of unobtanium before it'd hold together at near-relativistic speeds.

Which is perfect, of course; he can demo it to a select group of gullible investors, dazzle them with presentation and misdirection until the device rips itself apart--and then nobody can demand additional demos or independent analysis because he needs more money "to repair it".

Mister Earl
2007-Dec-06, 02:16 PM
Aye, but you're assuming his device works in the way he explains it. I saw the Yahoo video of that thing running. The flywheel spun, and he showed the batteries it was hooked up to, but there wasn't enough of the device shown to lend his video any credibility. Heh.... he even disabled the comments on two of his videos after I posted comments on each about the JREF challenge.

torque of the town
2007-Dec-06, 04:22 PM
Maybe thats why he never has a working model he can demonstrate, every time it reaches 99.9% of C it simply disappears.

kmarinas86
2007-Dec-12, 05:13 AM
Hey ya'll I'm back.

I did some of my research on this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman

This should get you thinking.

Kaptain K
2007-Dec-12, 06:28 AM
This should get you thinking.
Yeah! I'm thinking ... Did you write that?

Van Rijn
2007-Dec-12, 06:43 AM
Yeah! I'm thinking ... Did you write that?

At the very least, that name shows up a lot on the edit page. Anyway, I'll get interested when I see independent confirmation in controlled studies. Heck, give me one, I'll test it. I want to open it up, make sure there aren't any batteries, then have one of these machines run, say, a thousand watt load (like light bulbs) for a year.

Maksutov
2007-Dec-12, 06:51 AM
There is one part of that write-up that strikes a factual note:
The device, which costs something to build,... http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Swift
2007-Dec-12, 06:14 PM
The first sentence from the wikipedia article:

Joseph Westley Newman[1] is an inventor who claims he created a machine, named after him, which can extract energy from fundamental gyroscopic particles of matter.[2]
Considering how poorly that sentence is written (and the rest of the article is no better), I am completely unimpressed.

I believe his claim that he created a machine named after him. The rest I'm highly doubtful about. ;)

kmarinas86
2007-Dec-13, 12:01 AM
The first sentence from the wikipedia article:

Considering how poorly that sentence is written (and the rest of the article is no better), I am completely unimpressed.

I believe his claim that he created a machine named after him. The rest I'm highly doubtful about. ;)

Here's how I'm going to prove that you cannot take out of something more than what you put in.

Consider a box containing a brand new computer, a mouse, a keyboard, and the necessary wiring.

You take the computer out. Using Occam's Razor, you deduce that you cannot take more energy out of the box than what you put into it. Since you know that matter consists of energy, you deduce that you must have put something in there made of equal energy of the mass of that object. This could have been done in a mix of two ways, the energy needed to transfer that mass and the energy contained within that mass. You decide the best method would have be to transfer mass that into the box in the first place, but unfortunately YOU are not the one to do it. It could have been someone else. Since you work at the same computer company that makes the computer, you decide to ask your employees the question, "Which person in here made my computer?" When you gave up in figuring out, in fear of further embarrasment and humiliation, you decide to resort to another explanation, that the energy in the mass of the computer was the source of the energy that caused the computer to go into the box. Unfortunately, you cannot find enough power that would explain how the computer got there in a reasonable time frame. After all, it is a new computer! Then you realize, "Oh, silly, what a total nimwit. I was the one who put the energy into it that made it go out of the box by picking it out. The energy OF THE COMPUTER must have come from somewhere! Me of course!" Using Occam's razor again, you use this as a justification that the work that you put into that specific machine should be the amount of work you will get out of it. As you set up the computer and hook it to the computer, your realize that it is doing more work for you than you are doing for it, by crunching numbers at an extremely fast pace. You go on thinking, "What's the efficiency of this machine? It's adding numbers millions of times a second, but it doesn't charge me a humanly amount for each of those equations. Could this be free energy?" Then you say, "That's impossible. I cannot put more work into the machine than what I put out of it. I've had my job at this company for a few weeks. Can it really do more than that for me in a few seconds. I believe that whatever work I get out from a machine, it should equal what work I put into it." Then you have a spur of the moment thought, "Oh, I remember what they taught me in physics." After a few seconds, you figure it out, "The law of conservation of POWER!" In obedience to this law, you immediately realized the fraudulent lifestyle you were living in, as it violated the conservation of power. The conservation of power dictates to you that you cannot extract power from something exceeding its input power from YOU. Thusly, you consider yourself to be merely dreaming about your first-world existence. ... and suddenly.. you end up at your momma's dinner plate.

Patrick M.
2008-Oct-31, 03:32 PM
But with 10x the output as input, he's got lots of energy to waste doing the necessary conversions. If that EE can't do it, I can - I'm a mechanical engineer so I could use that 4000w output to power a steam engine driving a generator. There's enough inertia in a system like that to manually switch the input from his electrical socket to the generator.

But ehh, lets save some effort: with 39 years of development (and he's been claiming for a substantial portion of that time that his model works), he's had ample time to figure out how to make the machine run itself. With that much extra energy, it should be trivially easy. Why is his house still on the grid: indeed, why isn't he selling energy back to the power company (the power company is required to buy it from anyone who can sell it)?

Regarding those testimonials from engineers - if any of them are worth the title "engineer," why hasn't one of them helped him turn his device into something useful?

Bottom line, garnolyan, it takes more than testimonials to convince a scientist/engineer: scientists and engineers require that you show them actual evidence. And given the amount of money his device has generated (in that way, its a success), I'm a little surprised he's not in jail yet. He's not just a hoaxster, he's a fraud.

And it was Newman who sued to get his application reviewed, won, then refused to submit his device for testing, right? I guess people who still give him money just don't do their homework.

Edit: I was wrong, he did eventually get his device tested by the National Bureau of Standards in support of his patent application. Can anyone guess what the result was...?

Russ,

You hit the nail right on the head! No Doubt!


Patrick M.

Gunther45
2009-Feb-08, 12:47 PM
I saw the Discovery ( or whatever channel ) show on this invention as well and I was somewhat impressed although still very skeptical. After wards I googled Newmans Energy Machine and found lots of stuff along with his very poor website.
One site though was from a reporter that debunks these things that visited his place. One thing that Newman would not do is take the output and run it back to the input, thus making it a perpetual energy making machine. He did say that he believes Newman does honestly believe in his machine and believes it works but just doesn't have the proper education to understand the principles of why it doesn't work the way he think it does.
I originally thought that was most likely several generators inside and coils to leach off the EMF and somehow combine it back into the output. I have heard of an Electrical Engineer using a large coil and placing it under power lines running over part of his property and getting electricity from that. He got sued for stealing power , although I don't agree with that finding considering its just leached out energy not being used.

Unfortunately I have to say that this machine does not do what it says it does. Here are my issues.

1) He never uses the machines output to power the machine.
2) As a previous poster said: Why is he still on the Grid if he has several of these machines.
3)God told him to build it. ( I have many issues with this one )
4) Regardless of a US patent , Why doesn't he have any real investors. If it worked he would have billions of dollars from major companies as investment.

If Mr. Newman is reading this ( although judging by his website I doubt he uses the internet much ). If your Machine truly works contact the GATES FOUNDATION. Malaria is one thing but if you could power a whole tribes huts in Africa with a 9 volt battery than I am sure you would have an investment and it would be doing what you say is your goal of giving the poor free power. You make that happen and I will get a case of 9 volts drop shipped from HK to a location of your choosing,just to do my part for the world.

Just my thought on the matter.

Swift
2009-Feb-08, 06:22 PM
Hi Gunther45. Welcome to BAUT

HenrikOlsen
2009-Feb-15, 01:44 PM
I have heard of an Electrical Engineer using a large coil and placing it under power lines running over part of his property and getting electricity from that. He got sued for stealing power , although I don't agree with that finding considering its just leached out energy not being used.
Nope, they where right.
Putting the coil near the lines removed energy that wouldn't have been removed had it not been there, it wasn't just being lost before he did it.

It's a bit like putting a watermill in a river, without the mill the river flows easier, without his coil the electricity flowed easier.

pzkpfw
2009-May-28, 11:15 AM
han39835, welcome to BAUT.

To keep discussion civil and useful we have several rules and a few sets of "tips" that members need to follow and take heed of. It makes it all better, for all of us.

Your posts seemed to break a whole bunch of our rules, so I've "soft deleted" them. If you dissagree you can report this post (use the exclamation/triangle at the top-right of this post) to have the other moderators look into it.

The main issues were: civility and decorum, religion and posting ATM claims outside the ATM forum.

(ATM means non-mainstream science.)

The main rules are here: http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html (see 2, 12 & 13 especially).

Please also follow the links for some tips.

Thanks.

han39835
2009-May-28, 06:44 PM
han39835, welcome to BAUT.

To keep discussion civil and useful we have several rules and a few sets of "tips" that members need to follow and take heed of. It makes it all better, for all of us.

Your posts seemed to break a whole bunch of our rules, so I've "soft deleted" them. If you dissagree you can report this post (use the exclamation/triangle at the top-right of this post) to have the other moderators look into it.

The main issues were: civility and decorum, religion and posting ATM claims outside the ATM forum.

(ATM means non-mainstream science.)

The main rules are here: http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html (see 2, 12 & 13 especially).

Please also follow the links for some tips.

Thanks.


That is totally ridiculous.

The reason the people dont give the man credit is targetted and is based in his belief system.

The attitude that the man is coookie comes from his belief system.
The man asks for money
He has never gotten any


Soft delete...

I followed the youtube videos that show how to make a newman moter from a flowerpot

and it works

and if you cant accept it....

its because of his "belief" system.

JESUS Christ is why you wouldn't post them....

but if I had said praise allah...

my post would be up there

han39835
2009-May-28, 08:56 PM
LOOK the reason NEWMAN hasn't found TRUE overunity is because he is converting
the MASS OF THE COPPER into ENERGY

This means that having the EXCESS power from the machine DO something gets RETARDED awsome gains

it isn't actually OVER unity but who cares

using the BACKEMF to run itself would keep the conversion from mass to energy from happening so you cannot simply ground out the machine as the TESTERS have done.

You have to extract energy in the form of mechanical power and then you could use that mechanical power to run the machine.

Newman has failed at being able to use the backemf to power the machine because that is actually what causes the MASS to ENERGY conversion

However

If he were to connect a shaft (non - conductive) and run it far enough away and hook it up to a generator (so as to not create unwanted induction) AS WELL AS whatever machine (like his pump for example)

He could do this with mechanical advantages and spin his magnet once with his hand

REMOVE the mechanical LOAD (leave the generator) until the machine was up to speed.

and add load until equilibrium ... to0 much load ( then increase POWER V*A from generator to BIG EUREKA)

UNDER this PROCESS IT SEEMS like OVERUNITY when in fact the copper is losing mass at a rate of some Constant * -e

WHICH IS HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY insignificant

I believe SO insignificant that the copper in the newman machine would outlast YOUr lifetime by multiples of your lifetime if not hundreds or thousands of multiples.

IF you CANNOT understand this then you are SIMPLY persecuting the man because he believes in JESUS CHRIST.

He may need help explaining this to people, but that doesn't make him dishonest or fraudulent.

Creating MASS into ENERGY we already KNOW is possible.
This man has done it, with or without the help of his beliefs.
And you people don't want to awknowledge it.
not only do I understand it

I applaud MR. NEWMAN for having the stones to continue fighting you people dispite your
GREED
ENVY
IGNORANCE

han39835
2009-May-28, 09:08 PM
He isnt saying he NEEDS to REACH THE SPEED OF LIGHT

HE IS SAYING that the ENERGY CREATED by converteing MASS into ENERGY is an exponential FUNCTION of the RPM or SPEED OF ROTATION.

the THERORETICAL limit that the machine COULD GO isn't even NECESSARY to get gains

THESE are GAINS like FILLING up your GAS tank.... except your TANK is made of COPPER ATOMS and you get 1000000000000000000000000 miles to an atom

I have made one of these things on a small scale and it works

THERE is also a VIDEO on YOUTUBE on how to make one out of a FLOWERPOT and copper wire

additionally there is someone in FRANCE who has replicated it as well.

strange that all these economic shenannigans happen when

MEYERS hydrogen cell
NEWMAN energy machine

Both which MAKE ENERGY out of MASS

BOTH WORK

and nobody can accept it because it means that what they have been TAUGHT or what they are TEACHING

has been convieniently HIDING something from them, if not boldface lying to them

han39835
2009-May-28, 09:11 PM
Atm claims?

The entire newman machine claims atm

i cannot speak? Because its not mainstream science?

Do you hear yourself?

You cannot speak because the world is flat and we say so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pzkpfw
2009-May-28, 09:12 PM
Perhaps you could tell him how to "fix" his device?

This is a Second warning.

Please, calm down.
Please stop with the religious references.
Please stop posting ATM claims outside the ATM forum.

If you wish to support this device, please start a thread about it in the ATM forum. You will then be required to back up your claims.

Further posts of this nature will result in your suspension. Sorry.

han39835
2009-May-28, 09:13 PM
your moderation is a joke.

you are arrogant and ignorant

and OH BOY i hope you DO remove me as a BAUT forum poster

It will only further prove my point

han39835
2009-May-28, 09:15 PM
I didnt make any religious references in the second and third posts

i only stated that he believed them and thats the only reason some people are calling him a nut.

and I did back them up.

why dont you show them?

then we can DISCUSS whether or not they have been backed up

and NOT make it ME VS YOU

when you obviously have no knowledge of the NEWMAN machine so you stand on your "I know what PHYSICS SAYS"

I am NOT CLAIMING OVERUNITY SO IT IS MAINSTREAM you just aren't listening

which proves your incompetant

peter eldergill
2009-May-29, 01:31 AM
I see how using the word "please" while moderating can result in a huge rant about incompetence :rolleyes:

Van Rijn
2009-May-29, 04:32 AM
(Yes, I know han39835 has been suspended, but for when he gets back . . .)



The reason the people dont give the man credit is targetted and is based in his belief system.


The reason people don't give him credit is because he hasn't been able to back up his magic energy machine claims.

Actually, this is the first time I've heard anyone claim he's been discounted because of his religious beliefs. I don't know, nor do I care, what he believes.



The attitude that the man is coookie comes from his belief system.
The man asks for money
He has never gotten any


You're seriously claiming he has never gotten any money for his stuff? Never?

From what I've read, he's received quite a bit of money over the years.



I followed the youtube videos that show how to make a newman moter from a flowerpot

and it works


Define "works."



and if you cant accept it....

its because of his "belief" system.


It's because of the lack of evidence. Magic energy machine claims have been around for centuries, and there is no evidence that his claim has any basis in reality.

Gandalf223
2009-May-29, 04:34 AM
If Newman's machine actually worked, Microsoft would have bought him out by now.

They have not done so.

Van Rijn
2009-May-29, 04:36 AM
I am NOT CLAIMING OVERUNITY SO IT IS MAINSTREAM you just aren't listening


If it's mainstream, you should be able to explain the mainstream physics that applies in this case.



which proves your incompetant

I don't usually correct spelling, but that should be "you're incompetent."

Maha Vailo
2009-May-29, 06:21 PM
Suppose somebody were to make a working machine that you got more energy out of than you put in. (Assume the laws of physics didn't apply.) What would be the consequences of such an incredible discovery?

- Maha Vailo

Tobin Dax
2009-May-29, 09:03 PM
What would be the consequences of such an incredible discovery?

(Assume the laws of physics didn't apply.)
I think you answered your own question, Maha.

-Tobin (law-adibing) Dax ;)

Maha Vailo
2009-May-29, 09:41 PM
I meant, what would be the benefits and drawbacks of bending the laws of physics so that an over-energy machine is possible, and then putting such a machine to work?

- Maha Vailo

HenrikOlsen
2009-May-29, 10:40 PM
The drawbacks would in all probability include that we stop working. "We" as in the chemical processes that make us be alive.

Van Rijn
2009-May-29, 10:56 PM
I meant, what would be the benefits and drawbacks of bending the laws of physics so that an over-energy machine is possible, and then putting such a machine to work?

- Maha Vailo

There is no reasonable way to answer this question. You might as well be asking, "What if magic is possible?" If you wanted to write a story about a magic energy machine, you would need to specify the benefits and drawbacks, the capabilities and limitations. Then you would follow the implications from there.

Maha Vailo
2009-May-30, 01:37 AM
The drawbacks would in all probability include that we stop working. "We" as in the chemical processes that make us be alive.

So why would altering the laws of physics so as to allow over-energy machines to be built result in the cessation of all life?

- Maha Vailo

Sam5
2009-May-30, 04:27 AM
I saw the Discovery ( or whatever channel ) show on this invention as well and I was somewhat impressed although still very skeptical. After wards I googled Newmans Energy Machine and found lots of stuff along with his very poor website.
One site though was from a reporter that debunks these things that visited his place. One thing that Newman would not do is take the output and run it back to the input, thus making it a perpetual energy making machine.

I went to Joe Newman’s place just South of Lucedale, MS, back in the late 1980s, to do a TV report on him, and he showed me one of his magic motors. The first thing he told me when I arrived was that he couldn’t run his motor that day because the batteries were all down. So his motor wouldn’t run at all. It was a battery-operated motor, his batteries were all down, and his motor wouldn’t even turn over.

I drove a couple of miles on a dirt road to get to his place. He had regular power lines going into his property, so he gets his home power from the local power company.

He explained to me that his motor was set up with permanent magnets, many coils of wire, and many brushes. The principle of that motor he said was that it ran off of batteries and it charged the batteries as it ran. Apparently his wiring was such that the motor took power from the batteries, then used inertia to keep his heavy magnets rotating, and while they rotated they alternated between taking power from the batteries and putting power back into the batteries.

But, no matter what, the batteries ALWAYS eventually ran down.

In the following video, he says he has 36 volts of batteries in a truck, and he claims he’s going to run this truck for an hour with his batteries. Well, watch the truck run, and you’ll see that it barely creeps along at a few miles an hour, and he shows it running for only 30 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg4_c7InHrI&feature=related

This is typical of his demonstrations. He says he’s got something “revolutionary”, but all he’s got is a truck rigged up to 36 volts of batteries that we can see. We don’t know if he has batteries elsewhere in the truck. Yet it can’t get up to any significant speed, and he doesn’t show it running for more than 30 seconds, at a maximum speed of about 3 miles per hour.

I think this guy is a faker and a con man.

If he really had something, he’d get in the truck, take off, get it up to 60 mph, and run it forever, or at least for hours, with no recharge of the batteries.

Sam5
2009-May-30, 04:45 AM
Here’s his truck again... look at how slow it is running. How can anyone use a car or truck that can’t exceed 3 miles an hour?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN2TjUgDdJA

Back in the 1980s Joe Newman was receiving his maximum national attention. I couldn’t believe how so many reporters were reporting his “great discovery” and his “amazing motor” as if he had really discovered something important. I was the first reporter to expose this guy as a hoaxer. He got really mad at me.

Somewhere in a box I’ve got my old video report of him yelling at me on camera, calling me an idiot. He was giving a public demonstration of some small motors that were sealed in aluminum boxes. He was pretending they were self-generating motors. But I knew that the boxes contained batteries and I asked him – in front of everyone – to take the cases off and show us what’s inside the boxes. (I wanted the public to see the batteries that all the motors were running on.) That’s when he started yelling and screaming at me.

We put that tape on the air that night and showed it to our local audience. It was a hoot.

Eta C
2009-May-30, 11:25 PM
Wow, this goes back to the old BABB when I'd been posting a little over a year. Back then, in reply number 7 (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/13262-energy-machine-joseph-newman.html#post273493) I ended up saying what I was about to say now.

This guy is the poster child of Robert Park's book Voodoo Science. I recommend reading it for the full story. Basically all Newman's done is make a high voltage (about 2000 D-cell batteries connected in series), low current motor that really isn't all that efficient. He's been trying to market it for years. Of course one should have doubts about the motor's efficacy given that, as Park points out, Newman's house is still connected to the local power lines.

When Newman's apolgist of the time, one garynolan attempted to belittle Park's comments I replied in post number 18 (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/13262-energy-machine-joseph-newman.html#post273655).
Schuyler worked for the legal firm that prepared Newman's patent application. Basically, he worked for Newman which is why the Judge Jackson threw him out as a special master and called in someone else. This info came up at Newman's hearing in front of Congress, which is why Congress refused to grant his "energy machine" a patent. Can you say "Conflict of interest?" I knew you could. He may have claimed he never met Newman, but his name appeared on the patent application. I don't care how many Bibles he swore on, but it sounds to me like he perjured himself.

You claim the machine doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics and then go on to state that the machine creates "greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input." That sure sounds like it's creating energy out of nothing and therefore has an efficiency over 100% which most certainly is in violation of the laws of thermo. Read up on Carnot's work.

I don't care how many "eminent scientists" have said the work has validity. Frankly, if they've fallen for this quack, they lost any eminence they might have had. In any case, if I cared to I could probably produce a list of 3000 or more physicists who would state the obvious. Newman is not right.

As to the machine. Can you say "inductance" Do you even know what that means? Why did Newman refuse to let any outside organization test the machine and see if more energy came out that went in? Could it be that he knew he'd be exposed? Let NIST or another reputable government lab with no financial interest in the device test it.

Of course, you'll probably dismiss everything I say since I'm part of the conspiracy of physicists. Doesn't matter, I'm not really talking to you. Go ahead and post as long a message as you like, you'll still be "Not even wrong."

It's as true now as it was then. If Newman has any guts he'd submit his device to NIST or some other independent lab for a thorough test. No quibbles about patent rights or anything else. Put up or shut up. Oh wait, NIST did test his machine, and found that it did not do what Newman claimed. You've added nothing new Hanxxxx. Newman may once have believed his own hype, but he has to suspect, at least, that he's gone down what Park calls "The Road from Foolishness to Fraud."

Mister Earl
2009-May-31, 06:43 AM
My question is, why is Neumann's house still hooked up to the local power grid?
Why does he still pay his utility bills?

captain swoop
2009-May-31, 11:39 AM
It's all a conspiracy.

Maha Vailo
2009-May-31, 08:27 PM
I'd still love to know how altering the laws of physics so as to allow over-unity machines would end up destroying all life. Would things just stop working, or would they burn up?

- Maha Vailo

Sticks
2009-Jun-01, 12:31 PM
your moderation is a joke.

you are arrogant and ignorant

and OH BOY i hope you DO remove me as a BAUT forum poster

It will only further prove my point

I would class this as an Ad Hominem as well as showing disrespect and contempt for a moderator.

As such you have two days off to aquaint yourself with the forum rules



Edit Suspension lifted as a suspension for this had already been served

BigDon
2009-Jun-01, 03:16 PM
Wow, the things you find when you're just checking up on who got banned.

Sam5
2009-Jun-01, 04:07 PM
My question is, why is Neumann's house still hooked up to the local power grid?
Why does he still pay his utility bills?

That’s the first thing I noticed when I drove to his rural house when he lived in Mississippi back in the ‘80s. His property was rural and wooded. The road was dirt and a mile or two long. He had a high chain-link fence around his property, maybe 15 feet high, with barbed wire at the top of the fence.

All along the road, I saw regular utility power lines running to his house and workshop from the main power lines out along the nearby highway. It was then I knew that his machine was a hoax.

As far as I can tell, Newman has never addressed the issue about the excess energy his machines are supposed to put out, nor has he addressed the issue about why they are always run by batteries and why the batteries always run down.

Of course, if his machine put out more energy than it took in, then it could run on its own power and also generate power to run other engines. If they were all his engines, all he would need would be one small engine to start with, and he could hook it up to other Newman engines, and then to yet more Newman engines, and they could power every other electric Newman engine in the world. We’d all be using Newman power today, and he’d be more wealthy than Bill Gates.

Of course, his machine doesn’t work like he says it does. It does not put out more power than it takes in. And the way he makes money is by conning people into “investing” in his enterprise. Many gullible people have done that over the years.

Gillianren
2009-Jun-01, 04:57 PM
All along the road, I saw regular utility power lines running to his house and workshop from the main power lines out along the nearby highway. It was then I knew that his machine was a hoax.

That's unreasonable. It's not as though he could demand that the power company take away the poles and lines. For one thing, he might move. They were probably put in place before his machine, and if they weren't, I'm sure there are zoning issues at hand.

This is not to claim that the man isn't a fraud, of course, because he manifestly is. However, the existence or not of power equipment leading into the house is not in and of itself evidence of that.

captain swoop
2009-Jun-01, 05:49 PM
He could have been selling power to the grid.

Sam5
2009-Jun-01, 05:59 PM
That's unreasonable. It's not as though he could demand that the power company take away the poles and lines. For one thing, he might move. They were probably put in place before his machine, and if they weren't, I'm sure there are zoning issues at hand.

New lines, new poles, new dirt road, new fence, new house, new workshop out back, on a large rural acreage of tree-covered property. I was familiar with many such places in that area, as old large forests were gradually sub-divided into large rural acreage property home sites for people who wanted to live in such a remote area. The lines weren’t very old, nor was the fence and road.

When people buy acreage and build a remote house on it in that part of the country, they have to pay the utility company to run the power lines to their house and to put up the poles the lines run on.

When I got to his place, the power lines went right into his house and his workshop. He had NO working motor at all. He had a large prototype, but he said it couldn’t run because all the batteries were down.

How much more does anyone need to figure out that this guy is a con man?

Perhaps I should have said that I was “suspicious” that he was a hoaxer when I first saw the power lines running from the highway to his house, and a few minutes later it was confirmed to me when he said he had no motor that he could run for me because “all the batteries are down”.

Studioguy
2009-Jun-01, 06:17 PM
As you can tell from my signature, I actually grew up down there. To the best of my knowledge, you can't build a residential structure without having power lines and water run to it. That's not to say that Joe Newman isn't a fraud, but just to point out that even if he wanted to power his place with a gyro-powered bicycle contraption, he'd still have the power lines going to his house. Not so sure about the workshop.

That also doesn't mean you have to have a 15' chain link fence.

I just remember how cool it was to see a resident of my tiny town on the Johnny Carson show. My mom went to high school with him and he apparently WAS a pretty brilliant dude. For whatever reason, he went a little off the deep end mentally.

Sam5
2009-Jun-01, 06:20 PM
He could have been selling power to the grid.

I’m not sure if selling power to the grid was possible in rural Mississippi in the 1980s. Anyway, if he had been doing that he would have been bragging about that in all his many TV interviews that were taking place back in those days.

Anyway, when I got to his place, the power lines ran directly into his house and his workshop, and he didn’t have a single working Newman motor, because, he told me, “all the batteries are down”.

He couldn’t run the machine on electric utility power, because he told me that it alternated between sucking power from the batteries and pumping power back into the batteries as it ran. His machine was a battery-based device.

As someone has said, it was a high-voltage low-amp motor. It didn’t have much torque or much RPM.

A strange thing about the whole set-up was that he was using regular small batteries, like D-cells and 9-volt cells. He wasn’t using rechargeable batteries or car batteries back then.

Sam5
2009-Jun-01, 06:32 PM
I also saw Joe Newman demonstrate his car in 1987. It was impressive...I was in the 7th grade. Then he went nuts. I went back to school.

When I went to his place, it must have been before you saw the car running, because all he had then was the red shell of a fiberglass car body that was designed to look something like an old Corvette. He said he was working on a motor specifically for the car, and he would be showing it to the press when he finished.

As he was showing me the body of the car, he held up a little 9 volt battery and he asked me if I believed that “the power in this battery could run a car?” I commented something like, “I doubt if just one 9 volt battery could run a car.” Then he went into a long lecture about “power” and “energy” and “atoms” and “atomic energy”, and “blah, blah, blah.”

I felt that it would be best that I not argue with him while on his property in such a remote rural area.

Months later I saw him on TV, demonstrating the car at a press conference in Mobile, and I noticed that it would not run over about 3 miles an hour, and I think the reporter said something about how it was being run by a bunch of 9 volt batteries.

NickW
2009-Jun-01, 06:57 PM
A bunch of 9 volt batteries equals alot of voltage, depending on how there are hooked up. I image they would die very quickly though under that kind of load.

Sam5
2009-Jun-01, 07:07 PM
A bunch of 9 volt batteries equals alot of voltage, depending on how there are hooked up. I image they would die very quickly though under that kind of load.

Well, sure, but he held up only one battery and asked me if I believed the “power” in that battery could run a car. He kept referring to “this battery” and he waved it in front of me.

Well, not being a rube, I knew what he was doing. He was trying to make me think that he had figured out a way to run a car on that one single battery. But I didn’t fall for it.

If he had said something like, “Would you believe that if enough of these little batteries are linked together, they would run a car?” Then I would have said “Yes, of course”. But he was holding up only one 9 volt battery and trying to make me think that he was talking about the “energy” in that one single battery, and I knew that was a scam.

NickW
2009-Jun-01, 07:17 PM
I was just referring to the last sentence of your last post. I got what you said.

Give me enough 1.5v AA cell batteries, and I could run my car as well :)

samkent
2009-Jun-01, 07:17 PM
The whole thing reminds me of the ‘joe cell’ group. I don’t know if the users group still exists or not. But they believed they could use electricity from a cars system to break down water into its constituent parts and then run the car on them. It stemed from an old video of some guy in Australia driving a car on the system.

They were convinced that their own version would work if they could just get one more part working the way they wanted.

NickW
2009-Jun-01, 07:23 PM
I have heard about those. My dad is one of "those" people. I have tried to tell him many of times that you can't run that car off of it, but he won't believe me.

The only thing about those cells that I have a question about is by breaking down the water, then injecting into a cylinder with gasoline, wouldn't it work as an oxidizer, causing more of the fuel to burn? Of course even if it does, it still comes down to getting more power out of it then it takes to break it down.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jun-01, 07:33 PM
Give me enough 1.5v AA cell batteries, and I could run my car as well :)
So can Tesla motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf) (ok, not AA, but close).
We started our design by purposely picking a small form factor battery cell. This cell is called

the 18650 because of its measurements of 18mm diameter by 65mm length (i.e., just a bit larger
than a AA battery).
...
The Tesla Roadster battery pack is comprised of about 6800 of these 18650 cells,...

NickW
2009-Jun-01, 07:37 PM
umm....that is a lot of batteries.

Studioguy
2009-Jun-01, 07:38 PM
As he was showing me the body of the car, he held up a little 9 volt battery and he asked me if I believed that “the power in this battery could run a car?” I commented something like, “I doubt if just one 9 volt battery could run a car.” Then he went into a long lecture about “power” and “energy” and “atoms” and “atomic energy”, and “blah, blah, blah.”

I felt that it would be best that I not argue with him while on his property in such a remote rural area.



Yeah, he made a big production of bringing that car (on a trailer) to each of the four elementary schools in our county to show it to all us kids. I may have my grade level wrong, now that I think about it. I can't seem to put the events I know were going on in 7th grade with seeing that car. Odd how the mind warps time around like that.

He lived in Agricola, which like you said, is just south of "town." The rumor was that he'd actually driven the car to the school in Agricola for them to see. The next three days he carried it around on a trailer to the other schools. I seem to remember that they just rolled it off the trailer, then winched it back on after puttering around in it for a few seconds.

My dad is an EE and when I told him about it, he laughed. He said "Son, if that guy has figured out a way to put more energy back in a battery than it takes out to drive that car, then the power company would have him killed. Since he's still walking around, I'd say he's full of it."

Edit to Add: That was probably wise to make your way off of his property before pointing out what a load he was selling. The soil down there is pretty soft, so it's easy to dig a deep hole ;)

samkent
2009-Jun-01, 07:40 PM
Based on the videos I’ve seen, they don’t get enough volume of gas to run a model airplane engine let alone a car.

Ah but if they could get that one part to work right. It’s just one version away from working right.

captain swoop
2009-Jun-01, 07:41 PM
Back to the old myth that they would have him killed or suppress him rather than on the payroll. That's one of the things he uses in his scam.

Studioguy
2009-Jun-01, 07:47 PM
My dad's point was that they did neither. He was freely available to do whatever he wanted with that technology. It's purely circular and works both ways:

If it works, he gets killed (or suppressed).
If it doesn't work, nobody cares enough to stop him.
Since he wasn't killed or even suppressed, it must not work.

Then there's also the complete failure of his system to do what he claims.

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Jun-01, 09:00 PM
This deserves a bit of Rocky and Bullwinkle:

Bullwinkle: "Hey, Rocky, watch me pull more energy out of this motor than I put in!"

Rocky: "Again? That trick never works!"

Bullwinkle: "No wires up my sleeve, presto!"

[Truck limps along at a pathetic 5 km/h = 3 mph for a few seconds and just dies.]

Bullwinkle: "With a little more funding, next time for sure!"

Rocky: "And now here's something we know you'll like."

[Breaks for commercial.]

NickW
2009-Jun-01, 09:02 PM
Doesn't Rocky say: "And now here's something we know you'll REALLY like."?

:)

ETA: Nope I just checked it. It says "And now here's something we hope you'll really like."

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Jun-02, 04:35 AM
Doesn't Rocky say: "And now here's something we know you'll REALLY like."? ETA: Nope I just checked it. It says "And now here's something we hope you'll really like."
I'm going strictly by memory since I don't have the time or the bandwidth to look it up. I suspect Rocky's line may be different in each of the different bits, because there were at least two different ones that I can think of where Bullwinkle tries to pull a rabbit out of a hat. (In one of them he pulls out a rhinoceros, in the other he pulls out Rocky. Were there any others?)

These bits are important enough for me to remember and to paraphrase 50 years later for the following reason: I learned fairly quickly that it NEVER led to anything I really liked, just commercials. It provided the first calibration of my baloney detector as a child. :D

danscope
2009-Jun-02, 04:59 AM
Yes, but at least we "felt" better about the commercial break. After which we got on with "Fractured Fairytales". :)
And... this guy with the phony rube goldberg contraption? If he could make even a teenzy-weenzy little bit more energy, he could at least say that he has a clock that powers itself. Admittedly, an electric clock, even a quartz clock uses so little power that it is ridiculous, but this guy cannot
make power, even that small amount. So...there is the challenge for him.
Make a clock that runs forever by itself.... with his scheme.
Nope. Rubbish. Balderdash. Avoid such people.
Best regards,
Dan

Gillianren
2009-Jun-02, 05:48 AM
These bits are important enough for me to remember and to paraphrase 50 years later for the following reason: I learned fairly quickly that it NEVER led to anything I really liked, just commercials. It provided the first calibration of my baloney detector as a child. :D

I admit I'm a bit young to have watched it in its original airing, but I recall from the reruns I used to watch at Grandma and Grandpa's when I was a kid that those actually were lead-ins to the segments themselves. What you would get, if I remember correctly, was not a commercial but Aesop and Son, for example.

Swift
2009-Jun-02, 12:18 PM
This deserves a bit of Rocky and Bullwinkle:

:lol:
Now I'm going to be saying "Moose and Squirrel" in a fake Russian accent all day long. ;)

danscope
2009-Jun-02, 04:44 PM
Hoo boy, Boris. Is fun to remember Moose and Squirrel and Fearless Leader!:)

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Jun-02, 05:22 PM
Edgar: "Now there's something you don't see every day, Chauncey."

Chauncey: "What's that, Edgar?"

Edgar: "A moose and a squirrel being chased by a really slow-moving truck."

Chauncey: "Must be the batteries running down on the Newman machine."

Rocky: "Hokey smokes, Bullwinkle! That truck is heading right for us!"

Bullwinkle: "Relax, Rocky, it's just Joseph Newman out for a drive again. You can outfly it and I can outwalk it!"

NickW
2009-Jun-02, 06:51 PM
Bullwinkle: "Relax, Rocky, it's just Joseph Newman out for a drive again. You can outfly it and I can outwalk it!"

I wish I could animate something like that. :)

NEOWatcher
2009-Jul-07, 06:20 PM
This claim looks very similar to the Newman machine. I got to curious as to one of the ads on forum...

Magniwork (http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=dseisner&gclid=CLm3xqSVxJsCFRBM5QodLmy0BQ)

Generates 5 times more power than it consumes. (started with a battery)

Complete with the video proving the energy companies control world governments.

On sale now for only 49.95

danscope
2009-Jul-07, 07:24 PM
Sounds like it makes more 'hot air' than it makes energy. :)
Dan

Fazor
2009-Jul-07, 08:32 PM
You know what? Over the weekend I saw a show about a woman who dated a guy, married him, and lived with him for months before killing him for his insurance money, which turned out to be her plan all along. I thought 'how could you do that to someone?'

. . . trying to steal money from people with claims like that one? Seems almost as bad. Granted, I'd much rather be out $50 than be killed. Still, it amazes me just how dishonest some people can be. And that's coming from me, an insurance salesman!

mugaliens
2009-Jul-09, 08:23 AM
I am amazed by how quickly some people are to dismiss a possibility out of hand as "crackpot."

Good thing the Wright Brothers didn't listen to that sort of feedback...

danscope
2009-Jul-09, 04:51 PM
Here's the simple question: What is the prime mover? ". Any time some con artist come along with a "something for nothing" scheme in the way of
eternal energy machines, you have to ask yourself "Where is the prime mover'
followed with "How big a butterball does this guy think we are?" .
If he could make "any" power at all, he would at least have a clock that runs forever. Yep. That he would have. And that he doesn't. Fin. Kaput.
Best regards,
Dan

captain swoop
2009-Jul-09, 07:36 PM
I am amazed by how quickly some people are to dismiss a possibility out of hand as "crackpot."

Good thing the Wright Brothers didn't listen to that sort of feedback...

So do you think there is something in it?

Are you going to stump up the dollars to find out?

tdvance
2009-Jul-09, 08:29 PM
How many decades has it been? 3 I believe. If he had his better mousetrap, the world would be beating up each other for the chance to beat a path to his door.

Vinyasi
2018-Jan-25, 01:48 PM
This is fake right?

http://www.josephnewman.com/

saw a program on the Discovery Channel about his invention. No validity to it, right?

Improved Range per Charge, Simulated in LTSpice, Achieved by Redesigning the EV Motor Coils and their Supporting Circuitry

Using the Joseph Newman motor as a starting point, I simulated his motor as an overly simplified LTSpice model in two modes: full throttle speed supplying 200 amps and cruising speed supplying 50 amps to this two coil simulation. The improved ranger per recharge of the battery pack is a gain from a 60 mile range to a range of several thousands of miles. Viewer be wary of taking these simulations literally. Also, the neon bulb might best be actualized by the use of a suitable spark gap to handle the high voltages, etc?

JPG screenshots of simulation...
https://is.gd/evfullthrottle

https://is.gd/evcruisingspeed

LTSpice asc files...
https://is.gd/evfullthrottleasc

https://is.gd/evcruisingspeedasc

References...
http://is.gd/fullthrottlecurrent

http://is.gd/evcruisingamps

http://is.gd/newmanchap6

Gillianren
2018-Jan-25, 06:20 PM
As a heads up, this thread is nine years old.

ETA--my mistake; the most recent post is nine years old. The thread as a whole is considerably older, and the OP got banned, twice.

Vinyasi
2018-Jan-25, 09:16 PM
As a heads up, this thread is nine years old.

ETA--my mistake; the most recent post is nine years old. The thread as a whole is considerably older, and the OP got banned, twice.

So, do I delete my posting and start a new thread?

slang
2018-Jan-26, 12:36 AM
Welcome to Cosmoquest, Vinyasi.


So, do I delete my posting and start a new thread?

No, if your posts are on topic and to the point, there is nothing bad about reviving a very old thread. But it is good form to mention that it happens to be a very old thread, where many participants might not be around any more.