PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Gravity / Alternate propulsion system



Phobos
2001-Oct-24, 09:41 AM
Richard Hoagland has just put up the following link on his website;
http://www.tdimension.com/lifter.html

The link is labelled as "Real Anti-Gravity?" and when you follow the link it takes you to a website which seems to be run be a new research laboratory.

The page shows a couple of quicktime movies which show triangular objects being levitated.

quoting from their website;
"This rotor (pictured above) was developed on a contract with NASA MSFC (H31066D), using the Power 3 with their patented design. The rotor assembly is in a vacuum container to test performance at various pressures".

They claim that the levitation not magnetically produce, and does not use any form of conventional propulsion.

Anyone know more about this company ?

Jeff (Jeffery Birks)

Kaptain K
2001-Oct-24, 10:23 AM
Considering the source (Hoaxland), I would take it with a (boulder-size) grain of salt. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

hullaballo
2001-Oct-24, 11:28 AM
If I didn't hear the compressed air on the video clip this would be a lot more impressive. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hullaballo on 2001-10-24 07:28 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 12:59 PM
Considering the time and effort it would take to MAKE an anti-gravity generating device ( or a gravity generating one ) I am certain they didn't do it.

And why is there that wire behind the object? So that the thing made from aluminium foil and toothpicks doesn't fall down?

Concerning levitation, I think this one is a little more fun:
http://www.sci.kun.nl/hfml/levitate.html
I still can't put a finger on whether it is true or not. I think it is, and it's rather impressive.

It is said to be real, but, you know.

Phobos
2001-Oct-24, 01:15 PM
Diamagnetism has been widely reported in science journals and is well understood. It is believed that you could "magnetise" a human being so that he would levitate in a magnetic field in the same way.

However diamagnetism does not look too promising as a alternative means of space propulsion. The claim by this new company is that what they have produced can be used as a means of propulsion.

Furthermore, they also seem to claim to be working in colaboration with NASA. If true I would be interested to know what principles the propulsion system is based upon.

I suspect the company came to Richard Hoaglands attention because their company name suggests they are using energy which is sourced from a higher dimension.

It would seem that the company is only a few months old so I guess we will have to wait a while to find out the whole story.

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-24 09:17 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-24 09:18 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 01:26 PM
On 2001-10-24 09:15, Phobos wrote:
Diamagnetism has been widely reported in science journals and is well understood. It is believed that you could "magnetise" a human being so that he would levitate in a magnetic field in the same way.

However diamagnetism does not look too promising as a alternative means of space propulsion. The claim by this new company is that what they have produced can be used as a means of propulsion.

Furthermore, they also seem to claim to be working in colaboration with NASA. If true I would be interested to know what principles the propulsion system is based upon.

I suspect the company came to Richard Hoaglands attention because their company name suggests they are using energy which is sourced from a higher dimension.

It would seem that the company is only a few months old so I guess we will have to wait a while to find out the whole story.

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-24 09:17 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-24 09:18 ]</font>


Um, energy from a higher dimension? Are you sure it's NOT a religion?

Phobos
2001-Oct-24, 04:38 PM
The concept of higher dimensions is not really that new, but is currently only theoretical with little by way of proof of existance.

The idea of higher dimensions has little to do with religion. Whilst some proponents may pursue their particular interpretation with a degree of religious fervour (RCH), we must not forget there are a number of notable scientists who support the idea of higher dimensions (eg. Stephen Hawking).

As for the group behind the research that he brings our attention to - well, I've had a look at the claims brought forward and so far I find it "interesting".

I have searched through their website and found the paper which I believe explains what they claim is the basis of this new form of propulsion;
http://www.tdimension.com/documents/AIAA%202001%20Manuscript.pdf

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-24 13:32 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Oct-24, 07:19 PM
On 2001-10-24 09:15, Phobos wrote:
Diamagnetism has been widely reported in science journals and is well understood. It is believed that you could "magnetise" a human being so that he would levitate in a magnetic field in the same way.

However diamagnetism does not look too promising as a alternative means of space propulsion. The claim by this new company is that what they have produced can be used as a means of propulsion.


There are three different types of magnetism: ferromagnetism, diamagnetism, and paramagnetism. Ferromagnetism is what we usually think of when think of magnetism. Iron is the typically example (surprise! it's even called ferromagnetism) and the atoms have permanent dipole moments.

In paramagnetism the dipole moments align with an external magnetic field and produce and attractive force. In diamagnetism, the dipoles align opposite to the magnetic field, and produce a repulsive force. Diamagnetism and paramagnetism are much weaker than ferromagnetism, about 6-10 orders of magnitude weaker. Usually paramagnetism is stronger than diamagnetism.

Diamagnetic levitation is quite real, but can it be used pratically? Since ferromagnetism and paramagnetism are attractive forces and are significantly stronger than diamagnetism, whatever is levitated must comprises diagmagnetic materials only. In other words iron and steel are right out. Some plastics may be diamagnetic, I don't know.

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 08:47 PM
On 2001-10-24 15:19, Wiley wrote:


On 2001-10-24 09:15, Phobos wrote:
Diamagnetism has been widely reported in science journals and is well understood. It is believed that you could "magnetise" a human being so that he would levitate in a magnetic field in the same way.

However diamagnetism does not look too promising as a alternative means of space propulsion. The claim by this new company is that what they have produced can be used as a means of propulsion.


There are three different types of magnetism: ferromagnetism, diamagnetism, and paramagnetism. Ferromagnetism is what we usually think of when think of magnetism. Iron is the typically example (surprise! it's even called ferromagnetism) and the atoms have permanent dipole moments.

In paramagnetism the dipole moments align with an external magnetic field and produce and attractive force. In diamagnetism, the dipoles align opposite to the magnetic field, and produce a repulsive force. Diamagnetism and paramagnetism are much weaker than ferromagnetism, about 6-10 orders of magnitude weaker. Usually paramagnetism is stronger than diamagnetism.

Diamagnetic levitation is quite real, but can it be used pratically? Since ferromagnetism and paramagnetism are attractive forces and are significantly stronger than diamagnetism, whatever is levitated must comprises diagmagnetic materials only. In other words iron and steel are right out. Some plastics may be diamagnetic, I don't know.


Thanks Wiley! And calling that device an antigravity device would be lying. From what I know, I'd think that a true antigravity device would be one that could generate anti-gravitons.

Don't tell me that this generates anti-gravitons or I'll laugh and chortle dance around a poke you with a stick.


Just testing: ‰ä?¥–@—¥
(I don't know Jack about chinese, just wanted to see how it handles foreign characters)

Phobos
2001-Oct-24, 09:50 PM
OK I won't poke you, but did you check out the science paper they provided on their website headed;
"An Asymmetric Gravitational Wave Propulsion System"

Quoting from their paper;
"Programmable laser diodes in conjunction with
semiconductor materials will be used to generate
a highly directional transverse wave gravitational
wave (TWGW) radiator. This asymmetric
TWGW radiator will create a directional force
through the center of mass of the radiating
system, thus forming a propellantless propulsion system"

So it looks to me like we are talking about an interesting idea doesn't it ?

Jeff

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 10:32 PM
You wanted to POKE me? How dare you! Only I may poke people, and maybe the BA and Ben Benoy! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Yes, it would be an interesting idea. I'm not just sure any of it is real. I'd need people who really know their way around physics, and I won't be bought over by a couple of seconds of video of toothpicks and aluminium foil with a wire "levitating" over a standard garden plastic table.

I've also seen David Copperfield "levitate" a piece of paper before my eyes. And I've seen HIM do it too, and instead of putting a little piece of wood over himself he had people rotate cylinders around him. But nobody expects to believe any of it to be true. I've seen more impressive yet untrue.

And I look at the rest of the site. Medusa ray? A flashlight. It really becomes how much you can trust these people.

Tell you what. Try to mail someone at Scientific American, or csicop with it, or see a random physics teacher and let's see what they have to say about it, because I smell an industrial quantity of bacon.

Let's leave it at that.

Phobos
2001-Oct-24, 10:52 PM
And I look at the rest of the site. Medusa ray? A flashlight. It really becomes how much you can trust these people.


What is wrong with the "Medusa" device?

The device you describe has the following description;


high-peak power LEDs to produce light at a wavelength and intensity that temporarily blinds


In other words you shine this high powered light into peoples eyes to temporarily blind them. Whats so incredable about that ?

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-24 18:57 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 10:57 PM
Hmm, you're right. So it's NOT so amazing.
Well my point stands for the rest, I've mailed some people with that, I hope they answer, or else!

Phobos
2001-Oct-24, 10:59 PM
I guess you are sharpening your stick already /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Ps.

There is actually a HUGE market for what are now classified as non-lethal weapons. These include;

1. A rifle version of the tazar gun which can stun from a distance.

2. A "web" gun (think spiderman)

3. A foam gun (think keystone kops)

4. Sonic Weapons.

5. Water weapons.

6. Heat weapons (microwaves irritate the outer 1mm of the skin).

and so on.

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-24 19:04 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 11:10 PM
I prefer the lethal kind, though /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

There's just one point if find weak in my theory: Why would anyone devote efforts to making that kind of fraud?

I guess I could also take the matter to some physicists and advanced math teachers I know, but I want you to know it'll be YOUR fault if I get beaten, shouted at, laughed at or otherwise degraded or subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Phobos
2001-Oct-24, 11:14 PM
If it make you feel better I was fooled by the following website;
www.manbeef.com

I know how much money and effort must have gone into producing what I now know to be a spoof site. My problem here was that I just couldn't understand the mentality that would produce a "joke" in such bad taste.

The minds that produced this site were truely twisted and I suppose I just couldn't understand how someone could waste so much money on something so negative.

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-25 04:54 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 11:41 PM
On 2001-10-24 19:14, Phobos wrote:
If it make you feel better I was fooled by the following website;
www.manbeef.com

I know how much money and effort must have gone into producing what I now know to be a spoof site. My problem here was that I just couldn't understand the mentality that would produce a "joke" in such bad taste.

The minds that produced this site were truely twisted and I suppose I just couldn't understand how someone could waste so much money on something so negative.

Jeff


Well, anyone can be fooled a couple of times. It doesn't mean you're gullible if you were fooled (well in that case I would have guessed since cannibalism IS illegal after all /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )

I guess we'll see. Sit tight

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-24 19:45 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 11:49 PM
I think there might be an indication that this is a hoax. Look at the copyright date at the bottom of the page:

20001

Might be a typo, then again it might not, as I said let's wait and see.

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 12:56 AM
Three of the patents in the guy's resume check out. However the patents pending ones (if a request has been done) do not. Then again it might just be some computer error over at their place.

Seems like score one for you! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

One of my people searches yielded no results at all for any Jeffrey A. Cameron anywhere in Alabama, so I guess this makes the score 1-1.

Company lookup for Transdimensional Technologies yielded results! Transdimensional is actually spelled Trans Dimensional. At first it yielded no results because there is a typo (??!?!??) in the name, with the typo it is Trans DimensOInal Technologies. 2-1 for you!

Reverse phone lookup brought me back to Trans DimensOInal Technologies. Good job! 3-1 for you!

I'm not convinced, but so far your side is walloping mine real bad!

Heads up, I'll continue!

Phobos
2001-Oct-25, 07:36 AM
I found this with a google search for Jeffery A. Cameroon;
submmited papers (http://home.hiwaay.net/~hal5/SSS/sss-99v4.pdf)


The following is a list of additions to the
current paid membership of HAL5,
which includes 33 renewals and 12 new
Upcoming Events of Interest to HAL5 Members
Thu., Sep. 2 —
7:00 - 8:30 PM
HAL5 Program on “Capacitive Propulsion — Is this Anti-Gravity?”
by Jeffery A. Cameron, at Huntsville Public
Library, 915 Monroe Ave.; free; questions: 256-971-3055

After a bit more searching I found the following paper submissions;
submitted papers (http://spie.org/scripts/search.pl?qs=spie&db_key=INST&aut_xct=YES&author=Cameron,%20Jeffery%20A%2e)
This would seem to confirm his identity.

Jeff


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-25 13:36 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 02:05 PM
Yes, well I haveto say I remain unconvinced, as I know how LOW people will go to impress, to deceive, to lie and to make easy money.

I wonder...if it's all true.

Maybe it's true but they're cheating (magnetic, compressed air). Maybe Jeffrey A. Cameron has been used by people to pull a prank.

If it's true then I'll study those papers as soon as possible to build and commercialize my very first levitating car, spaceship and shopping cart. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Of course everyone on of those products will be offered in my favorite color, purple and will need to have an annoyingly large picture of my face smiling like a moron on top of it. A full color picture, made with paint of course, so no one may take it off.

I'll print out those papers... for safekeeping you know. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Phobos
2001-Oct-25, 02:12 PM
You may have to hurry with that levitating car - remember this ...

http://www.intelbrief.com/ginger.htm

then of course there is the skycar
http://www.moller.com/

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
(I like this one)

Jeff

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 02:26 PM
That is one COOL car! (The moller one) Car or plane? Very cool! I had never seen it before! It's not on the sales page though /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif . How much is it worth?

Oh, and by the way I might have to take this Transdimensional paper to the math teacher to see if any of it is real. He gets around in physics. Well, more than around. A lot more than physicists I know. Plus he's less uptight about his qualifications and doesn't have that "Don't come near me you do not have a PhD in physics" attitude. "How dare you even ask me anything?"

Edited for missing quotes

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 10:29 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 13:18 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Oct-25, 02:35 PM
On 2001-10-25 03:36, Phobos wrote:

Phobos

That long link is pushing the edge of the html out past the screen so nothing wraps in this thread. Make it a hyperlink, that should fix the problem.

Phobos
2001-Oct-25, 05:39 PM
I have now converted as requested. Should be better now.

Jeff

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 05:41 PM
More news about Transdimensional? I'll try to talk to the guy I was talking about.

Later!

Hmm, not exactly a clear message, but what the hey.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 15:05 ]</font>

Phobos
2001-Oct-25, 07:21 PM
I have been researching the link between NASA and Transdimensional Technologies.

A NASA search found the following paper;
NASA Search Result (http://search.spacelink.nasa.gov/query.html?qt=AIAA-2001-3913+&col=library&col=xreflib&qc=&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rq=0&rf=0&tx=0&go=Search+All+NASA)

Clicking on the link give a "Access Denied" message.

I then tried google using parameters "transdimensional nasa BPP" with the following results;

2001_JPC_Paper_List
... at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA (Sponsored by the NASA BPP Project). ... Wave Propulsion System
J. Cameron, Transdimensional Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, AL (Privately ...

Clicking on the "2001_JPC_Paper_List" link gives a "Page Not Found" error, but the search engine has shown that the two were connected.

There was one link which went somewhere;
Working Link (http://users.erols.com/iri/AIAAJPC2001.htm)

This web page shows the connection, and sites the paper as;

AIAA-2001-3913
An Asymmetric Gravitational Wave Propulsion System
J. Cameron, Transdimensional Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, AL; R. Shatas, 2C Computing, Huntsville, AL

Returning to the NASA search engine I then looked for paper AIAA-2001-3913 with the following result;

AIAA-2001-3913 NASA search (http://search.spacelink.nasa.gov/query.html?col=library&col=xreflib&qp=&qt=AIAA-2001-3913&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=0&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&rq=0)

This provided the following result;

2001_JPC_Paper_List
The following is a list of all papers presented at the BPP Session of the Joint Propulsion Conference. Papers of BPP-sponsored tasks are available by clicking on each corresponding link. Copies of papers not ...
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/2001_JPC_Paper_List_test.htm - size 5.7K - Other NASA Internet Sites

(You get the same result if you go to http://www.nasa.gov and type in transdimensional in the search box).

Finally I found one last connection at the following URL;
NASA Revolutionary Propulsion Research (http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/ast/advpropconf01.html)

Nasa seems to have located many of its advanced research programs in Huntsville Alabama - the same town that Transdimensional Technologies are located in.

Whilst I cannot access the file it would seem there is sufficient reason to believe there is a connection between the two.

Jeff


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-25 15:47 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 08:22 PM
Yes, there is substantial evidence that they are linked to NASA.

If it is a prank, it is a VERY elaborate one. There's just something unsettling. I just have difficulty picturing someone with only a Bachelor of Science doing that kind of research.

I don't think it is a prank per se, but what I am guessing is that they aren't very honest. It might be that this was either stolen from someone else or they ARE cheating.

We NEED help on the matter. Rosen1 IS a physicist. Maybe we should ask him.

Wiley
2001-Oct-25, 08:34 PM
I wonder if Transdimensional Technologies has anything to do with Superconductive Components, the people NASA contracted to build the gravity shield.

If not, these guys really ought to get together.

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 08:47 PM
I got something for you PHOBOS! Very interesting. A guy was actually at the BPP and commented on the various things he saw there, among them is, you guessed it, Jeffrey A. Cameron, who presented a paper on an "Asymmetrical Gravity Wave Propulsion System". They say it has been simulated on computer, but no practical tests. The comments he made were done on Sunday, 15 July 2001.

Quoting from Transdimensional's website:

On July 6, 2001 at 9:00 AM CST, at the offices of TDT, 906-E Bob Wallace Avenue, Huntsville, AL, there was a press conference and demonstration of the lifter technology.

Uh, oh! Conflict! More to the point:

Power 3 Lifter Timeline

6 June 2001 The first test article was a single-paneled capacitor assembly. It lifted.
14 June 2001 Lifter1 - Three capacitors were joined to form a triangle assembly.
28 June 2001 Lifter 2 - Has three times greater in mass and physical geometry. The payload capability was greater than Lifter1.

Again more conflict! Those videos were supposedly made BEFORE the conference yet the guy says it has not been exprimentally verified.

Something is fishy. VERY VERY fishy. At least according to me.

Here you can see what document I am talking about.
http://users.erols.com/iri/JPCReport.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 16:55 ]</font>

Phobos
2001-Oct-25, 09:18 PM
I think the keys words here are "has not yet been experimentally verified", which is different from "has not yet been experimentally tested". In other words the experiment may have been performed by them, but not VERIFIED by independant researchers.

I also found the following quote very interesting;

. Would pointing the gravity beam at a
planet help to "pull" the space vehicle towards that planet.
Alternatively, if the reaction mass where attached to a fixed object,
would the gravity beam be useful as a "tractor beam" if pointed directly
at a non-fixed object?

So what they are saying here is that if this stuff works as claimed, the same technology may also be adaptable in creating a Star Trek style tractor beam !!!

If you doubt such technology may be possible take a look at the following;
Small Scale Tractor Beams (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1310000/1310771.stm)

I have also checked out the company given to us by Wiley - "Superconductive Components". The following URL give the link between them and NASA;

Superconductive Components - NASA (http://www.superconductivecomp.com/NASAselectsSCI.htm)

Their work is towards gravity shielding. If you can shield a spacecraft from the Earths gravitational field, then it would need no propultion at all. The gravitational pull of the atmosphere/solar objects above would be stronger than the shielded gravitational pull below and the spacecraft would be "pulled" into space.

Jeff


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-25 17:34 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 09:29 PM
On 2001-10-25 17:18, Phobos wrote:
I think the keys words here are "has not yet been experimentally verified", which is different from "has not yet been experimentally tested". In other words the experiment may have been performed by them, but not VERIFIED by independant researchers.


Which means it is not worth much if it hasn't been demonstrated by others, isn't it? Remember that cold fusion thing? Remember that antigravity thing?

I'll be careful until I get other opinions on the matter.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 17:30 ]</font>

Phobos
2001-Oct-25, 09:41 PM
That really depends on wether the video is genuine. Like the cold fusion experiment I don't really care how it works, what interests me is can we get any new technology from what has been found ?

I am not that worried about what label is put on the thing as long as it brings about new advances in spacetravel technology.

Jeff

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 09:54 PM
If we can't understand what happened, can't recreate the experiment, or they cheated (wires, magnetic, etc.), then no, nothing at all can be salvaged of this. It doesn't bring anything new, and it is just as useful as chewing bubble gum.

I hope it serves a purpose. But then again it might not.

The cold fusion thing and the antigravity experiment were good examples of lots of scientific babble that amounted to absolutely nothing.

Phobos
2001-Oct-25, 09:58 PM
I wouldn't write it of just yet. Whilst the odds are against success I can't help wondering if he is waiting for patent confirmation before giving technical details to others so they can verify the results.

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-25 17:59 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 10:02 PM
Hadn't thought about that. You make a very good point with this.

DStahl
2001-Oct-26, 03:57 AM
<FONT SIZE="2">In connection to a site I put together some time ago I went poking through online patent databases just to see what sort of loonie stuff I could find. Just because something is patented does not mean it is feasible or even that it works! One fellow proposes decomposing water electrolytically, allowing the hydrogen and oxygen to rise inside a stack (turning wind-turbine generators along the way), recombining at at the top and extracting power not only from the reaction but from the result--water--cascading back down to the bottom (er, anyone betting against the laws of thermodynamics?). Another inventor patented an interstellar vehicle using passive radiation propulsion (something about ridges on the hull of the ship) and a free-spinning propeller (in space?), and another proposed to revalistically change the mass of objects for ease of transport. And these are the ones who received patents! I'm afraid I tend to assume all devices involving antigravity, zero-point energy, over-unity power generators, homeopathic water, and so forth are guilty of bogusity until proven innocent. But that's just me.</FONT>

Phobos
2001-Oct-26, 05:45 AM
What about when they are in production, producing the claimed results, and people and governments are buying them in large numbers - would you believe them then ?

Here is an example;
Over Unity Machine (http://www.josephnewman.com/)

OK so the claim is that the machine is over 300% energy efficient. That claim is supported by;


Dr. Roger Hastings, PhD and Senior Physicist with Unisys said after studying Joseph Newman's Theory and testing the machine:

"IT'S A MACHINE THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD."

Dr. E. L. Moragne, PhD and a pioneer in the development of the atomic bomb wrote:

"YOUR PROJECT WILL LEAD TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO ALL MANKIND."

Dr. Robert Smith, PhD and Chief of Space Environment Branch at NASA wrote:

"BECAUSE OF YOUR THEORY, SEVERAL LAWS OF PHYSICS MAY NEED TO BE REEXAMINED."

After hearing the Theory and testing the energy machine, Milton Everett with the Mississippi Department of Energy said of Joseph Newman:

"I THINK HE IS A GENIUS. I THINK HE HAS FOUND SOMETHING THAT TO MY WAY OF THINKING IS PROBABLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY IN THE HISTORY OF MAN."

Joseph Westley Newman's fight for all humanity has been televised on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN National News, The Tonight Show, in LIFE Magazine (described as "David Against Goliath"), on an A&E Documentary Special entitled "CONSPIRACIES" along with the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King and President John F. Kennedy, and has been featured in thousands of newspapers and on hundreds of radio talk shows across America.

A physicist with the Department of Energy of a major foreign country traveled thousands of miles to study the Theory and test the energy machine. The physicist wrote: "PEOPLE WHO KNOW OF JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ENERGY MACHINE AND WHO DO NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT ARE SIMPLY GUILTY OF A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY."

Dr. Al Swimmer, a renowned Professor of Mathematics at a major University for more than 30 years, observed a DEMONSTRATION OF THE NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE and met several times with Joseph Newman. After reading Joseph Newman's fundamental book and studying his theory, Dr. Swimmer wrote a Signed Declaration stating that Joseph Newman "WAS CORRECT BY THE MATHEMATICAL ODDS OF MORE THAN ONE TRILLION TO ONE."

In total over 40 scientists have scrutenised the devices and verified his claims with legal Affidavits.

The company is currently in dispute with Honda over patent infringement;
http://www.josephnewman.com/honda2.txt

For completeness I include a article on the subject;
http://www.rense.com/general9/newe.htm

I agree you are right to be sceptical. Like you I do not believe that these devices actually generate energy. But as I said before, if they produce usefull results does it really matter?

Sometimes things that look incredable at first may actually turn out to be logical upon closer inspection. Take the propeller in space example.

If space is a true vacuum then it makes no sense at all. However this is not entirely the case. They are spread so thin that under normal circumstances their existance can be ignored.

But as a spacecrafts velocity aproaches light speed (which will be necessary if we are to send inter-stellar probes) these inter-stellar molecules and particles become very important. The faster we travel, the more molecules we collide with in a given period of time.

There will come a point when if spacecraft travel fast enough we will need to make them streamlined. Whilst I personally find the ideal of a propeller a bit strange, I can start to see how one could be used in these circumstances.

Naturally there are logical objects to such a proposal like "what about impacts with particles ?, wouldn't they destroy such a spacecraft ?". Well maybe, but there again what about the aspect of momentum. I have seen a demonstration where lard (a fatty substance like butter) was fired a high velocity though a 1 inch solid door. The lard was not frozen but performed this feat due to its relative velocity.

Jeff


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-26 02:02 ]</font>

Phobos
2001-Oct-26, 06:07 AM
On 2001-10-26 01:45, Phobos wrote:
What about when they are in production, producing the claimed results, and people and governments are buying them in large numbers - would you believe them then ?

Here is an example;
Over Unity Machine (http://www.josephnewman.com/)

OK so the claim is that the machine is over 300% energy efficient. That claim is supported by;

[quote]Dr. Roger Hastings, PhD and Senior Physicist with Unisys said after studying Joseph Newman's Theory and testing the machine:

"IT'S A MACHINE THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD."

Dr. E. L. Moragne, PhD and a pioneer in the development of the atomic bomb wrote:

"YOUR PROJECT WILL LEAD TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO ALL MANKIND."

Dr. Robert Smith, PhD and Chief of Space Environment Branch at NASA wrote:

"BECAUSE OF YOUR THEORY, SEVERAL LAWS OF PHYSICS MAY NEED TO BE REEXAMINED."

After hearing the Theory and testing the energy machine, Milton Everett with the Mississippi Department of Energy said of Joseph Newman:

"I THINK HE IS A GENIUS. I THINK HE HAS FOUND SOMETHING THAT TO MY WAY OF THINKING IS PROBABLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY IN THE HISTORY OF MAN."

Joseph Westley Newman's fight for all humanity has been televised on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN National News, The Tonight Show, in LIFE Magazine (described as "David Against Goliath"), on an A&E Documentary Special entitled "CONSPIRACIES" along with the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King and President John F. Kennedy, and has been featured in thousands of newspapers and on hundreds of radio talk shows across America.

A physicist with the Department of Energy of a major foreign country traveled thousands of miles to study the Theory and test the energy machine. The physicist wrote: "PEOPLE WHO KNOW OF JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ENERGY MACHINE AND WHO DO NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT ARE SIMPLY GUILTY OF A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY."

Dr. Al Swimmer, a renowned Professor of Mathematics at a major University for more than 30 years, observed a DEMONSTRATION OF THE NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE and met several times with Joseph Newman. After reading Joseph Newman's fundamental book and studying his theory, Dr. Swimmer wrote a Signed Declaration stating that Joseph Newman "WAS CORRECT BY THE MATHEMATICAL ODDS OF MORE THAN ONE TRILLION TO ONE."

In total over 40 scientists have scrutenised the devices and verified his claims with legal Affidavits.

The company is currently in dispute with Honda over patent infringement;
http://www.josephnewman.com/honda2.txt

For completeness I include a article on the subject;
http://www.rense.com/general9/newe.htm

I agree you are right to be sceptical. Like you I do not believe that these devices actually generate energy. But as I said before, if they produce usefull results does it really matter?

Sometimes things that look incredable at first may actually turn out to be logical upon closer inspection. Take the propeller in space example.

If space is a true vacuum then it makes no sense at all. However this is not entirely the case. They are spread so thin that under normal circumstances their existance can be ignored.

But as a spacecraft's velocity aproaches light speed (which will be necessary if we are to send inter-stellar probes) then these inter-stellar molecules and particles become very important. The faster we travel, the more molecules we collide within a given period of time.

At some point the design of the spacecraft will need to take these factors into account, and force a streamlined design. Whilst I personally find the idea of a propeller a bit strange, I can start to see how one could be used in these circumstances (If this is what the patent holder had in mind then I would have thought a jet or scramjet would be more appropriate).

Naturally there are logical objects to such a proposal like "what about impacts with space particles ? Wouldn't they destroy such a spacecraft ?". Well maybe, but there again what about the aspect of momentum. I have seen a demonstration where lard (a fatty substance like butter) was fired a high velocity though a 1 inch solid door. The lard was not frozen but performed this feat due to its relative velocity.

Jeff



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-26 02:11 ]</font>

DStahl
2001-Oct-26, 06:10 AM
<FONT SIZE="2">Jeff...Are you joking about the Newman device, or are you serious? If Newman's device worked he would be a millionaire by now, not hawking books ("send a check or money order for $79.95") over the Internet. After all, he's been pushing similar things since at least 1986, when the National Bureau of Standards tested one of his devices and found that, countrary to Newman's claims, it most clearly used more energy than it produced (Report (http://www.ncas.org/nbsreport/findings.html)). In fact, it wasn't even very efficient...looks like the corrected efficiency ranged between 29% and 67%...</font>

<font size="2">I guess this isn't really an astronomical topic, so I won't go on and on about it.</font>

Phobos
2001-Oct-26, 06:17 AM
You are quite correct, we have drift off astronomy. The study that you referred to was dated in June 1986 which makes it over 15 years out of date. All of the studies that he sites were done since then.

Perhaps there is more recent evidence that refutes his claims (I will look), but in the absence of such evidence I can only conclude that his claims should be looked into.

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-26 05:18 ]</font>

Conrad
2001-Oct-26, 08:17 AM
Non-lethal weapons?
"Medusa"?? A bright light that blinds?

I have one of those already, a fiendish device called a "torch". Not only do you not need a licence to own this piece of non-lethal hardware, but it can be used as a blunt instrument as well. This dual-application is probably being researched by the US DARPA at a cost of billions as I type.

And David Langford, in "War in 2080", mentions the Induction Gun, which warms up the enemy's fillings to a white heat. Non lethal but - ouch!

Phobos
2001-Oct-26, 09:21 AM
On 2001-10-26 04:17, Conrad wrote:
Non-lethal weapons?
"Medusa"?? A bright light that blinds?

I have one of those already, a fiendish device called a "torch". Not only do you not need a licence to own this piece of non-lethal hardware, but it can be used as a blunt instrument as well. This dual-application is probably being researched by the US DARPA at a cost of billions as I type.

And David Langford, in "War in 2080", mentions the Induction Gun, which warms up the enemy's fillings to a white heat. Non lethal but - ouch!


Basically you are correct, however this torch would probably produce a beam over 100 times brighter than a conventional torch (even halogen). The method they use is to employ an array of LED's - being more efficient than bulbs they result in more candles for your wongas (slang for money) !

Jeff

Mr. X
2001-Oct-26, 12:18 PM
On 2001-10-25 23:57, DStahl wrote:
<FONT SIZE="2">In connection to a site I put together some time ago I went poking through online patent databases just to see what sort of loonie stuff I could find. Just because something is patented does not mean it is feasible or even that it works! One fellow proposes decomposing water electrolytically, allowing the hydrogen and oxygen to rise inside a stack (turning wind-turbine generators along the way), recombining at at the top and extracting power not only from the reaction but from the result--water--cascading back down to the bottom (er, anyone betting against the laws of thermodynamics?). Another inventor patented an interstellar vehicle using passive radiation propulsion (something about ridges on the hull of the ship) and a free-spinning propeller (in space?), and another proposed to revalistically change the mass of objects for ease of transport. And these are the ones who received patents! I'm afraid I tend to assume all devices involving antigravity, zero-point energy, over-unity power generators, homeopathic water, and so forth are guilty of bogusity until proven innocent. But that's just me.</FONT>


DStahl, you're missing the point. At this point we aren't saying that it is true or working. What we are saying is that OLDER patents that are in Jeffrey A. Cameron's resume have are in fact his. This is detective work at this point.

We searched at NASA to see if they in fact have a link to NASA. While the document is unavailable, it seems that they do, as well as with the AIAA.

I even checked the address of Jeffrey A. Cameron to where Transdimensional is. It is a very feasible 29 miles drive away, something he could possibly do in every morning and every night.

Transdimensional has offices in Huntsville, Alabama, only they are listed as Trans Dimensoinal Technologies, a typo I just about made 2 times typing this, so I'm ready to accept this.

Phone numbers match. The only thing is I can't find anyone named Jeffrey A. Cameron in Alabama, but he could just have a confidential phone number.

There are fishy things also, the fact that we have two different accounts of what happens down there, one that says that they in fact attended JPC BPP (Breakthrough propulsion physics), and it's been commented on by someone who was apparently there, and commented on everything that was presented there also.

The copyright date seems wrong though on every page (which is no surprise, it's a reused bottom page footer) but it lists 20001 rather than 2001. Typo? Maybe, maybe not. Needless to say if it is 20001 it is because it's a simple prank.

But up to now there's nothing that allows us to dismiss entirely what's there, or to acknowledge either. I'll take the technical papers to people, see what they can make of it.

There's no outright evidence that this is a prank, and if it is, it is very elaborate and well constructed, something someone could not dismiss at first sight and certainly not before doing what we are doing here.

Hope this helps you understand the situation, DStahl.

Alan7Marshall
2001-Oct-26, 02:54 PM
DStahl wrote,

Jeff...Are you joking about the Newman device, or are you serious? If Newman's device worked he would be a millionaire by now, not hawking books ("send a check or money order for $79.95") over the Internet. After all, he's been pushing similar things since at least 1986, when the National Bureau of Standards tested one of his devices and found that, countrary to Newman's claims, it most clearly used more energy than it produced (Report). In fact, it wasn't even very efficient...looks like the corrected efficiency ranged between 29% and 67%...

Dear DStahl,

From everything I've read about the subject, all Newman has wanted is a patent for his technology -- then the market could decide whether he would become a "millionaire" or not. Newman is one human being --- he is not a well-funded multi-national corporation or a large university and he has never applied for nor sought a "federal grant" at the expense of the taxpayer. All he has sought is the equal opportunity to protect his invention in the American marketplace via the patent system created by our Founding Fathers. Ironically, it would not cost the American a SINGLE PENNY to issue Joseph Newman a patent for his invention, yet the federal bureaucrats have spent MILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer monies fighting AGAINST the technology.

As to "hawking books" -- since every author who has published since Gutenberg has done the same thing, that seems an honorable way to inform others about one's thoughts and innovations. Newman has also published many concepts regarding the subject of astronomy.

As far as the National Bureau of Standards "test" of one of Newman's prototypes is concerned, that "test" has since been thoroughly discredited. (See the A&E Special about the incompetent manner in which those tests were conducted.)

In fact, the three NBS guys that did the test prepared an advance schematic in which the unit was NOT grounded (per Newman's concepts). THEN, when they actually conducted their testing, for every single one of their tests they GROUNDED the device. One would think they would at least have the curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the device --- per their own test protocol.

Alan

Phobos
2001-Oct-26, 09:34 PM
Thanks Alan,

When I read the post I was a bit suspisous of the evidence he provided. First of all it was over 16 years out of date, and secondly it looked like all he had done was entered "Joseph Newman" into the search engine of a skeptic website (National Capital Area Skeptics). Read the off-the-shelf dismissal then posted a link to it.

On the plus side he did produce new information, but if this was the research method used then the results were as biased as if I went to a football team supporter and asked for his opinion of the quality of players of a rival club.

Of course, in one sense he is perfectly correct. Most claims for things such as over-unity devices are either fraudulant or mis-guided. However, I still got the impression that he had not read the evidence that he was presented with.

Naturally if he has any genuine new information I would like to hear about it.

Jeff.

Wiley
2001-Oct-26, 10:04 PM
On 2001-10-26 10:54, Alan7Marshall wrote:

From everything I've read about the subject, all Newman has wanted is a patent for his technology -- then the market could decide whether he would become a "millionaire" or not. Newman is one human being --- he is not a well-funded multi-national corporation or a large university and he has never applied for nor sought a "federal grant" at the expense of the taxpayer. All he has sought is the equal opportunity to protect his invention in the American marketplace via the patent system created by our Founding Fathers. Ironically, it would not cost the American a SINGLE PENNY to issue Joseph Newman a patent for his invention, yet the federal bureaucrats have spent MILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer monies fighting AGAINST the technology.

In fact, the three NBS guys that did the test prepared an advance schematic in which the unit was NOT grounded (per Newman's concepts). THEN, when they actually conducted their testing, for every single one of their tests they GROUNDED the device. One would think they would at least have the curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the device --- per their own test protocol.

Alan


Joseph Newman can easily get a patent for his device. All he has to do is submit a working prototype, which he claims to have, to the patent office. This prototype must work on its own power for one year. Since 1911, this is what the U.S. Patent Office requires for all machines that violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes, federal bureaucrats at the patent office have spent millions trying to prevent him from getting a patent. But they were defending themselves against congress who was trying get Joe a special patent. (The blind leading the bland. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

Any electrical engineer looking at his device should be able to tell you exactly what it is. It is a motor. A simple, rather ordinary, high voltage, low current motor. It would not matter if it was grounded or not, it would still be a motor.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-10-26 19:35 ]</font>

Phobos
2001-Oct-26, 10:58 PM
Any electrical engineer looking at his device should be able to tell you exactly what it is. It is a motor. A simple, rather ordinary, high voltage, low current motor. It would not matter if it was grounded or not, it would still be a motor.


Does that mean you take the opinion of "Any electrical engineer" over that of Dr. E. L. Moragne, PhD and a pioneer in the development of the atomic bomb, and Dr. Robert Smith, PhD and Chief of Space Environment Branch at NASA ? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-26 19:58 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Oct-26, 11:32 PM
On 2001-10-26 18:58, Phobos wrote:

Any electrical engineer looking at his device should be able to tell you exactly what it is. It is a motor. A simple, rather ordinary, high voltage, low current motor. It would not matter if it was grounded or not, it would still be a motor.


Does that mean you take the opinion of "Any electrical engineer" over that of Dr. E. L. Moragne, PhD and a pioneer in the development of the atomic bomb, and Dr. Robert Smith, PhD and Chief of Space Environment Branch at NASA ? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Jeff



What I meant was that any electrical engineer should recognize a motor when he or she sees one. Anyone who graduates in the U.S. with a B.S.E.E. from an A.B.E.T. accredited school must take classes on motors and generators. As far as I know, only EE's take these classes; why would anyone else have to take classes on electrical power generation? Hence my claim any electrical engineer should recognize Joe's machine as a motor.

I would also like to see where the pro-Joe testimonials came from. If recall correctly, Robert Smith's testimonial is taken completely out of context. I believe the context was something like: if your theory is true, we will have rexamine several laws of physics. (I'm going completely from memory, so I could be wrong.)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-10-26 19:33 ]</font>

Phobos
2001-Oct-26, 11:55 PM
What I meant was that any electrical engineer should recognize a motor when he or she sees one. Anyone who graduates in the U.S. with a B.S.E.E. from an A.B.E.T. accredited school must take classes on motors and generators. As far as I know, only EE's take these classes; why would anyone else have to take classes on electrical power generation? Hence my claim any electrical engineer should recognize Joe's machine as a motor.

I would also like to see where the pro-Joe testimonials came from. If recall correctly, Robert Smith's testimonial is taken completely out of context. I believe the context was something like: if your theory is true, we will have rexamine several laws of physics. (I'm going completely from memory, so I could be wrong.)


OK put that way what you say is reasonable. I will try to track down their full comments for you.

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-26 19:55 ]</font>

Phobos
2001-Oct-26, 11:59 PM
Back to the main topic of concern - the Transdimensional Technologies lifter.

I have more news for Mr X. once able to continue my research (I do have a living to make as well you know), I managed to track down the following URLs;

Another Lifter with Video (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifter2.htm)
Homepage (http://jnaudin.free.fr)
video (http://jnaudin.free.fr/videos/pblift2.rm)
Another nice video (http://jnaudin.free.fr/videos/lft3iwm.rm)

The company I have tracked down is called JLN Labs (Jean-Louis Naudin, France). They have more videos and even provide instructions on how to build one for yourself!

Quoting from their website;

I have already built some similar devices in April 1999

So it looks like Mr X. may be right, the Transdimensional Technologies may well have been lifting technology from others.

And here is the shocker from the same website;


Townsend Brown Electrokinetic Apparatus described in the US Patent N°2949550 filed on Aug 16, 1960

Which implies that these experiments are based upon known technology that was patented in 1960. I wonder how far military research could have progressed this type of research given huge black budjets and over 40 years!

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-26 20:21 ]</font>

DStahl
2001-Oct-27, 12:35 AM
I'm suspicious. Here's a quote from the Transdimensional website:

The Power 3 is based upon the fact that the Lorentz Force in certain conditions can be non-conservative, thus indicating the important relationship to open systems and hence external forces. In this particular application, there is a
frame of reference phase shift between bound ions and conduction electrons in a conducting medium. This will result in a propellantless propulsion system.

This sounds rather like doubletalk. What exactly is a "frame of reference shift between bound ions and conduction electrons"? Now it could be that the company does indeed devolop LED laser devices and also has some fringe or outright loonie projects they're working on as well. I'm also kind of bemused by their assertion that adding ferromagnetic particles to rocket fuel increases the temperature in the combustion chamber by releasing energy from the magnetic field. I couldn't find any references to a release of energy when a magnetized grain reaches its Curie temperature...that doesn't mean there's not something there, just that, well, I'm bemused.

Last words from me on Joe Newman: My point about flogging his book was more that it's clear that after ten or fifteen years he still hasn't got a device that works well enough to sell to an engineering firm or a power company. This leads me to offer two bits of advice: never take information from a promoter at face value. Phobos, the stuff you quoted in your first post was straight from Newman's website, wasn't it? Which do you think is more likely: that the laws of physics are wrong, or that some men will lie for money? Second, for goodness' sake don't send Newman any money! *grin*


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2001-10-26 20:42 ]</font>

Alan7Marshall
2001-Oct-27, 12:37 AM
Wiley wrote:

"Joseph Newman can easily get a patent for his device. All he has to do is submit a working prototype, which he claims to have, to the patent office. This prototype must work on its own power for one year. Since 1911, this is what the U.S. Patent Office requires for all machines that violate the second law of thermodynamics."

My reply:

Your comment regarding the patent office indicates an unawareness of the facts relative to Newman's quest for patent protection.

To describe the incompetence and injustice of PTO bureaucrats would require many pages on this website. So I'll briefly hit the high points:

1) Newman originally submitted his Patent Application to an examiner (Duggan) who was later proven in a court of law to be technically incompetent in his own field.

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 there 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.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif 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 William Schuyler, (the Special Master to that Court and technical expert in electrical engineering who was also a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office) 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."

Those words speak for themselves.

Wiley wrote:
"Yes, federal bureaucrats at the patent office have spent millions trying to prevent him from getting a patent. But they were defending themselves against Congress who was trying get Joe a special patent. (The blind leading the bland.)"

My reply:
No, Wiley, the actions of the 11 Congressmen who supported Newman's effort to obtain a patent were taken AFTER the actions taken by the patent office.

Wiley wrote:
"Any electrical engineer looking at his device should be able to tell you exactly what it is. It is a motor. A simple, rather ordinary, high voltage, low current motor. It would not matter if it was grounded or not, it would still be a motor."

My reply:
No, Wiley ---- Newman's motor -- which operates as described by the Special Master -- is anything but an "ordinary" motor. And, according to Newman it certainly DOES matter whether or not it is grounded. And here's the MAIN POINT: the three incompetent bureaucrats at the NBS specifically did NOT ground the device in their test protocol/circuit diagram which they submitted to the Court and to Newman. Yet in EVERY test they conducted they grounded the device! They were not even competent enough to follow their own test protocol.

Alan

P.S. Speaking of the French researcher -- J.L. Naudin -- see the website:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/nwmechts.htm

The unit Naudin tested was not constructed by Joseph Newman (as was the case with another unit tested by a German EE), but was a small version built by the French researcher. The German EE has prepared an extensive 54-page Excel-formatted report of his testing in Germany of the small prototype that he obtained from Joseph Newman. Moreover, the German EE verified that the unit performed as described by Newman.

Alan7Marshall
2001-Oct-27, 12:47 AM
DStahl:

My point is simple: give Newman a patent and THEN let him sink or swim in the marketplace. Moreover, considering Newman's profound understanding of magnetic fields there are those who would say that he is a serious innovator who promotes his work in the face of massive opposition from federal bureaucrats.

Newman's technical process EXTENDS the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy into a new domain, i.e., the equivalence of matter/energy via E=mc^2 is extended to the electromagnetic domain. Such extensions of natural law into new domains have certainly been typical of the history of the progress of science.

Alan

Mr. X
2001-Oct-27, 12:50 AM
On 2001-10-26 19:59, Phobos wrote:
Back to the main topic of concern - the Transdimensional Technologies lifter.

I have more news for Mr X. once able to continue my research (I do have a living to make as well you know), I managed to track down the following URLs;

Another Lifter with Video (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifter2.htm)
Homepage (http://jnaudin.free.fr)
video (http://jnaudin.free.fr/videos/pblift2.rm)
Another nice video (http://jnaudin.free.fr/videos/lft3iwm.rm)

The company I have tracked down is called JLN Labs (Jean-Louis Naudin, France). They have more videos and even provide instructions on how to build one for yourself!

Quoting from their website;

I have already built some similar devices in April 1999

So it looks like Mr X. may be right, the Transdimensional Technologies may well have been lifting technology from others.

And here is the shocker from the same website;


Townsend Brown Electrokinetic Apparatus described in the US Patent N°2949550 filed on Aug 16, 1960

Which implies that these experiments are based upon known technology that was patented in 1960. I wonder how far military research could have progressed this type of research given huge black budjets and over 40 years!

Jeff


EXCELLENT WORK, Phobos! Maybe I can attempt building one.

I'll see about that.

DStahl
2001-Oct-27, 02:56 AM
Alan: "Newman's technical process EXTENDS the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy into a new domain, i.e., the equivalence of matter/energy via E=mc^2 is extended to the electromagnetic domain."

Reply: I think that if you consult a physics textbook you will find that the electromagnetic domain is quite completely included in relativity and is well understood via quantum theory as well. As I understand it, the necessity for invariance of Maxwell's field equations was one of the great influences guiding Einstein. On Newman's own website he claims to have created a new field theory, and says

"The information contained in my fundamental book, my patents issued across the world, and my life's work prove that I have discovered the fundamental mechanical nature of electricity. Electrical current consists of gyroscopic particles that are the mechanical essence of E = mc2!"

Er, "gyroscopic particles"? Does he mean electrons? I think some physicists have heard of those...maybe even understand a bit about how they behave...hehe. I personally suspect he thinks he's figured out some other sort of particle, the one he claims as "the mechanical essence of E = Mc2." I personally suspect he's deluded.

As to market forces, there is nothing whatsoever stopping him from marketing all the devices he wants. In fact, he's trying like crazy to sell them:

"Provide me with an amount equal to three (3) years of your company's annual, "down-the-drain-electric bill," and I will provide you with a unique Motor/Generator system that will permanently free you from the "pot-luck, rolling black-out threat" of the ever-worsening power grid. Instead of throwing your good money down a drain for which you have no return for your monies spent, purchase my revolutionary Energy Machine and acquire a permanent ASSET that will enable you to invest 95% of your present, monthly energy costs back INTO YOUR PROFIT MARGIN!"

I personally suspect the market is talking to Joseph Newman, and what I suspect it is saying is "Your machine doesn't work, Joseph! As hardheaded capitalists we are not buying non-functional pig in a poke!" And, I personally suspect that's why Joseph Newman is still flogging his book (8th edition now, I see) to make a living.

Now I have been careful to note that this is all my personal opinion. If you wish to believe that Mr. Newman has something other than horsefeathers under his hat, by all means continue to do so. Invest in his device. I guess when you're wealthy and there's a Newman Generator in every town I'll be laughing out the other side of my mouth, won't I?

Phil, I feel very guilty posting this on the BA forum. It belongs on a Bad Physics forum or something...so I posted an opening salvo on this forum (http://thunder.prohosting.com/~siltec/wwwboard/messages/65.html). From where the moon (it's 21:35 where I live) now stands I will not respond to anything more about Newman on this forum forever.

Alan7Marshall
2001-Oct-27, 11:53 PM
Dstahl, the evidence is overwhelming that Newman's technology does work as stated. The following are several of the documents I have reviewed regarding Newman's work:

"DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT

"Joseph Newman disclosed and demonstrated to me his 130-pound motor/generator 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 (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 (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.

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

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

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

"Evaluation of Joseph Newman's 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 equal 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.

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

__________________________________________________ _______

As I understand it, Newman has constructed many different prototypes of his technology over the years including operational models that have powered lights, table saws, water pumps, and home appliance fans. And more than 30 scientists and engineers have signed Affidavits that those units perform as described by Joseph Newman. Those individuals have made the effort to test Newman's prototypes for themselves; I gather that you, DStahl, have not. And Newman has stated that the gyroscopic massergies he describes are far smaller than the electron.

I really believe that the fundamental questions Newman asks are important ones that cannot be ignored if we ever want to really understand electromagnetism -- including its effect upon astronomical bodies. Such questions include:

1) do you believe that the lines of force are PHYSICAL?

2) do you believe that the energy in electromagnetic phenomena is MECHANICAL energy?

3) do you believe that there is MATTER IN MOTION within the space in the neighborhood of the electric or magnetic bodies?

Dstahl, you wrote: "to market forces, there is nothing whatsoever stopping him from marketing all the devices he wants."

My reply: To market, you first need the capital to launch commercial production. And, without patent protection for his technology, it is exceeding difficult to raise that capital. If patents were not important relative to the "market forces" you describe, then the pharmaceutical companies would not spend MILLIONS of dollars seeking to secure patent protection for their new drug technologies. The fact is, Dstahl, that patent protection can be crucial for new technology. As I've said previously, give Newman his patent and thus have the equal opportunity to commercially market his technology, and THEN let him succeed or fail in the marketplace.

Alan

Mr. X
2001-Oct-28, 03:04 AM
Could we get off Newman's case please?

This USED TO be about "Transdimensional's" lifted lifter test.

No banging your head on the display case please.

Oh, what the hell, since you hijacked it you might just as well go on.

Enjoy our hospitality!

Phobos
2001-Oct-28, 03:16 AM
I understand why he is so passionate about the device. If the claims are true the implications are extra-ordinary. The only problem is that we should be discussing the astronomy aspects/implications and this device has the potential to affect;

1. The world economy (which is energy based).

2. The worlds death rates (millions die every year through war, famine and as a result of poor supplies of healthy drinking water).

3. The space industry (which requires enormous amounts of energy to lift payloads into space)

I believe that reason 3 justifies its discussion on this board and suggest Alan starts a new thread accordingly (provided that is OK with the BA).

Jeff

Mr. X
2001-Oct-28, 03:25 AM
On 2001-10-27 23:16, Phobos wrote:
...and suggest Alan starts a new thread accordingly (provided that is OK with the BA).


Hmmm, I strongly suggest you do NOT ask the BA everytime you want to start a thread!

Otherwise you're going to get on his nerves faster than... oh, I'm no good at these comparisons!

If he's no happy he'll squash it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

DStahl
2001-Oct-28, 04:53 AM
Alan: I replied to your last Newman post at the physics forum (http://thunder.prohosting.com/~siltec/wwwboard/wwwboard.html) I mentioned earlier.

DStahl
2001-Oct-28, 07:36 AM
On topic again: I read through Cameron's paper, An Asymmetric Gravitational Wave Propulsion System, and I'm only a little wiser than before. (Not saying much!) But I had thought that gravitational waves were awfully weak, and he agrees: he gives a figure of 2.14 X 10<sup>-29</sup> watts for the power radiated through gravity waves from a single resonant vibrator cylinder. However, Cameron proposes that his array of cylinders can produce superimposed waves which will boost the power by a factor of roughly 10<sup>32</sup>.

Frankly, I'm not competent to check his math...but at least there's some basis for his idea.

Here are a couple of sites on gravity waves in general. The first, an Aussie university (http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/phys-sci/gravity/advanced/advance3.htm), is kind of general; the second, the Exodus Project (http://www.exodusproject.com/GravWave.htm), gives a very nice description.

Slow night at work...good time to catch up on the board.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2001-10-28 02:36 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2001-Oct-28, 10:28 AM
Alan,
1) Newman does not need a patent to market his device and make money. Coca-cola was never patented (because to get the patent they would have had to divulge the formula).
2) If you believe in his device, INVEST YOUR MONEY IN IT and when you are so rich you can buy Bill Gates out of pocket change, you can come back and laugh at us. Until then, you are taking up a lot of the BAs bandwidth on a topic that has, at best, marginal relevance to astronomy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif

_________________
All else (is never) being equal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-10-28 05:30 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-28, 02:41 PM
On 2001-10-28 05:28, Kaptain K wrote:
Alan,
1) Newman does not need a patent to market his device and make money. Coca-cola was never patented (because to get the patent they would have had to divulge the formula).
2) If you believe in his device, INVEST YOUR MONEY IN IT and when you are so rich you can buy Bill Gates out of pocket change, you can come back and laugh at us. Until then, you are taking up a lot of the BAs bandwidth on a topic that has, at best, marginal relevance to astronomy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif

Nevertheless please refrain from Newmanning around!

You're abusing our hospitality! Refrain from bashing others!

This is headed towards a flame war!

You are surrounded! Surrender at once prepare to be boarded!

Thank you!

Alan7Marshall
2001-Oct-28, 02:46 PM
One poster wrote, "Newman does not need a patent to market his device and make money."

While that sounds simple enough --- unfortunately the real world of business and finance is not quite that simple.

The facts are: most businesses capable of funding development of major revolutionary technology will NOT do so without being assured of patent protection for their investment. Having closely followed Newman's struggle, I understand that he once met with the principal "new-technology-head-hunter" of Chrysler Corp. attended by two of Chrysler's electrical engineers. They conducted tests on Newman's technology. Their bottom line: they told Newman that they were extremely interested in the technology and that Newman should contact them as soon as he had secured patent protection.

If the above poster specifically knows of major funding sources who ARE willing to see and test the technology for themselves, to their own satisfaction, and THEN provide capital funding WITHOUT patent protection, then -- by all means -- provide that information.

Here's Newman telephone number: (480) 657-3722
and website: http://www.josephnewman.com

Alan

__________________________________________

And since this site DOES principally deal with astronomical issues, I thought I'd post the following which was sent to me:

____________________________

AFFIDAVIT

OBSERVATIONS AND PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS ON JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ELECTROMAGNETIC AIR/SPACE VEHICLE

I have witnessed a demonstration of Joseph Newman's Electromagnetic Air and Space Vehicle prototype. It consists of an aluminized helium balloon wrapped with #38 gauge copper wire. The system is nominally heavier than air. When the wire coil is connected to a 200 volt battery, the balloon gradually lifts into the air. It then aligns with the earth's magnetic field as it rises. If the current is cut off, the balloon immediately begins to fall. If the current direction is reversed, the balloon rotates to align with the earth's field. The balloon can be made to rotate or oscillate by manipulating the direction of current flow. If the current is periodically switched so that the balloon always repels the earth's field, its rate of descent is about 25% faster than the case of steady attraction of the coils to the earth's field.

Joseph Newman's design calls for creation of a magnetic field which is an average about equal to the earth's field over the volume of the balloon. This can be achieved with minimum input power using a large number of turns of fine wire. I have considered vehicle modules with the following properties:

Volume = 10'x10'x10' = 1,000 cubic feet
Helium Lift = 70 lbs.
Wire = 12,000 turns of #38 AWG copper
Wire Weight = 23 lbs.
Battery = 3,000 volts DC
Battery Weight = 15 lbs
DC Current = 10 mA
Material Weight = 10 lbs.
Payload Weight = 22 lbs.

A vehicle which is 100 feet in diameter and 50 feet high would consist of 400 of the above cubes and would carry a payload of 4.4 tons. A vehicle which is 1,000 feet in diameter and 500 feet high would consist of 400,000 of these cubes and carry a payload of 4,400 tons.

The following points should be noted:

(1) The total payload is proportional to vehicle volume.

(2) The electromagnetic torque and lift are also proportional to volume in this design.

(3) Navigation is achieved by manipulating the orientation of the coils.

(4) If superconducting wires become available, the batteries would not be required.

(5) For improved efficiency with copper wiring, sets of the cubes can be connected in series and energized with pulsed high voltage. Joseph Newman has developed such techniques to extend battery lifetime.

(6) In the atmosphere, lift is provided by a combination of ohmic heating of the helium gas, electromagnetic interaction of the helium atoms with the applied fields, and interaction of the applied magnetic field with the earth's magnetic field.

(7) It is intended that the craft can operate entirely through interaction with the earth's magnetic field once it leaves the atmosphere. The interaction will be especially strong in the ionosphere and persists in the earth's magnetotail.

Joseph Newman's invention was designed and disclosed in a patent application to its construction. It represents a vastly improved means for propulsion and navigation of helium balloons (blimps). Large versions may well carry us gently and safely into space.

Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D. [Signed and Notarized]
Physicist

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

"Just as a long-legged spider can lift itself from the surface of a pond by dispersing its body weight over a wide area upon the molecular surface tension of the water, so too, by analogy, can a vehicle lift itself from the surface of the planet by dispersing a magnetic field over a wide area upon the planet's magnetic field." --- Joseph Newman

"In 1967, I predicted that the Earth's true axis and the Earth's magnetic axis were one and the same. Moreover, I predicted that the Earth's magnetic axis was being warped into Space by the Sun's magnetic field and that such warpage caused the EFFECT of the Earth's 'true axis.'" --- Joseph Newman

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

"If the manner in which Joseph Newman conducted his experiments and the results were made known to the industrial or engineering community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or individuals possess the expertise and capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the apparent capability of his new concepts."

"I have read your article several times, believe that it is very worthwhile, and that it should be studied in much more detail."

"I am going to continue to study your work and I will provide you with additional relevant data and information as I find it. Once again, I think you should continue to expand your efforts, as it appears as if the results could be very significant. Please let me know if I can help you in any other way."

Dr. Robert E. Smith
Chief, Orbital and Space Environmental Branch
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA

Mr. X
2001-Oct-28, 02:58 PM
<font size=10 color=red>GRRR!
Take it outside, boys
</font>
http://www.kiras-site.f2s.com/smileys6/s779.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-28 10:04 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Oct-28, 08:11 PM
On 2001-10-26 20:37, Alan7Marshall wrote:
Wiley wrote:

"Joseph Newman can easily get a patent for his device. All he has to do is submit a working prototype, which he claims to have, to the patent office. This prototype must work on its own power for one year. Since 1911, this is what the U.S. Patent Office requires for all machines that violate the second law of thermodynamics."

My reply:

Your comment regarding the patent office indicates an unawareness of the facts relative to Newman's quest for patent protection.


I'm quite aware of the facts, thank you. Yes Joe has often tried to get a patent, but on his terms. He has consistently refused to let the patent office test his device according to their rules, which are, simply, submit a working prototype and let run on its own power for 1 year. Joe does not want to play the game by rules 'cause if he does, he'll lose.



11) It was at that point that he went to Federal Court, whereupon William Schuyler, (the Special Master to that Court and technical expert in electrical engineering who was also a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office) 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."

Those words speak for themselves.


No, the words don't quite speak for themselves. William Schuyler was employed by the same law firm Joe had previously hired. Can you say "conflict of interest"? I thought you could.



Wiley wrote:
"Any electrical engineer looking at his device should be able to tell you exactly what it is. It is a motor. A simple, rather ordinary, high voltage, low current motor. It would not matter if it was grounded or not, it would still be a motor."

My reply:
No, Wiley ---- Newman's motor -- which operates as described by the Special Master -- is anything but an "ordinary" motor. And, according to Newman it certainly DOES matter whether or not it is grounded. And here's the MAIN POINT: the three incompetent bureaucrats at the NBS specifically did NOT ground the device in their test protocol/circuit diagram which they submitted to the Court and to Newman. Yet in EVERY test they conducted they grounded the device! They were not even competent enough to follow their own test protocol.


I suppose you're right; it's not an ordinary motor. Most motors will have efficiencies greater than 0.8; however Joe's was between 0.3~0.7. It's actually a poor motor.

And let's not get into the safety hazards of ungrounded high voltage devices, shall we?

Alan, if you want to believe in Joe, more power to you. However patents should not be given to devices that do not work; it's as simple as that.

For those who want more info on Joe's machine (and I really can't believe anybody does), here are some links:
http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm
http://www.randi.org/jr/03-22-2000.html
Also Robert Park's Voodoo Science has a good section on Joe.

Okay, I've said all that I'm going to say on this matter. Back to Bad Asstronomy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Mr. X
2001-Oct-28, 08:14 PM
Okay, I've said all that I'm going to say on this matter. Back to Bad Astronomy.

Ah, well, thank you.

Well, you CAN continue to talk but no more inflamatory bashing.

I'd hate to see this thread lost because of that.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-28 15:24 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Oct-28, 08:31 PM
On 2001-10-28 15:14, Mr. X wrote:


Okay, I've said all that I'm going to say on this matter. Back to Bad Astronomy.

Ah, well, thank you.

Well, you CAN continue to talk but no more inflamatory bashing.


Excuse me, Mr. X, but you misquoted me. I had two s's in asstronomy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

J-Man
2001-Oct-28, 09:34 PM
Wiley said:
What I meant was that any electrical engineer should recognize a motor when he or she sees one. Anyone who graduates in the U.S. with a B.S.E.E. from an A.B.E.T. accredited school must take classes on motors and generators. As far as I know, only EE's take these classes; why would anyone else have to take classes on electrical power generation? Hence my claim any electrical engineer should recognize Joe's machine as a motor.


J-Man nitpicks:
Actually BSEE's are NOT required to take a class on motors/generators. We (that means I am a BSEE) are required to take a class on the fundamentals of electro-magnetism. Motors/generators is an optional class.
But I do agree that in most cases an EE should recognise a motor/generator when s/he sees one. (I graduated from Purdue... repeatedly in the top 5 engineering schools in the U.S.)

=============================================

Alan7Marshall said (about the Newman Balloon):

The following points should be noted:
(1) The total payload is proportional to vehicle volume.
(2) The electromagnetic torque and lift are also proportional to volume in this design.
(3) Navigation is achieved by manipulating the orientation of the coils.
(4) If superconducting wires become available, the batteries would not be required.

J-man says:
Should point number two read "Altitude and orientataion" instead of "Navigation"?
and...
I disagree with point 4. How are you going to control it without a powersupply? Do you just use telepathy with the superconductor to orient the structure or to change the amount (and direction) of lift?


Overall, these are all interesting ideas, keep the info flowing...

J-Man

Phobos
2001-Oct-28, 10:37 PM
I believe there is a little confusion as to what qualifies for an over-unity device, and what over-unity actually means.

Personally, I would consider a hot air ballon as a candidate for an over-unity device. The work performed by the fuel is only a fraction of the actual energy which is required to make the journey that a high-altitude hot air ballon would require (the rest is provided by the air currents).

If these type of devices do indeed operate at over 100% efficiency it probably means they are "stealing" the extra energy from the environment. If this is the case we should still consider such a device usefull, and we ought to learn how they work.

Most are highly unlikely to work as advertised, but given the stakes I would not dismiss the more promising candidates without proper inspection.

One last point, if I had invented such a device I would forgo the financial rewards, forget about patents and offer the devices for free. Seeing my own creation save millions of lives would give me immence satisfaction. Not only that, but given the fame that would probably follow I doubt that I would be short of cash after film, book rights and monies received for after dinner speaches etc.

Jeff


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-28 17:45 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Oct-29, 06:27 PM
On 2001-10-28 16:34, J-Man wrote:
Wiley said:
What I meant was that any electrical engineer should recognize a motor when he or she sees one. Anyone who graduates in the U.S. with a B.S.E.E. from an A.B.E.T. accredited school must take classes on motors and generators. As far as I know, only EE's take these classes; why would anyone else have to take classes on electrical power generation? Hence my claim any electrical engineer should recognize Joe's machine as a motor.


J-Man nitpicks:
Actually BSEE's are NOT required to take a class on motors/generators. We (that means I am a BSEE) are required to take a class on the fundamentals of electro-magnetism. Motors/generators is an optional class.
But I do agree that in most cases an EE should recognise a motor/generator when s/he sees one. (I graduated from Purdue... repeatedly in the top 5 engineering schools in the U.S.)



I have first hand knowledge of four different EE programs either as student or professor: Clemson University, Georgia Tech, Saginaw Valley State Univ., and Univ. of Florida. Granted my ABET information is a little out of date (1991), I'm shocked that ABET would not require a motors/generators class. At minimum ABET (in 1991) required a "power" class which usually comprises basic motor/generators, three-phase circuits, and transmission lines. Some schools have an "electric machinery" course comprising transformers and motors/generators. Did you have to take a class like either of these, J-man?

For those who are wondering what ABET is: ABET is the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. ABET accreditation is very important for schools since many states require a B.S. from an accredited school for the Professional Engineer license, many graduate schools won't accept students from non-accredited schools, and employers often won't pay "full" engineer wages to graduates from non-accredit schools.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-10-29 13:28 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-10-29 13:42 ]</font>

DStahl
2001-Oct-30, 08:31 PM
A quick note on over-unity devices, tho' it's a bit off-topic:

KeelyNet offers a prize to anyone who builds an over-unity (O/U) device. From their website (http://www.keelynet.com/contest/ou4.htm):

"Any device that needs recharging or replenishment of a fuel or material which is consumed or chemically converted to energy is not allowed. The competition also excludes natural energy accumulator systems including solar, wind, water, steam, thermal, heat pumps, thermocouples and other such systems."

"If a claimed O/U device operates CONTINUOUSLY for 5 consecutive days, driving a minimum sustained load of at least 1 WATT and with NO outside source of power, and this device is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the majority of conference attendees and a panel of three qualified testers, the inventor of the working device wins the total for that conference."

After looking at a couple of other perpetual-motion/over unity sites, I think that the accepted definition is that an over-unity device must produce more power than it consumes and do it without tapping any external power reservoir. An interesting sidelight: one writer opined that since the energy of the vacuum is according to conventional physics unavailable, "zero-point" energy devices are de facto over-unity devices.

Since I'm such a sour skeptical fellow, it seems a little fantastical, like defining a fairy as a being having dragonfly-like wings and not bird-like wings, but hey...definitions are important if we want to all play in the same ballpark.

Kevin J. Ashley
2001-Oct-30, 11:17 PM
For a very complete summary of the saga of Mr. Newman and his machine, see "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Bob Park of the American Physical Society. Mr. Park follows the story from the beginning through many years right up to a special Congressional hearing which was held to try to get Mr. Newman a patent. At that hearing, Senator John Glenn suggested that it would be very easy to test Mr. Newman's machine without revealing the technology behind it; simply measure the energy in and the energy out and see if the latter is greater. This was not acceptable to Mr. Newman and the hearing was adjourned.

In the book, Mr. Park is quite willing to accept that when Mr. Newman started he really thought that he had something but over time when it became clear that what he was comparing was power not energy, he made the transition from foolishness (didn't know he was wrong) to fraud (knew it and kept going anyway).

It's a good read.

Taks
2001-Oct-31, 11:06 PM
Keep in mind, patents that are pending do NOT necessarily show up on the uspto.gov website. This is because you can request them to be hidden till the grant date (I have one in this situation right now).
Mark



On 2001-10-24 20:56, Mr. X wrote:
Three of the patents in the guy's resume check out. However the patents pending ones (if a request has been done) do not. Then again it might just be some computer error over at their place.

Seems like score one for you! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

One of my people searches yielded no results at all for any Jeffrey A. Cameron anywhere in Alabama, so I guess this makes the score 1-1.

Company lookup for Transdimensional Technologies yielded results! Transdimensional is actually spelled Trans Dimensional. At first it yielded no results because there is a typo (??!?!??) in the name, with the typo it is Trans DimensOInal Technologies. 2-1 for you!

Reverse phone lookup brought me back to Trans DimensOInal Technologies. Good job! 3-1 for you!

I'm not convinced, but so far your side is walloping mine real bad!

Heads up, I'll continue!

Mr. X
2001-Oct-31, 11:16 PM
Thanks.

That had already been brought to my attention (of sorts).

Alan7Marshall
2001-Nov-05, 04:41 PM
Wiley: Since your previous post is factually inaccurate, it is appropriate to correct such inaccuracy:

Wiley wrote:

"I'm quite aware of the facts, thank you. Yes Joe has often tried to get a patent, but on his terms. He has consistently refused to let the patent office test his device according to their rules, which are, simply, submit a working prototype and let run on its own power for 1 year. Joe does not want to play the game by rules 'cause if he does, he'll lose."

I'm sorry Wiley, but what you've written above is sheer fantasy. I've actually read the court transcripts involving Newman's battle with the patent office --- and the "rules" you describe above never existed. In the first place, the patent office entrusted the National Bureau of Standards (then NBS -- now NIST) with any testing of Newman's prototype(s) since patent office officials specifically stated that they were incapable of testing Applicants' prototypes.

The testing protocol "rules" laid down by the three bureaucrats at the NBS included an schematic diagram protocol in which the unit was NOT grounded during testing. Yet, in EVERY SINGLE TEST THE THREE "experts" CONDUCTED --- they proceeded to GROUND the unit. One would think that the renowned "experts" at NBS/NIST would be at least competent enough to follow their OWN test protocol. At the very least one would think they would have the curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the prototype.

No, Wiley, the so-called experts at NBS/NIST have clearly demonstrated their level of (in)competence.

Wiley then wrote:

"No, the words don't quite speak for themselves. William Schuyler was employed by the same law firm Joe had previously hired. Can you say "conflict of interest"? I thought you could."

Once again, Wiley, you've overlooked the FACTS. Let's dispense with this "urban legend" of "conflict of interest" because that spurious accusation doesn't wash with the actual facts.

First of all, if anything, the Special Master Schuyler could be accused of "conflict of interest' vis-a-vis the PATENT OFFICE --- not Joseph Newman --- because 1) Schuyler was the patent office's nominee for the position of Special Master (not Joseph Newman) and 2) Schuyler was a former U.S. Commissioner of the patent office.

But here are the REAL facts, Wiley:

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 once 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.

*************************************
In other words, Wiley, it was legally determined in a U.S. Federal court of law, that there was NO conflict of interest on the part of Special Master William Schuyler, Jr.
*************************************

And here's another FACT: More than 30 scientists and engineers -- who HAVE tested Newman's prototypes for themselves -- have repeatedly concluded in their Affidavits that his prototypes DO have production efficiency ratings of greater than 100%.

As to Robert Park's comments, the following sums it up very accurately:

"COMMISSION AND OMISSION BY ROBERT PARK

"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. 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 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 factk. (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 stated 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 comments, Park stated 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. 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 (a very large Washignton D.C. law firm) as William Schuyler, Jr. Park then concludes that the Special Master only arrived at his endorsement of Joseph Newman's work as a result of a "conflict of interest."

"But 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.

"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 are factually misleading and thus misrepresent the original work of Joseph Newman with respect to his new understanding of electromagnetism."

Alan

J-Man
2001-Nov-09, 02:31 AM
Wiley says:
"I have first hand knowledge of four different EE programs either as student or professor: Clemson University, Georgia Tech, Saginaw Valley State Univ., and Univ. of Florida. Granted my ABET information is a little out of date (1991), I'm shocked that ABET would not require a motors/generators class. At minimum ABET (in 1991) required a "power" class which usually comprises basic motor/generators, three-phase circuits, and transmission lines. Some schools have an "electric machinery" course comprising transformers and motors/generators. Did you have to take a class like either of these, J-man? "


J-Man says:
Sorry, I can't answer yes or no...
Purdue's class titled EE202 (I think that's the number, it's been a while) covers 3-phase, transmission lines and transformers from a circuit analysis point of view, but not motors/generators. (Unless I was asleep during that part, but I'm sure we were not tested on it.)

I'm sure they have a class on motors/generators, and they have a more detailed class on 3-phase/transmission, but it was not a Required class(es), and I did not take it/them. (How's that for 4 sentences in one? Isn't the comma great?)

Wiley
2001-Nov-13, 04:48 PM
On 2001-11-08 21:31, J-Man wrote:
Wiley says:
"I have first hand knowledge of four different EE programs either as student or professor: Clemson University, Georgia Tech, Saginaw Valley State Univ., and Univ. of Florida. Granted my ABET information is a little out of date (1991), I'm shocked that ABET would not require a motors/generators class. At minimum ABET (in 1991) required a "power" class which usually comprises basic motor/generators, three-phase circuits, and transmission lines. Some schools have an "electric machinery" course comprising transformers and motors/generators. Did you have to take a class like either of these, J-man? "


J-Man says:
Sorry, I can't answer yes or no...
Purdue's class titled EE202 (I think that's the number, it's been a while) covers 3-phase, transmission lines and transformers from a circuit analysis point of view, but not motors/generators. (Unless I was asleep during that part, but I'm sure we were not tested on it.)

I'm sure they have a class on motors/generators, and they have a more detailed class on 3-phase/transmission, but it was not a Required class(es), and I did not take it/them. (How's that for 4 sentences in one? Isn't the comma great?)


I checked the current curricula at my former schools. Georgia Tech no longer requires a motors/power class; the other three do. Since Georgia Tech is one of the best EE schools in the country and is ABET accredited, I'm forced to assume that ABET no longer requires a motors/generators class for the BSEE.

" The times they are a-changin' "

Alan7Marshall
2002-Feb-13, 10:49 PM
DEMONSTRATION NOW IN PROGRESS IN PHOENIX, AZ:

FACTS:

The conventional 1/14 HP Grainger Motor draws 200 TIMES MORE CURRENT THAN DOES THE NEWMAN 3HP MOTOR!

The conventional 1/14 HP Grainger Motor draws TEN TIMES MORE WATTAGE THAN DOES THE NEWMAN 3 HP MOTOR! (You can only run one 1/14 HP Grainger Motor off of the solar panel system)

THE NEWMAN 3 HP MOTOR IS PRODUCING TEN TIMES MORE POWER THAN DOES THE 1/14 HP Grainger Motor! (You can run 18 Newman 3 HP Motors and their loads off of the solar panel system.)

Let your body cast a shadow on one of the solar panel systems connected to the 1/14 HP Grainger Motor and that Motor will basically STOP!

Let your body cast a shadow on one of the solar panel systems connected to the Newman 3 HP Motor and there is basically NO DIFFERENCE IN SPEED!

THE ABOVE RESULTS PROVE THAT THE NEWMAN MOTOR
MAKES SOLAR PANELS FUNCTION VERY EFFICIENTLY AND
THUS BECOME PRACTICAL FOR HOMES AND INDUSTRY.

Come see this technology FOR YOURSELF!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (PHOENIX, AZ) ------

http://www.josephnewman.com

Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
Beginning at:
Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
continuing through
Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
Elliot Road
"Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
(Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

(see map on website)
Free and Open to the Public

http://www.josephnewman.com

2002-Feb-14, 01:37 PM
<a name="20020214.6:55"> page 20020214.6:55 aka Gravity & Levitation
On 2001-10-24 05:41, Phobos wrote: To: 6 CABAN 15 PAX 6:56 A.M. PST

http://www.tdimension.com/
6:57 A.M. I could not link thrru so I changed the link
The link is labelled as "Real Anti-Gravity?"
6:58 A.M. I do think it "possible" details below
6:59 A.M. Had no time to read it all
HERES: my version anyway
take two masive objects and revolve : <spin them
{take Earth and Moon for easy example}
Together they do generate a Gravity Wave
& THAT can be used to Levitate.
to reach the point of levatation ?
thats the trickey part
it may be more than one small step
My personal experiences was
I had to lift both feet? that was Quite a feet
So sure having done it already, of course I
think it can be done. UNDER the proper conditions.

Wiley
2002-Feb-14, 04:03 PM
So, Alan, from Joe's press release are we correct in inferring that the "energy machine" is actually a motor.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

TinFoilHat
2002-Feb-15, 01:41 PM
It's easy to lie about motor power statistics by only giving some of the numbers.

I've got two motors on my workbench. One is a surplus electric-bicycle traction motor that can produce about 1HP. The other is a prototype for an electric motorcycle project with a 15HP output. If I hook them up to a power source and let them run, I'll find the 15HP motor is drawing a fraction of the current the 1HP motor is, and staying much cooler too.

Magic? Free energy? No, I just haven't given you all the numbers. The 15HP motor is running at 140V, while the 1HP motor is running at 24V. Power is voltage times current, so a motor designed to run at high voltage will draw less current for the same output power. The 15HP motor is a super-high-efficiency brushless motor with a machined case, ball bearings, and a precision balanced armature, while the 1HP motor is a modified car fan motor - mass-produced, stamped and crimped steel plate shell, and bronze bushings. Most importantly, both motors are running with no mechanical load on the shaft. Current draw in a motor is proportional to load, and with no load other than internal friction the high-precision motor draws less current than the crappy fan motor.

Without a few more numbers - namely voltage and actual output torque and speed - the stats given in Newman's press release are worthless and intentionally misleading.

Wiley
2002-Feb-15, 04:02 PM
Thanks for the reply, T.F. Hat,

You've beat me to the punch. I've not done any work with motors since my undergraduate days -you'll have to take your shoes off to count that far back- so I've had go back refresh my memory.

And you're right, they don't give enough information to make any sort fair evaluation.

Alan7Marshall
2002-Feb-15, 09:41 PM
Newman invites individuals living in the greater Phoenix area to come and see the technology in operation for themselves --- and THEN make up their OWN minds.

Some people would prefer to argue/discuss/bicker and maintain that "it simply cannot work as stated." Obviously, it is likely that those people will not be attending the demonstration.... Fine. They have their minds made up.

But individuals who are truly curious and intellectually honest can see it operate as claimed:

Bottom line: for the truly curious ---

SEE THE DEMONSTRATION FOR YOURSELVES!!!

PROVE HIM WRONG --- *IF* YOU CAN!!!

One would expect that SOMEONE on this Forum would either 1) live in Phoenix or 2) know someone in Phoenix whose judgement they would trust --- and have them SEE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THEMSELVES.

Newman challenges individuals to come to his free and public demonstration and prove that he is wrong.

For those who ARE truly curious and wish to see the technology demonstrated FOR THEMSELVES and then make up their OWN minds ----

Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
Beginning at:
----Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
continuing through
----Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
Elliot Road
"Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
(Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

(see map on website)
Free and Open to the Public

http://www.josephnewman.com

Alan

TinFoilHat
2002-Feb-15, 10:26 PM
If you want the full story on the stolen motor which Newman is using for his demonstration, read the following:

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

Wiley
2002-Feb-15, 10:37 PM
On 2002-02-15 16:41, Alan7Marshall wrote:

But individuals who are truly curious and intellectually honest can see it operate as claimed:



And those individuals who are truly honest and intellectually curious would provide details of their testing procedure.

Specifically which motors did they test? Were the motors actually loaded? What were the rpms? What were the voltages and current? As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof." The onus is on Joe Newman to provide credible proof, and, sorry, a staged demonstration is not proof.

And incidentally, Grainger does not make motors. They are resellers, so when you buy a "Grainger motor", you actually buy a GE, Dayton, Emerson, or some brand name. Regarless of whether this is an oversight or intentional, it does not help Joe's case.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-02-15 17:38 ]</font>

Alan7Marshall
2002-Feb-16, 05:35 AM
Joseph Newman has not "stolen" anything. What is also interesting to note is that those who falsely accuse him, remain anonymous by refusing to provide their personal telephone number and mailing address and thus be willing to publicly stand behind their accusation.

On the other hand, here is Joseph Newman personal telephone number and mailing address:

Joseph Newman
(480) 657-3722
11445 East Via Linda, No. 416
Scottsdale, Arizona 85259

He publicly provides his personal telephone number and mailing address.

His accusers hide behind their anonymity.

Newman invites individuals living in the greater Phoenix area to come and see the technology in operation for themselves --- and THEN make up their OWN minds.

Some people would prefer to argue/discuss/bicker and maintain that "it simply cannot work as stated." Obviously, it is likely that those people will not be attending the demonstration.... Fine. They have their minds made up.

But individuals who are truly curious and intellectually honest can see it operate as claimed:

Bottom line: for the truly curious ---

See the demonstration for yourselves!

Prove him wrong --- *if* you can!!

One would expect that someone on this Forum would either 1) live in Phoenix or 2) know someone in Phoenix whose judgement they would trust --- and have them SEE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THEMSELVES.

Newman challenges individuals to come to his free and public demonstration and prove that he is wrong.

For those who ARE truly curious and wish to see the technology demonstrated for themselves and then make up their own minds ----

Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
Beginning at:
----Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
continuing through
----Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
Elliot Road
"Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
(Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

(see map on website)
Free and Open to the Public

http://www.josephnewman.com

Alan

Kaptain K
2002-Feb-16, 07:10 AM
On Oct 28, 2001, I posted:

If you believe in his device, INVEST YOUR MONEY IN IT and when you are so rich you can buy Bill Gates out of pocket change, you can come back and laugh at us. Until then, you are taking up a lot of the BAs bandwidth on a topic that has, at best, marginal relevance to astronomy.
I now realise that you have probably invested your life savings in this Ponzi scheme and the only way to recoup your investment is to get as many more dupes into it as possible.

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-02-16 02:12 ]</font>

Alan7Marshall
2002-Feb-16, 03:58 PM
Ponzi scheme? Hardly. What is interesting is how some individuals will continually and negatively attack something .... but never actually go SEE the technology for themselves.

Well, for those who ARE truly curious and intellectually honest:

Newman invites individuals living in the greater Phoenix area to come and see the technology in operation for themselves --- and THEN make up their OWN minds.

Some people would prefer to argue/discuss/bicker and maintain that "it simply cannot work as stated." Obviously, it is likely that those people will not be attending the demonstration.... Fine. They have their minds made up.

But individuals who are truly curious and intellectually honest can see it operate as claimed:

Bottom line: for the truly curious ---

See the demonstration for yourselves!

Prove him wrong --- *if* you can.

One would expect that SOMEONE on this Forum would either 1) live in Phoenix or 2) know someone in Phoenix whose judgement they would trust --- and have them SEE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THEMSELVES.

Newman challenges individuals to come to his free and public demonstration and prove that he is wrong.

Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
Beginning at:
----Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
continuing through
----Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
Elliot Road
"Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
(Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

(see map on website)
Free and Open to the Public

http://www.josephnewman.com


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

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.

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

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. Dr. Hastings has been working as a Principal Physicist with the UNISYS Corporation. As a consultant, Dr. Hastings also designs electric motors for other corporations.


------------------------------------------------------
[Note: Since the testing performed on the above Newman Motors, numerous improvements/innovations have been made to subsequent Newman Motor designs.]

Alan

Roy Batty
2002-Feb-16, 05:01 PM
On 2002-02-16 10:58, Alan7Marshall wrote:
Ponzi scheme? Hardly. What is interesting is how some individuals will continually and negatively attack something .... but never actually go SEE the technology for themselves.

I might go and 'see' a magic show & be none the wiser how the trick was performed. Btw do you really have to keep repeating that whole text in each message? ... very tiring waiting for pages to load.

Alan7Marshall
2002-Feb-16, 08:52 PM
RB said: "I might go and 'see' a magic show & be none the wiser how the trick was performed."

Cesare Cremonini is alive and well! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I recall from history that the "great" academician/professor Cesare Cremonini refused to look thru Galileo's telescope and actually SEE the mountains on the moon for himself. According the Professor Cremonini (a great Aristotelian scholar), Aristotle wrote that such astronomical objects as the moon were "perfect spheres" without any protuberances.

Galileo's attitude was, "I don't care WHAT Aristotle wrote, just look through the telescope and SEE the mountains on the moon for yourself."

Cremonini gave the CLASSIC intellectually-dishonest answer:

"No, Galileo, I will NOT look through that confounded tube of yours, because even if I DID look and DID see such mountains, I would simply know that you had enchanted me!"

What do you do with such an idiot?

Answer: let him die off with his ignorance and stupidity intact and thus enable the young minds of future generations to be willing to embrace such intellectual honesty and see the mountains on the moon for themselves.

That is one of the few fortunate things about death: it may take away good people of quality (which is very sad), but it also clears out the fossilized, intellectually-dishonest, 'dead wood' such as the Cremonini-types.

Anyone can think of excuses not to do anything. But there is nothing "magic" about Newman's demonstration. It is straightforward and his technology operates as stated. If you are a truly curious individual then you'll see it for yourself and then make up your OWN mind. If you are not -- then this message is wasted on you so I would suggest you ignore it.


With respect to any potentially truly curious and intellectually honest individuals on this forum, I would recommend that you see the demonstration in Phoenix for yourself and make up your OWN mind.

Anyway....... they say (whoever they are) that repetition is key to good advertising. They may or may not be right.... but.....

Bottom line: for the truly curious, intellectual honesty and REAL skeptics:

See the demonstration for yourselves.

Prove him wrong --- *if* you can.

One would expect that SOMEONE on this Forum would either 1) live in Phoenix or 2) know someone in Phoenix whose judgement they would trust --- and have them SEE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THEMSELVES.

Newman challenges individuals to come to his free and public demonstration and prove that he is wrong.

And, for those who ARE truly curious and wish to see the technology demonstrated FOR THEMSELVES and then make up their OWN minds ----

Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
Beginning at:
----Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
continuing through
----Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
Elliot Road
"Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
(Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

(see map on website)
Free and Open to the Public

http://www.josephnewman.com

Remember also the specific words of technical expert in electrical engineering and Special Master William Schuyler (former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office) - Quote from 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."

Those words of the Special Master speak for themselves.

Alan

Roy Batty
2002-Feb-17, 10:27 AM
I dont claim to be a "great academician/professor", I just apply a bit of critical thinking before leaping on a jetplane to 'see' some guys wonderous invention that claims to break all known laws of thermodynamics . No, call me foolish but I prefer to examine the scientific facts 1st for such an extraordinary claim.. & having 'seen' the website I find such facts severely lacking.
So I will follow your advice & ignore from now on, content in my blissful ignorance /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Phobos
2002-Feb-17, 01:35 PM
On 2002-02-17 05:27, Roy Batty wrote:
I dont claim to be a "great academician/professor", I just apply a bit of critical thinking before leaping on a jetplane to 'see' some guys wonderous invention that claims to break all known laws of thermodynamics . No, call me foolish but I prefer to examine the scientific facts 1st for such an extraordinary claim.. & having 'seen' the website I find such facts severely lacking.
So I will follow your advice & ignore from now on, content in my blissful ignorance /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



I think you are being a bit unfair to Alan. If he has become convinced based upon personal experience then I would have thought that this alone may have tweaked your scientific curiosity as to why.

Jeff


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-02-17 08:40 ]</font>

Simon
2002-Feb-17, 10:36 PM
Okay. I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I think I get the drift. So this machine's electrical output is greater than it's electrical input. That doesn't violate thermodynamics. It happens all the time. We just need to ask a couple of simple questions.

Like, what other inputs and outputs are there?

(PS: Took a look at the site, and I would have a lot more confidence in it if it had more physics and less witness testimony)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Simon on 2002-02-17 17:43 ]</font>

TinFoilHat
2002-Feb-17, 11:25 PM
Here's what Rick78Monte aka Alan7Marshall doesn't want you to know:

At the demo, Newman's motor is demoed driving a fan. Slowly. It's spinning at maybe a hundred RPM or so. The Grainger motor is driving a smaller fan, but it's spinning at normal motor speeds of a few thousand RPM. The power required to spin a fan is proportional to the square of the speed. At only a few hundred RPM, the Newman motor is barely doing any mechanical work at all.

This is typical of Newman motor demonstrations - the Newman motor runs very slowly while turning little to no load. I've never heard of any demonstration of a Newman motor turning any significant load.

From what I've read, Newman's motors are modified to maximize back EMF. Newman believes that he can use the back EMF to provide power back to the battery. Actually, back EMF is what prevents the motor from turning faster. As the motor accelerates, the back EMF from the armature builds up until it reaches an equilibrium point and the motor doesn't accelerate anymore. This is standard motor theorey. Newman's motors, with their tremendous back EMF generation and screwball commutator setup, do a pretty god job of blocking current flow. This is why a Newman motor can barely muster enough power to spin a fan at a few hundred RPM, even with over 200V feeding it.

It's kind of like taking a big powerful car engine, installing some kind of mechanical device in the fuel line to only allow a tiny trickle of gasoline through, and then marvelling at how long it can run off a fuel tank - while ignoring the fact that it barely can run at all now, and will stall the moment you try to use it to drive anything.

Why can't a Newman motor be used to drive a generator and power itself? Because it doesn't have the torque output to power a lightbulb.

ChallegedChimp
2002-Feb-18, 03:37 AM
Not caliming to know anything about this subject..... just giving yah a dumb chimp's point o view: this whole thread and Joe Newamns (and his cronies).... if it is real, then put it out on the free market and let the machine do your talking for you. If it works, great... and I laud you now as a great mind adding to the human total of information... but if it doesn't, like I suspect it would, I call you "infomercialists of the Interent age".

Just put the bloody machine on the market! If it truly puts out more energy that it gets, you'll have a bloody goldmine. Get the specient techinal derviatives patentre and you'll be rich. Dont bloody well say you do this for all mankind etc. etc. You are just like all of us and are trying to improve your personal station. Put the darn machine out there and let it stand or fall.Your disapproval and energetic displays only further to enahnce its disreputalble status. The machine will do its talking for itself, not you. Did not one of you ever go to an economics class? Only PT Barnum and Vince McMahon ever managed to successfully market a product built out of nothing into something in the last 15o years.

Wiley
2002-Feb-18, 04:33 PM
Well, I wasted 15 minutes of my life. I went to Joe's website and watched his little videos of his new motor, segments 15-17. I recommend staying away from segment 15 unless you want to see a man with a Christ complex punch a heavy bag. Segments 16 and 17 actually do show Joe's motor.

First, to be fair, in an earlier post I criticized the press release for using the term "Grainger motor". In the video, he says that they are Dayton motors from the Grainger catalog. So the press release was probably an oversight.

The first technical mistake that I caught was when he takes a little Radio Shack motor and says it draws 2 amps at 36 watts. What he did not say was that the motor draws 2A at start up, not while running. And this is basic theme: he does not distuingish between power required for starting the motor and the power required for keeping the motor running. Whether this is technical incomptence or guile, I can't say for sure. But it's such a basic concept, I have to lean towards the latter. Continuing this theme, when he starts his motor, which is connect to a fan, he gives the blade a push to get it started. Yes, you read that correctly, he physically starts the fan moving, his motor just keeps it running.

Now you may be beginning to ask yourself, "Did it actually produce more energy that it used?" The short answer is I have no idea. I have no idea how he "measures" the power output. He has some chart from which he reads the output power, but he's not very clear on what this chart is actually saying or how the chart was derived. What he does not do is directly measure the output power. I would like him to connect a generator to the motor and see what electrical power can be produced. When Joe does this, maybe I'll catch a plane to Pheonix.

There are other technical inaccuracies, like why the current is changing (rotating armature) or why the motor is connected to what looks suspiciously like a car battery, but I think I've already wasted enough time on this.

Alan7Marshall
2002-Feb-18, 05:44 PM
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 (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 (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.


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

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



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


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 conventional 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.

Robert J. Matherne, Physicist

Wiley
2002-Feb-20, 11:24 PM
I just have a few quick questions: Has anyone ever measured the output power? What is the torque and at what speed? Did they measure the input power while measuring the output? How? What was the voltage and what was the current? DC or AC? And if AC is that rms voltage and current?

Has any independent body measure all these things? Besides of course the NBS.

And please no more Roger Hastings testemonials. Hastings is a technical boob. For instance, he is apparently unaware that AC voltages are phasors and phase must be accounted for when adding AC voltages. One should learn this in one's first circuits course. For further proof of his incomptence, see Joe's book.

2002-Feb-21, 10:13 AM
<a name="20020221.3:33"> page 20020221.3:33 aka EEllecTRICK Moto
On 2002-02-20 18:24, Wiley wrote: To: 13 KAN 2 KAYAB
thIS D`Baits getting rather Windy
Time for me to toot my horn 33/rpm
.1 I got E-Mail with a FSU site {didn't visit yet}
2: durring a lull {`65-68ish} I studied "Assaying"{sp}
from E. Snyder {whom it turned out had spent some
Time at Menlo with Edison, He had left Menlo
and gone WEST.The D`spute was then about RADIO.
Edison did not believe in Radio, and assumed that you needed a Wire to conduct electrical experiments. So it goes Radio[?] T.E. [no] E.S. [Y] Me {back to no} [No U can't Use Radio] Tiz an ill-Logical negativFISTs arguement I offer you No Proofs.

Wiley
2002-Feb-21, 08:14 PM
On 2002-02-21 05:13, HUb' wrote:
<a name="20020221.3:33"> page 20020221.3:33 aka EEllecTRICK Moto
On 2002-02-20 18:24, Wiley wrote: To: 13 KAN 2 KAYAB
thIS D`Baits getting rather Windy

Yep, no argument here. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Time for me to toot my horn 33/rpm
.1 I got E-Mail with a FSU site {didn't visit yet}
2: durring a lull {`65-68ish} I studied "Assaying"{sp}
from E. Snyder {whom it turned out had spent some
Time at Menlo with Edison, He had left Menlo
and gone WEST.The D`spute was then about RADIO.
Edison did not believe in Radio, and assumed that you needed a Wire to conduct electrical experiments. So it goes Radio[?] T.E. [no] E.S. [Y] Me {back to no} [No U can't Use Radio] Tiz an ill-Logical negativFISTs arguement I offer you No Proofs.


Didn't T.E. have a financial interest wire over radio? I know he pushed very hard to get DC, not AC, the standard for power, and he lost a good bit of money when AC was adopted standard.

p9107
2002-Jun-07, 03:20 PM
Just out of interest, is it possible to make an artificial gravity machine?

Oh, and I have just learned about smilies, I have to try them out!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif ;0 ;( /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif :0 /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Wiley
2002-Jun-07, 03:38 PM
On 2002-06-07 11:20, p9107 wrote:
Just out of interest, is it possible to make an artificial gravity machine?



Yes, they are called "Whirly-Gigs".*
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

*Or insert your favorite amusement park throw-up ride.

p9107
2002-Jun-07, 04:00 PM
No, i mean, without spining or any movement. Just a machine that sits there.

David Hall
2002-Jun-07, 04:10 PM
Well, my rear end just sits there most of the time. And it feels like it's getting heavier. Does that count?

p9107
2002-Jun-07, 04:16 PM
Well, does it attract other people to you?

If it does, then it might count, I suppose.

David Hall
2002-Jun-07, 04:23 PM
I don't know. Actually I think it gives off some kind of a repellent force. But I haven't been able to isolate it yet.

I guess it probably just doesn't measure up to your exacting standards then. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Phobos
2004-Jan-21, 03:19 PM
Just out of interest, is it possible to make an artificial gravity machine?

Oh, and I have just learned about smilies, I have to try them out!

&lt;IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> &lt;IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif"> ;0 ;( &lt;IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif"> :0 &lt;IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif">

There are two easy ways to make artifiicial gravity in space.

The first is very simple - spinning (as proposed by Arthur C Clarke) It's a pretty efficient method, but requires large spacecraft before to be done well (the main problem with spinning small spacecraft is that the force and direction of gravity vary greatly throughout the spacecraft).

The second method is very expensive on fuel, but the gravitational force created can be a perfect match for Earth gravity. Accelerate (or decelarate) you spacecraft at one G. Here you benifit both from uniform gravitational force, and by reducing your journey time (at the half way stage your spacecraft stops accelerating, turns around and starts to slow down).

Phobos