[RonMaginnis842] Pseudoscience?

[Il Saggiatore]

You want a test of Newman's machine? Use part of the output on the input, and see if you can still drive a load. If the machine does not work with a load, then it is useless.

Newman has used the output torque from his machine to mechanically power a conventional generator upon which loads are placed.

You missed Use part of the output on the input...: if Newman's machine can power itself and still power additional loads, without cheating, then you have case.

The power requirements of that generator & loads clearly exceeds the input power. And that does not take into account the back-emf produced by the machine while it operates.

Show the evidence.

Where do those "internal energies" come from in Newman's machine?

The internal energies come from the conductor coil.

Newman has taught that an ELectromagnetic field consists of "matter-in-motion". And that "matter-in-motion" is identified as a gyroscopic particle (term employed by J. Newman), also called "gyroscopic massergy".

What Newman has "taught" is inconsequential.
Show us one of his devices powering itself and loads, without cheats.
Then we can argue the theory.

Einstein recognized of the fundamental nature of an ELectromagnetic field when he originally wrote his famous equation as: EL = mc^2 -- and later changed it to the broader nomenclature E = mc^2.

This is not restricted to electromagnetic fields.
That's why nuclear bombs and reactors actually work.

Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell both recognized that ELectromagnetic fields consist of REAL, PHYSICAL, MATTER-IN-MOTION.

So, where is the matter in motion in a ray of light?

Michael Faraday wrote:

"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space."

and

"How few understand the physical lines of force! They will not see them, yet all the researches on the subject tend to confirm the views I put forth many years since. Thompson of Glasgow seems almost the only one who acknowledges them. He is perhaps the nearest to understanding what I meant. I am content to wait convinced as I am of the truth of my views."

We have nearly 200 years of research since Faraday.

James Clerk Maxwell wrote:

"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."

That is an unequivocal statement by James Clerk Maxwell. And so that no one might later misinterpret his remarks, he added, with emphasis: "I WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY."

Appeal to authority?
Maxwell was convinced there is a material aether: he was wrong.

Maxwell also wrote:

"The Theory I propose may ... be called a Theory of the Electromagnetic Field because it has to do with the space in the neighborhood of the electric or magnetic bodies, and it may be called a dynamical theory, because it assumes that in that space there is MATTER -IN-MOTION, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced."

It was such an understanding by Faraday and Maxwell of the true, physical nature of electromagnetic fields that influenced Einstein to originally describe his fundamental theory as EL = mc^2.

The term "free energy" (as used by some) is misleading at best and scientifically/economically inappropriate at worst.

However, I do believe it is quite possible to obtain from an electromagnetic system the following:

What you believe is inconsequential.
Where is the evidence?

"Greater external energy output than external energy input." (EEO>EEI)

That is not the same as simply saying "more out than in".

The difference in that externally-produced energy output from that externally-inputted energy input comes from a source INSIDE that electromagnetic system.

The definition is physically worthless.
Cars have "EEO>EEI".

Once atom alignment occurs in a permanent magnet, for instance, the matter-in-motion that comprises the magnetic field within each atom joins together at the instant of atom-alignment and subsequently extends beyond the boundaries of any given atom to create the magnetic field with which we are familiar: the physical lines of force.

Those lines of force are comprised of real, physical, matter-in-motion whose physical interaction with the matter-in-motion of an adjacent permanent magnet's (for instance) magnetic field --- results in magnetic attraction or repulsion, depending upon how those matters-in-motion in those two respective magnetic fields physically interact with one another.

Except that the experimental evidence shows this is wrong.
Where is your evidence?

If one precisely understands the mechanical characteristics of that matter-in-motion, it is also possible to properly harness and extract a portion of that matter-in-motion when it physically interacts with the matter-in-motion comprising the electromagnetic field of a coil of copper wire to which voltage has been applied (inputted) to align the atoms of that coil.

The result is that mechanical, electrical, and/or RF energy can be extracted from that system that exceeds the input energy (high voltage/low current) originally inputted into that system.

*cough*Evidence?*cough*

That is NOT so-called "free energy" in an economic sense because it costs money to obtain such permanent magnets and copper coils.

That is NOT so-called "free energy" in a scientific sense because the energy DOES come from somewhere: it is transferred from one domain to another: from within the permanent magnet and/or copper coil to along the copper coil and then outputted as electrical energy. (It can also be outputted as mechanical energy --- as in the torque of a rotary employed in such a system.)

Ah, so the energy comes from the permanent magnet.
How does this work?
How long does it last before the magnetization is destroyed?
Because you cannot keep the domains in place and aligned if you are extracting energy from them.

I believe that Newman is first person in history to develop an explicit, mechanical explanation for magnetic attraction/repulsion and the phenomenon of Fleming's Rule.

Ron

What you believe is inconsequential: what matters is what you can prove, and so far I have seen no proof, just technobabble.

[Nephtys]

Hey Ron. You totally didn't address half the stuff we brought up. Extends physics? Sure. PROVE IT. It's always been up to the inventor or physicist or whoever to bring up the evidence themselves. Plus, if this worked, people would steal it. Boom. Energy for everyone.

This 'device' also clearly violates various laws of physics. You can't just say 'it expands on them' without bringing up proof and exactly what you expand on. You can't just say it clearly does this or that without showing the numbers and how. Thermodynamics however, is quite clear. No way you can get 100 percent efficiency, or higher, as this guy claims. I'm sorry, but if you're about as bright as a young-earth creationisst if you believe in this trash.

And oh. Physics 101 lesson. Michael Faraday and Maxwell both recognized that electromagnetic fields consist of matter? It's called particle-wave duality. They count as both and neither. Quoting old theories that are irrelevent or disproven really is not proof. So far, even your average episode of Voyager seems more believable than this.

[Lord Zentei]

RonMaginnis842, I suggest you use the Quote tags next time.

The fact that this man has failed to verify his claims with a repeatable experiment under controlled conditions for years on end despite claims of success is what marks him a pseudoscientist.

Technology is about that which works, after all.

[Kuroneko]

As near as I can decipher all this, Joseph Newman's machine is either dependent on an aether-based theory or taps into the energy of virtual particles "directly". With the simultaneous claim that it does not go against current science, according to which, both alternatives are impossible, this leaves me rather confused.

Newman has taught that an ELectromagnetic field consists of "matter-in-motion". And that "matter-in-motion" is identified as a gyroscopic particle (term employed by J. Newman), also called "gyroscopic massergy" ... Those lines of force are comprised of real, physical, matter-in-motion whose physical interaction with the matter-in-motion of an adjacent permanent magnet's (for instance) magnetic field --- results in magnetic attraction or repulsion, depending upon how those matters-in-motion in those two respective magnetic fields physically interact with one another.

If one precisely understands the mechanical characteristics of that matter-in-motion, it is also possible to properly harness and extract a portion of that matter-in-motion when it physically interacts with the matter-in-motion comprising the electromagnetic field of a coil of copper wire to which voltage has been applied (inputted) to align the atoms of that coil.

Under a somewhat liberal interpretation, the above sounds very much like "there is a particle that is the carrier of the electromagnetic force". (Right: virtual photons.) With reference to "gyroscopic particles", what is probably meant is that these particles have have spin. (Right: photons have spin.) In the next paragraph, it is claimed that energy can be stored in the electromagnetic field, since by proxy the field is these particles, and they have energy. (That is also correct: e.g., the Poynting vector, or even more commonly demonstrated by an ordinary capacitor). This forces the following questions:
1) If Mr. Newman's energy machine is dependent on already well-established principles, why not simply explain it in those terms and not muddy up the waters by inventing new terminology without bothering to quantify them? How does the energy machine follow from ordinary physics?
2) If the energy machine needs some principles not already found in established physics, then any literary, non-quantified description of its operating principles will be woefully inadequate. Why make one in the first place if it will just send warning signals to the pseudoscience detectors of most technically-minded people? Assuming it works, it seems more prudent to ask for research on the part of actual physicists rather than making a poor attempt at an explanation. If Mr. Newman really stumbled across something, but is not capable of explaining it in solid terms, either in terms of already existing physics or by formulating new principles, then he should just put it forward to practicing physicists and ask them to determine how it works, and explain it. Since Mr. Newman claims to have some highly qualified followers, this should not be such a problem. Why is there no attempt at this on his pages?

[RonMaginnis842]

Newman has explicitly claimed that the EXTERNAL energy outputted by his system is greater than the EXTERNAL energy inputted into the system. Period. Now, one would suppose that it is not impossible to 1) measure the input energy and 2) measure the output energy. Then compare.

Those comparisons have been made by qualified scientists and engineers and the results of their comparisons validate Newman's claim.

Feeding the output energy back into the device and eliminating the battery (voltage-source) input is a 2nd order magnitude requirement. It is easy? No it is not. And if anyone claims that is easy to do, then I challenge them to do it. Newman describes in great detail why that is difficult. Essentially the problem is one of "timing". And if you know how his commutator system is constructed, then you will understand why timing is so important.

As his system operates, he physicially extracts (actually transfers) some gyroscopic massergies from the copper conductor and they subsequently exit from the system as back-emf. That is sequentially timed by the commutator which is connected to the rotary inside his motor/generator. That output pulse has to be precisely captured, stored, and re-inputted in a manner that is properly timed to the rotor's spin -- otherwise -- like tiny "gears" working against one another --- the system will not properly operate.

But regardless of whether the 2nd order magnitude requirement is or is not effected --- one can confirm that the technology operates as stated: that EEO>EEI. And yes, someone wrote on the list that a gasoline motor achieves the same thing. Yes, and so does a fission reactor. In the case of the latter, the energy source are the atoms within the fuel rods. Newman achieves the same thing --- but he does so ELECTROMAGNETICALLY. In all three cases, the laws of nature are not "violated".

Someone also wrote that the system would degrade over time -- such as the permanent magnet. Newman states that the electromagnetic magnet --- the copper conductor does TRANSFER some of its gyroscopic massergies over time, as the system is continuously pulsed. However, unlike the conversion efficiency of a conventional nuclear reactor (which is less than 1% conversion efficient), the Newman motor/generator approaches 100% conversion efficiency --- thus, the time it takes to degrade the copper conductor to the qualitative equivalent of that of a spent fuel rod is vastly longer (according to estimates made by Dr. Hastings). Sure, it will degrade --- but not measured in 5-10 years (or less) --- but much longer: decades+

I understand that one "energy recycling" method that was tried was to employ an electronic commutator system; even vacuum tubes were tried. In each case the massive back-emf spikes generated by the motor/generator as it operates regularly "fried" the electronic commutator/vacuum tubes. More recently, I'm told that 3 large industrial capacitors have been used to try to capture/store/recycle the back-emf. But with the 7,500-lb Newman machine, those capacitors were max-ed out in about 6 seconds to the point that 2 of them began quickly leaking oil and became useless. However, more experiments with still larger banks of capacitors are planned. Ultimately the purpose is to properly capture, store, and recycle that output back-emf back into the system as applied voltage.

It is the voltage --- not the current --- that is utilized by the system and is the reason why the Newman motor/generators operate "cool".

Ron

[RonMaginnis842]

Someone above spoke of specific test results. Fine.

The following test results (one of many tests) were compiled by Dr. Roger Hastings --- one of the scientists & engineers who has tested Newman motor/generator prototypes and verified the claims as stated:

JOSEPH NEWMAN'S THEORY

by

Dr. Roger Hastings, PhD

Transcribed By George W. Dahlberg, P.E.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result:

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



DATA ON THE NEWMAN MOTOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mechanical losses in the rotor were measured as follows:

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

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

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

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



MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF NEWMAN'S MOTOR

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

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

where

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

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

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

where

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do the constants, K, mean?

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

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

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

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

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

[Signed]

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

[The Spartan]

blahblahblah technobabble blahblahblah massergies blahblahblah

When we said give us proof we didn't want some long winded bullshit about the supposed theory behind it. We wanted experimental results. Actual ones that don't give us some bullshit about the rotational speed and energy dissipation but that show us that EEI does indeed exceed EEO.

And no, you haven't shown that yet. All you've done is post technobabble gobbledygook in hopes of blinding us with reams of irrelevant nonsense.

The bottomline is that he's had this thing for at least 20 years and he STILL can not show that it works as advertised, I don't care what any of his supposed experts says.

I'm starting to wonder just what your motiviation for defending him is considering the only posts you've made are in regards to this.

[Lord Zentei]

This bullshit has been debunked before:

Linky

Good lord, I was going to read through all that, bud decided that Star Trek provided more entertaining technobabble. That was not a compliment mind you.

BTW: a technical description is NOT a scientific test, nor is a test performed before a press conference.

Removed link at user's request.
-Your Friendly, Neighborhood Rampant AI

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

<snip bullshit>

After wading through that missive, it is rather obvious what Newman's machine is. It is a giant magnet which can freely rotate within a coil of wires. It is essentially a conventional generator. Now the free-energy morons will say "It produces a lot more energy than is put in. I mean, gosh, 32 watts out versus 1.2 watts in!"

The rational person immediately realizes that the magnet weighs 700 pounds. Spinning it up (manually in this case) transforms it into a rather massive flywheel. A magnetic flywheel surrounded a lot of conductor.

And what happens when you have a conductor in a moving magnetic field? That's right, you get current. Enough current to power a load. And, given how massive and powerful the magnet was, way more current than the dinky batteries he had connected to it.

Basically what he's created is an enormous DC motor. Apply enough current to the wire, and the magnet will spin up. Spin the magnet up, and current will flow out the wire.

Oh, and by the way . . .

You completely failed to address the question of what happened when uses the output current from the device as the input (in lieu of the batteries.) But that's okay, neither has Newman.

For a sensible treatment of the Newman affair, read this and this.

[Braedley]

Inventor Joseph Newman, of Lucedale Mississippi, has claimed for a number of years that his "energy machine" produces more energy per unit time (in the form of electric current) than it consumes. During the early 1980s, Newman applied for a patent for his device, but the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rejected the application. Court proceedings resulted from this rejection, and the PTO eventually called on the National Bureau of Standards (since renamed as the National Institute of Standards and Technology) to test Newman's claim. The NBS test group reported that the device fully complies with well-known principles of physics and does not put out more energy than it takes in. This document is the report of that test program. NCAS is placing it on the web because Mr. Newman and his supporters continue to make claims for the device to this day, and the report is essential to any serious analysis of those claims.

Taken from the National Capital Area Skeptics website. During their test, they found a maximum efficiency of Mr. Newman's machine to be 77%, on relatively low load, which can easily inflate power consumption calculations. They did correction calculations, and the result they got was between 61% and 73% (the range is due to the fact that they did a statistical analysis on the data, and in fact, they are probably only 95% sure that the true value lies in this range, although the actual confidence interval they used is not given on that page (since your shear ignorance demanded an immediate response, I did not have time to look through the entire document). If you would like to further discuss this small point, I can tell you all that I remember from my stats course that I took last fall).

As the NCAS puts it:

The device's efficiency -- defined as the ratio of output power to input power -- varied depending on the voltage, load on the device, and the degree of degradation of the tape on the commutator of the device. If the device simply transferred the power from the batteries to the load, its efficiency would be 100 percent; in no case did the device's efficiency approach 100 percent.

At all conditions tested, the input Power exceeded the output power. That is, the device did not deliver more energy than it used.

I do not refute the fact that Mr. Newmans machine outputs a great deal of energy. However, the fact still remains that it does not output more, or even nearly as much as is inputted.
If you would like, I will continue to look for more reputable sources that discredit Mr. Newman, but in the meantime, I need sleep so that I can do well on the Electrical Engineering exam I have to write in 13 hours or so!

[RonMaginnis842]

Well guys, let's have some fun. At least I know I will.

You know, what's interesting is to sit back at times and watch across the culture what is essentially like a three-ring circus:

RING 1: THE SUPPORTERS
Those supporters of Newman who've seen his technology, tested it, and verified his claims.

RING 2: THE SCEPTICS
Those who ignore, ridicule, naysay, and/or attack Newman as trying to invent a so-called "perpetual motion machine", yada, yada, yada.

RING 3: THE PLUNDERERS
Those who not only know Newman's technology works, but are actively trying to plunder it and claim it as their own.

Those of Ring 1 oppose those of Ring 2, and vice versa. Those of Ring 2 also ridicule those of Ring 3 (and Ring 1) who ignore those in Ring 2 and oppose those in Ring 1, and vice versa. Yep, it's like a circus.

I predict that there will be RING 4 in years to come:

RING 4: THE S0-WHAT-ELSE-IS-NEWers
Those who know Newman's technology works and who will have the attitude, "So what else is new? Everybody knows it works .... it's 'obvious'".

As C. Morgenstern once said, "The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply."

As has been the case in the history of science:
A new technology is first ignored. Then it's naysayed. Then it's ridiculed. Then it's attacked. Then it's rejected. Then it's examined. (Sometimes it's plundered.) Then it's accepted. Then it's "obvious".

And often those various stages are comprised of different groups of people.

Invariably the inventor suffers through those stages. Sometimes he fights on; sometimes he gives up; sometimes he commits suicide; and sometimes he's successful in his lifetime.

Ultimately, the real loser is the human race --- because the progress of innovation can thus be very slow and tedious.

Ah ... I guess we still have a long way to go as a species.

Well, if we don't fight over remaining supplies of fossil fuel to the point that we blow ourselves up .... we just might make it.

Ron

[Nephtys]

No, the real loser is you. You'd make a wonderful scientologist, with that level of gullibility. For every genius who is not understood, there are ten thousand total fakes. This is clearly one of those ten thousand.

This is clearly a fraud. How many times must it be said? If you can't face reality, don't speak to us who live in it. Go lock yourself away, and we'll remain back in real life, where our fossil fuels are running out. That is still preferable to living in a fantasy world where the world's problems can be solved by magic free-energy perpetual motion gizmos.

[RonMaginnis842]

A NEW PARADIGM

As a young man, inventor Joseph Newman did question "certain things (that) have unequivocally been observed to be so" --- after all, this is one of the principal ways in which new scientific understandings of the universe can occur, by questioning "the accepted explanations" of a given paradigm.

I will pose the following three questions:

1) Why is it that one can move a conductor in one hand physically through the magnetic field of Faraday's Generator, and the (electro)magnetic field 'propagates along the conductor' somewhat faster than the original movement of the conductor (held in your hand) through the magnetic field?

2) How would you mechanically and fundamentally explain Fleming's Rule?

3) How would you mechanically and fundamentally explain Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion?

Question No. 1:

Joseph Newman was raised as a "hard-nosed country boy" (to employ the colloquialism) --- as such, he did not believe in getting "something for nothing" ..... sometimes referred to as "perpetual motion." His mind instinctively rebelled against such a notion.

Yet, when he observed that one's motion (slow) of one's hand holding a conductor wire and moving it through a magnetic field (in a particular orientation) produces an electric field (very fast) along the same conductor, this superficially appeared to him to be a case of one obtaining "something (very fast) for nothing (slow)." He refused to believe this could be the case since he did not believe in "perpetual motion." He chose to investigate further.

Through his studies it became obvious that "something" was ALREADY moving (very fast) in that (electro)magnetic field, and this (very fast) "something" was simply being DEFLECTED onto the conductor as it moved (slowly) through the magnetic field.

This conclusion answered his first question. If he had the attitude of some conventionally-educated scientists he would just leave it at that and be satisfied.

He opted to question further:

What was the precise nature of this "something"?

Also, this question: does this "something" have a MECHANICAL nature?

Well, two of the greatest minds of the last 200 years believed that it DID.

Their names:

Michael Faraday (the mechanical genius)

and

James Clerk Maxwell (the mathematical genius)

I believe I can say that Joseph Newman would prefer to "stand on the shoulders" of these two great men rather than operationally accept the status quo and "lounge on the postulations of some conventionally-educated, present-day scientists."

[I should add that there are certainly those in the teaching profession who are indeed exceptions to the above -- such teachers who are truly curious, rational, and intellectually honest.]

And what did these two men state?:

Well, Michael Faraday wrote:

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

--- MICHAEL FARADAY

and

"How few understand the PHYSICAL lines of force! They will not see them, yet all the researches on the subject tend to confirm the views I put forth many years since. Thompson of Glasgow seems almost the only one who acknowledges them. He is perhaps the nearest to understanding what I meant. I am content to wait convinced as I am of the truth of my views."
--- MICHAEL FARADAY

And what does James Clerk Maxwell have to say on this subject:

"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood LITERALLY. All energy is the same as MECHANICAL ENERGY, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is MECHANICAL energy."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL

That's a pretty strong, rather unequivocal statement on the part of James Clerk Maxwell.

And just so, no one might later misinterpret his remarks, he added, with EMPHASIS:

"I WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY"

Literally.

Well, "literally" in my book means LITERALLY.

And what is James Clerk Maxwell literally saying about the nature of the energy of the field?

--- that ALL --- ALL --- ENERGY is the SAME as MECHANICAL ENERGY....... that all such energy in ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA is MECHANICAL ENERGY.

As physicist Dr. Roger Hastings (who endorsed Joseph Newman's work) wrote regarding Maxwell's emphasis on the MECHANICAL nature of energy:

"This is stated in no uncertain terms in Maxwell's book A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. In fact, Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations. This fact has all but been lost in current books on electromagnetic theory. The quantity which Maxwell called 'electromagnetic momentum' is now referred to as the 'vector potential.'"

And in a reference to the work of Richard Feynman, physicist Robert Matherne (who also endorsed Joseph Newman's work) wrote:

"While reading my Commemorative Issue of The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, published by the Addison Wesley Publishing Company, I encountered a passage on relativistic momentum considerations by Richard Feynman that sounded so similar to what Joseph Newman said in his Energy Machine book, that I wanted to share it. Here's the operant quotation from page 10-9 of Volume I:

'One of the propositions of Newton was that interactions at a distance are instantaneous. It turns out that such is not the case; in situations involving electrical forces, for instance, if an electrical charge at one location is suddenly moved, the effects on another charge, at another place, do not appear instantaneously -- there is a little delay . . . . It takes time for the influence to cross the intervening distance, which is does at 186,000 miles a second. In that tiny time the momentum of the particles is not conserved. Of course, after the second charge has felt the effect of the first one and all is quieted down, the momentum equation will check out all right, but during that small interval momentum is not conserved. We represent this by saying that during this interval there is another kind of momentum besides that of the particle, mv, and that is momentum in the electromagnetic field. If we add the field momentum to the momentum of the particle, then momentum is conserved at any moment all the time. The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy MAKES THAT FIELD VERY REAL, and so, for better understanding, the original idea that there are just the forces between particles has to be modified to the idea that the particles make a field, and a field acts on another particle, and THE FIELD ITSELF HAS SUCH FAMILIAR PROPERTIES AS ENERGY CONTENT AND MOMENTUM, JUST AS PARTICLES CAN HAVE.' [Emphasis added.]

"From the First Edition of The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, page 20, I quote:

'The FACTS above clearly indicate that the magnetic field consists of GYROSCOPIC TYPE MASSERGIES which are the mechanical essence of E = mc(squared) and represent an orderly flow of kinetic energy.' [Emphasis added.]

"Note the similarity between the Feynman and Newman descriptions of the electromagnetic field: both say the field has energy content and momentum. Feynman, however, pulls his punches by inserting the scientific qualification, '...just as particles can have' while Newman says directly the field consists of 'particles in motion.' PARTICLES in motion, by definition, have momentum, and the electromagnetic field, according to Nobel Laureate Feynman, in a stretching of the very definition of momentum, has momentum. Since no one has ever seen either an electric field nor gyroscopic particles (nor will, presumably, they EVER, since seeing requires the objects be larger than a wavelength of light, which they definitely are not), both are legitimate ways of talking about a reality that we cannot observe directly. Feynman's way of talking used the concept of field in the accepted scientific say, up until now. Here's a later quote by Feynman from the same page 10-9:

'To take another example --- an electromagnetic field has waves, which we call light; it turns out that light also carries momentum with it, so when light impinges on a object it carries in a certain amount of momentum per second; this is equivalent to a force, because if the illuminated object is picking up a certain amount of momentum per second, its momentum is changing and the situation is exactly the same as if there were a force on it. Light can exert pressure by bombarding an object; this pressure is very small, but with sufficiently delicate apparatus it is measurable.'

"If the momentum of the electromagnetic fields or particles of the sun's rays can be used, as some scientists have proposed, to build a solar sail to power future space ships throughout the solar system, perhaps the momentum of the electromagnetic fields surrounding large coils of wire can be used to provide an efficient source of electrical power throughout the same solar system without the use of fossil or radioactive fuels. This is the promise of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine and its associated theory."

--- Robert Joseph Matherne, Physicist



But Joseph Newman isn't the only one describing such fields as "matter in motion." James Clerk Maxwell 'beat him to the punch':

Maxwell also wrote:

"The Theory I propose may ... be called a Theory of the Electromagnetic Field because it has to do with the space in the neighborhood of the electric or magnetic bodies, AND IT MAY BE CALLED A DYNAMICAL THEORY, BECAUSE IT ASSUMES THAT IN THAT SPACE THERE IS MATTER IN MOTION, BY WHICH THE OBSERVED ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA ARE PRODUCED." --- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (Emphasis added.)

These are pretty strong statements on Maxwell's part .... and he did not intend for the scientific establishment which came after him to ignore his words.

Operationally speaking, they have.

For the historical record:

I should state that Joseph Newman's conclusion about the fundamental mechanical nature of (electro)magnetic fields was reached years before he became aware of Maxwell's position on this matter. For Joseph Newman, Maxwell's strong statements served as corroboration from a mathematical genius of the rightness of Joseph Newman's paradigm.

All right.... to continue the discussion....
...... MATTER IN MOTION....

Joseph Newman took the concept of "MATTER IN MOTION" and integrated it with his earlier observations regarding Faraday's Generator, i.e., that "something" was ALREADY moving (very fast) in that magnetic field, and this (very fast) "something" was simple being DEFLECTED onto the conductor as it moved (slowly) through the magnetic field.

Next fundamental question:

What is the operational, mechanical nature/behavior of this "something"?

To say that a magnetic field consists of "matter in motion" is an advance in our fundamental understanding of such a field. But it doesn't tell us much about the real, physical characteristics of this "matter in motion."

Perhaps if one was to fundamentally and deeply understand the mechanical behavior of these "matter(s) in motion," then one might be able to even conceive of a new way of constructing Motors/Generators that would enable one to more efficiently harness the pre-existing, real, kinetic, physical, MECHANICAL MOTION of these "somethings."

It was approximately at this point in his studies that Joseph Newman came across Fleming's Rule.



Now, what does Fleming's Rule state?

Fleming's Rule states:

"If the fingers of the right hand are placed around a current-carrying wire so that the thumb points in the direction of the conventional current, the fingers will point in the direction of the magnetic field."

Great. That is a convenient "rule." It is a corroborable-by-observation "rule."

Great. Electrical engineers are aware (presumably) of that Rule.

But accepting the limited paradigm of the Rule does not answer the more fundamental question:

What MECHANICALLY --- physically --- causes the Rule to be true?

That is the more fundamental question that occupied Joseph Newman's mind during the 1960s. He sought an honest answer to that more fundamental question as to what is the MECHANICAL cause of Fleming's Rule. He could not find an answer to that question in any of the books that he read on electromagnetics and electrical engineering. Yet he believed it was absolutely essential to answer that question, if he was to progress in a deeper understanding of the fundamental MECHANICAL nature of (electro)magnetic fields [per Faraday's and Maxwell's statements above].

It was about this time in his studies that he began studying the GYROSCOPE. He had heard that the "gyroscope" was a stabilizer, but did not know much more about its nature. As a hobby, he began mechanically working with gyroscopes and children's bicycles (he converted the bicycle of a neighbor's son to a clutch system to better enable it to perform "wheelies") --- so he began to acquire a first-hand understanding of the behavior of GYROSCOPES.

At one point in this process, he instantly had an answer to the question that had "boggled his mind" for so long: he instantly knew that those "somethings" in that magnetic field surrounding Faraday's Generator individually behaved as miniature "GYROSCOPES."

Many related concepts then began to "click" in his mind. It was then that his real insights into the mechanical nature of (electro)magnetic fields began to generate a new paradigm concerning such fields.

As he explains in detail in Chapter Two of his book: [

Note: I will endeavor to describe only in words what is graphically and with words depicted step-by-step in the book.]

1-A) If one has North and South ends of magnets facing one another with a gap between them (as in Faraday's Generator), if one moves a conductor DOWN at a right angle to the magnetic field, the CURRENT FLOW MOVES LEFT. (Figure 11-A)

1-B) If one applies a downward force to the axis of a spinning gyroscope, it will pivot at a right angle to the force (in this case of Figure 11-A1) it will PIVOT LEFT. Now imagine that this gyroscope has a forward motion at the speed of light as well as spins at the speed of light.

2-A) If one has North and South ends of magnets facing one another with a gap between them (as in Faraday's Generator), if one moves a conductor UP at a right angle to the magnetic field, the CURRENT FLOW MOVES RIGHT. (Figure 11-B)

2-B) If one applies a upward force to the axis of a spinning gyroscope, it will pivot at a right angle to the force (in this case of Figure 11-B1) it will PIVOT RIGHT and opposite to the case of 1-B above. Now imagine that this gyroscope has a forward motion at the speed of light as well as spins at the speed of light.

3-A) Now flip the above-described magnets over 180 degrees: If one has a South and North magnet facing one another with a gap between them (as in Faraday's Generator), if one moves a conductor DOWN at a right angle to the magnetic field, the CURRENT FLOW MOVES RIGHT and opposite to that of case 1-A even though the force direction is the same. (Figure 11-C)

3-B) Now flip the above-described gyroscope over 180 degrees: If one applies a downward force to the axis of a spinning gyroscope, it will pivot at a right angle to the force (in this case of Figure 11-C1) it will PIVOT RIGHT and opposite to the case of 1-B above even though the force direction is the same. Now imagine that this gyroscope has a forward motion at the speed of light as well as spins at the speed of light.

4-A) With the magnets in the same position as 3-A, if one has a South and North magnet facing one another with a gap between them (as in Faraday's Generator), if one moves a conductor UP at a right angle to the magnetic field, the CURRENT FLOW MOVES LEFT and opposite to that of case 2-A even though the force direction is the same. (Figure 11-D)

4-B) With the gyroscope in the same position as 3-B, if one applies a upward force to the axis of a spinning gyroscope, it will pivot at a right angle to the force (in this case of Figure 11-D1) it will PIVOT LEFT and opposite to the case of 2-B above even though the force direction is the same. Now imagine that this gyroscope has a forward motion at the speed of light as well as spins at the speed of light.

5-A) With the magnets in the same position as 3-A, move the conductor vigorously "up" and "down" through the magnetic field, MAINTAINING THE CONDUCTOR FORCE PARALLEL TO THE MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE AND *NO* CURRENT FLOW IN THE CONDUCTOR WILL RESULT.

5-B) Apply a vigorous "up" and "down" force parallel to the axis of the spinning gyroscope. Regardless of how energetically the force is applied, as long as the force remains parallel, the gyroscope will not pivot even though it has a forward motion at the speed of light.

THE ANALOGY OF THE ABOVE TWO EXAMPLES IS SCIENTIFICALLY EXACT!

Once Joseph Newman began to understand that the "mechanically moving somethings" in a magnetic field each possessed a GYROSCOPIC SPIN, then many other insights began to fall into place.

It was at this time that Joseph Newman also began to understand and mechanically explain:

1) Why, in a mechanical sense, does a magnet attract and repel other magnets?

2) Why, in a mechanical sense, do electric charges attract and repel?

3) What is the energy in a magnetic field and what is its source?

4) Did the energy used in creating a permanent magnet have any bearing upon the strength or energy contained within a magnetic field emitted from the permanent magnet once it was made?

As Joseph Newman writes in Chapter Two of his book,

"In the early part of 1965, I eagerly researched the known facts concerning the creation of a permanent magnet. Because I instinctively knew that if the strength of a magnetic field was solely relative to the energy input, then I would know I was incorrect. But if the strength of the magnetic field was INDEPENDENT of the energy input, then I would be even more assured that I was correct.

"Upon examining the known facts concerning permanent magnets, I again knew that I WAS correct."

It took Joseph Newman over 15 years to develop and refine his Theory and Technical Process. It was not until these many years passed did he even construct his first crude, hand-built prototype to demonstrate the operability of his Technical Process. Ironically, Joseph Newman knew that his invention would work and demonstrate the nature of his Technical Process. The prototype(s) were needed to convince the rest of the world. I should add, that Joseph Newman considers his Theory to be far more important than the application.

This attitude on his part is analogous to Einstein and his Theory of Relativity.

For a number of years earlier in the 20th century there was no "proof" of Einstein's Theory -- it was just a challenging (and sometimes upsetting to others) idea in Einstein's head.

It was not until the Ecliptic Expedition of 1919 (Chaired by Arthur Eddington) that Einstein's Theory was corroborated. During 1919, a journalist on hand who was following the Expedition cornered Einstein and asked him, "Dr. Einstein, your entire Theory hangs on the balance of this Expedition. Aren't you a bit concerned as to its outcome?"

Characteristically, Einstein replied, "Oh no. I'm not worried. I know my Theory is correct. The Expedition is only needed to convince the rest of the world."

My introduction to Joseph Newman's work nearly 20 years ago was through an understanding of his revolutionary explanation for Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion. It was at that point that I became convinced of the validity of his Theory.

In essence, a MAGNETIC FIELD mechanically consists of "negative" and "positive" gyroscopic particles having opposite spins and simultaneously traveling in OPPOSITE directions, e.g., the concentric "shells of force" surrounding a bar magnet.

An ELECTRIC CURRENT mechanically consists of "negative" and "positive" gyroscopic particles having opposite spins and traveling in the SAME direction down a conductor wire --- as does light traveling in space through a medium.

"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."

--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL

[RonMaginnis842]

An Interesting Demonstration

One of the more interesting demonstrations of Joseph Newman's energy machine technology was that conducted by engineers from WWL-TV
(CBS-affiliate) in New Orleans. This test was broadcast (with appropriate graphs) on television and later featured on video.

The following is a paraphrase from the original broadcast:

"Eight, slightly-used penlight batteries were connected (in series) to a conventional electric motor. The conventional motor operated for 1 minute and 15 seconds before stopping.

"These same penlight batteries were then connected to a portable model of Joseph Newman's Motor/Generator. This Motor/Generator proceeded to run and a 90-pound magnet continuously rotated for 1 HOUR and 15 MINUTES, at which time the WWL-TV engineers disconnected the batteries because of a lack of time of the part of the film crew which had to return to the TV station to produce the evening broadcast.

"Then, the above-described penlight batteries were then RECONNECTED to the ORIGINAL conventional electric motor and operated THIS motor for TWO minutes and 28 seconds before the conventional motor stopped. This is nearly TWICE as long as the first time (above) --- using batteries that are not supposed to be rechargeable!"

[RonMaginnis842]

A COOLING EFFECT has been observed.

Subject: Newman's Machine V1.4 : A COOLING effect has been observed.

Hi All,

The entropy changes while the Machine runs, a COOLING effect has been observed...

Today, I have conducted a new test about my Newman's machine V1.4. The purpose of this test is to check some eventual changes in the entropy of the Newman Machine.

I have used a dual probes digital thermometer (resolution 0.1 degrees):

- The first temperature probe has been used as reference for the lab temp (21.5 degrees)

- The second temperature probe has been glued directly on the Newman coil. I have waited one hour before starting the test for equalizing the temperature (LabTemp = 21.5 degrees, Coil Temp = 21.5 degrees)

The test has been conducted during one hour.

Time (mn) Temp (degrees)
00 .................. 21.5
05 .................. 21.5
10 .................. 21.4
15 .................. 21.3
20 .................. 21.3
25 .................. 21.3
30 .................. 21.3
35 .................. 21.3
40 .................. 21.3
45 .................. 21.3
50 .................. 21.3
55 .................. 21.3
60 .................. 21.3

The Newman machine has been stopped after the test (a 60 mn run) and 15 mn after the temperature has been EQUALIZED AGAIN at 21.5 degrees. This confirm the cooling effect observed in spite of the mechanical work generated and the joules' effect dissipated in the coil.

The rotation speed was 286 RPM and the coil voltage used 626 V. The differential voltages I/O measured on the "current control flow bridge" was 32V (Input) and 88V (Output) across the 2uF cap with my new fast HV diodes.

Sincerely,

Jean-Louis Naudin

(French researcher who independently constructed a Newman-type Energy Machine)

[RonMaginnis842]

Check this one out:

http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html 


ENDORSEMENT OF JOSEPH NEWMAN'S WORK

BY DISTINGUISHED EXPERT

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Applicant: Joseph W. Newman

Art Group: 212
Serial No.: 179,474

Examiner: Duggan
Filing Date: August 18, 1980 Date: September 1982

For: "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT"

AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL L. GOMORY

STATE OF MARYLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sent/Signed by]

PAUL L. GOMORY


I believe you will agree that the above Affidavit is impressive.

[Signed]
Joseph Westley Newman

P.S.
Remember the specific words of technical expert in electrical engineering and Special Master William Schuyler (former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office) --- Quoting from his Report of the Special Master:

"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.

[RonMaginnis842]

THE ORIGINS OF THE PATENT BATTLE

BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Not so.

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

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

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

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



THE NBS TEST: A BUREAUCRATIC FIASCO

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

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

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

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

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

4) gave the NBS an unlimited period of testing.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



GROUNDING THE DEVICE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES IN THE NBS TEST:

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

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

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

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

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

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


SUMMATION OF ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



FROM THE ORIGINAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS ....

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

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

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

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

THE EXCERPTS FROM THE DEPOSITION:



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



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

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

Q: Yes.

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

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

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

Q: Do you have full signatory authority?

A: Yes.

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

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

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

A: No.

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

A: No.

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

A: No.

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

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

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

A: I don't recall right offhand.

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

A: I don't quite understand that question.

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

A: I've heard of it.

Q: Do you know anything about it?

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

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

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

Q: Could you define the term?

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________
(end of document)

Fortunately, Duggan is no longer with the patent office.

[RonMaginnis842]

FOUR LETTERS FROM A

MATHEMATICAL PHYSICIST

Letter #1

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

Dear Joe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your admirer, Rich
Mathematical Physicist

Letter #2

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

Dear Joe,

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Rich P. Vento
Mathematical Physicist

Letter #3

Gentlemen,

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

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

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

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

Rich P. Vento
Mathematical Physicist

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

Letter #4

Gentlemen:

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

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

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

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

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

Rich P. Vento
Mathematical Physicist

[RonMaginnis842]

JOSEPH NEWMAN'S

STATEMENT TO UNIVERSITIES

The great 19th century innovator of electromagnetism, Michael Faraday, gave personal praise to Professor Thompson of Glasgow as being almost the only one who understood him, when Michael Faraday wrote:

"How few understand the PHYSICAL lines of force! They will not see them, yet all the researches on the subject tend to confirm the views I put forth many years since. Thompson of Glasgow seems almost the only one who acknowledges them. He is perhaps the nearest to understanding what I meant. I am content to wait convinced as I am of the truth of my views."

Michael Faraday recognized that the lines of force of a magnetic field are real, kinetic, physical, and mechanical in nature. This has been ignored in the past 150 years.

Now, ironically and appropriately, history repeats itself in this century.

The following is quoted from Professor Yun Li of E&EE of Glasgow following information sent to him about my work:

"Thank you for sending me such an interesting article (SPECIAL REPORT). I have forwarded the following information to some 100 colleagues. You may get queries from them. If you send further details regarding the motor, I'd be very interested in receiving them."

The following letter was sent to approximately 100 colleagues of Professor Li in response to the article about my work:

"What an interesting article to read! The following mentioned two Glasgow Alumni. One is "Thompson of Glasgow", i.e., William Thompson (Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907, who entered Glasgow University at age of 10). The other is James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879).

"The article described that an electric motor provides an energy as high as the nuclear energy. Do you believe it? You may not believe, probably correctly, that Maxwell's conclusion that electricity, magnetism and light were part of the same phenomenon is true for static (not steady-state) magnetism. Have magnetic mono-poles been found? We know that permanent magnet comes from the aligned gyroscopic self-spin of iron atoms. Owing to the absence of monopoles, the PM can magnetize (almost without losing its own energy) many steel iron pieces (since the flux can always close its loop on its own without the help of further external energy). On contrast, electricity cannot do static charges like this. So I believe in this article, for the energy the motor generates perhaps comes from the coil or PM losing a couple of their spinning atoms.

"The underlying engineering point that this article tries to make is that atoms of a copper wire are aligned by the input voltage and thus the voltage, not the current, should be the driving force of a motor. Thus the motor needs zero current at steady-state. I remember in Wen Soong's PhD thesis, he also mentioned that in an optimal operation the back e.m.f. would be as high as the input voltage at steady-state, which means zero current and power consumption.

Happy reading,

[Signed]

Dr. Yun Li"
Professor, Electrical Engineering, Glasgow



A return letter was sent to Professor Li, thanking him for his sincere efforts on behalf of this important technology. Professor Li responded:

"You are welcome. That was at least what I as an academic engineer should and could do, as I believe new inventions should not be dismissed before people understand them.

Thanks again,

Professor Yun Li, Glasgow"



FACT:

I now have constructed a prototype of my new energy Motor/Generator such that with a load of a 42-inch fan blade, would cause the voltage within a battery pack consisting of 6-volt dry cell batteries to increase. That has been verified by oscilloscope readings measured properly across the battery pack.

FACT:

All conventional teachings state that the battery voltage should decrease with such a load being placed upon a conventional motor.

In light of the courage and scholarly honesty of Professor Li of Glasgow, I thank Professor Yun Li for his overseas support.

[Signed]

Joseph Westley Newman

Additional Note:

Conventional motors are designed with small coils and operate on HIGH CURRENT, low voltage.

Joseph Newman's Motor/Generators have generally been designed with the optimal purpose of "achieving the LEAST amount of current inputted to have the GREATEST amount of atom alignment in the conductor material (which causes the GREATEST magnetic field)."

It is Joseph Newman's position that because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of electromagnetism, all conventional motors have been designed with built-in inefficiencies.

[RonMaginnis842]

HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

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

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

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

NOTE:

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

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

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


*Nomenclature note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gyroscopic Massergy.



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

32.

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

A. FACTS:

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Did they?

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

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

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

QUESTION: What does this Law say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXAMPLE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a most positive, scientific statement.

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

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

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

Joseph Newman

[Nephtys]

This guy's spouting the same crap over and over again. Can someone LOCK this thread?

[RonMaginnis842]

A PRELIMINARY QUANTIFICATION OF NEWMAN'S EFFECT
by Larry Adams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B = w / y

An identity for B is:

B = E / wr

where E is the applied electric field.

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

B^2 = E / yr or,

B = sqrt(E / yr).

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

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

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

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

-- Larry Adams

[RonMaginnis842]

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR ROTATING MAGNET NEWMAN MOTORS

(C)opyright 1991-2005

by

R. M. Hartwell II

The motors demonstrated by inventor Joseph Newman to date have been of two types. The rotating magnet armature version, similar in appearance to a conventional DC electric motor, and the reciprocating or "vertical" design, which resembles a giant solenoid magnet. This discussion will concern itself with the first type of motor, the rotary Newman machine.

NOTE: Since this document was prepared, many advancements, improvements, and/or variations have been made to the Newman Motor designs.

OVERVIEW


The rotating magnet Newman motor is deceptively simple, apparently consisting of nothing more than a large coil of wire,
a rotating magnet armature, and a commutator. Unlike a conventional DC electric motor, however, the Newman motor has no
iron or other ferromagnetic materials in the magnetic circuit. In fact, the presence of any ferromagnetic materials except for
the magnetic armature severely degrades the performance of the machine.

A Newman motor is assembled sort of "inside out" when compared to a regular DC electric motor; that is, the coil is wound around
the magnet, and the magnet rotates, while the coil remains stationary. A commutator is necessary to perform the dual
function of reversing the polarity of the voltage applied to the coil as the magnet reverses position twice per revolution, and to interrupt the current flow through the motor coil many times per revolution according to Newman's theory. The design of this commutator is quite critical to the proper operation of the motor, and is covered in a separate paper written by this author.

THE COIL: OPERATING VOLTAGES



The coil is usually a simple solenoid design, with multiple layers of wire wound on it. Depending on the applied voltage, the wire gauge will vary from 8 gauge to about 32 gauge. The lower voltages use the larger diameter wire, and the high voltage machines will use the finer wire. Newman has used both extremes on his various designs. Note that while Newman prefers the high voltage designs (he feels the high voltage devices have less loss because of the lower current in the windings) he has successfully demonstrated a machine operating on 12 volts DC power input.

My suggestion is to use a voltage no higher than 300, due to the problems with the very high back voltage generated by the
device. Output voltages of 50 times the input voltage are not uncommon with the larger units. These great voltage spikes are difficult to control, and tend to destroy test equipment connected to the Newman motor*. Also, high voltage machines require many more turns of fine wire, with a rather rapid increase in construction effort and cost.


*Note: the voltage spiking problem has been solved with the latest commutator designs.

That permits the utilization of higher voltages without the earlier back-emf problems.

THE MAGNET

I have been asked many times about sources for magnets for Newman motors. My recommendation is to try surplus houses, such
as Fair Radio, Jerryco, or suppliers such as Edmund Scientific Co. These folks usually have surplus magnets in various sizes
at reasonable prices --- at least when compared to new magnets.

What is the best type of magnet*?

Well, for the experimenter, it's most probably whatever you can get at a good price. Newman motors have been built with everything from Alnico (C) magnets to the latest super-powered rare-earth magnets (neos). A popular material is ferrite composition, of the kind commonly used in loudspeakers. These magnets are usually readily available in surplus catalogues, and are not too unreasonably priced. They also are usually made available in large quantities on the surplus market, which is a good thing, since you will probably need quite a few of them, depending on the size of the motor you are building. [Note: neodymium magnets have been used]

If you use magnets such as ferrite loudspeaker magnets, they are usually stacked end to end and covered with something such as epoxy or fiberglass to prevent the assembly from flying apart due to centrifugal force while in high-speed operation. If a single stack is not as powerful as you would like, you can place several stacks side-by-side to increase the magnetic field. The magnets may also be placed inside a non-metallic tube to hold them in place.

How large should the magnet be? I suggest that the weight of the magnetic material in the rotor be made about 1/4 the weight of the wire used in the coil of the motor. That is not an absolute rule, just a first approximation for testing, but it has worked well in previous designs.

THE COIL

What about the coil size? Remember that as the machine grows bigger, everything interacts to cause the price of the parts needed to increase! Design the coil so that it's axis is about 3/4 to 4/5 as long as the rotating magnet assembly. The coil should be close in dimensions to a so-called "square" coil design; that is, a coil which is as wide across its diameter as it is long. That design comes close to giving the greatest inductance with the smallest mass of wire, and also keeps as much of the wire as close to the magnet as possible.

Since the magnet rotates end-over-end inside the coil, the length of the assembled magnetic rotor determines the inside
diameter of the coil. Let's take a few figures as an example. The following is not necessarily a recommendation, but just
serves as an example...


Note: in the newest designs, the magnetic rotor configuration is designed differently.

Suppose the magnet when assembled is 11 inches long. If we allow 1/2 inch clearance between the ends of the magnet and the inside of the coil form, that will make the coil form inside diameter about 12 inches. Allowing 3/4 of that size, the coil would be about 8 inches long.

Since this is a small motor, we might want to make the coil a bit longer, perhaps a full 12 inches. That will allow us to
have a bit more copper wire in the magnetic field of the magnet. The extra wire won't be as effective as the wire near the center of the coil, but every bit helps.

WINDING THE COIL

The thickness of the wire wound on the coil depends upon the size of the motor, and the strength of the magnets. The bigger the motor, naturally, the bigger the magnet, so the more wire is required. I suggest making the wire thickness about 1.4 to 1/3 the inside diameter of the coil. In this example, that would make the winding thickness about 3 to 4 inches. That makes the outer diameter of the coil about 16 to 18 inches in diameter, with a winding thickness on each side of the form.

You can calculate the amount of wire needed by computing the area which will be occupied by the windings. To do that, take the length of the coil, in this case, 12 inches, and multiply it by the winding thickness, which is 4 inches in this example. So, 12 X 4 = 48 Square inches.

The wire will not occupy the entire volume, since the wire is round, and when wound on the form, will not fill the entire
volume. About 70% of the space will be filled by the wire. A table of wire data, such as the one found in the Radio Amateur's Handbook, will allow you to figure how many turns of wire will be required.

Then, you can calculate the length of an "average" turn on the coil by figuring the length around the coil when the coil form is half full, which, in the case of our example here, will be about 16 inches. (12 inches for the inside of the form, plus 2 inches of wire on each side of the form when it is half full). So, 3.1415926 X 16 = 50.26 inches per turn.

Let's suppose the wire we have chosen measures 0.05 inches in diameter. If we were able to wind it evenly so that each turn were side by side, we could get 1 inch / 0.05 inches per turn = 20 turns per inch. So, 20 TPI X 48 square inches = 960 turns on the coil. Since we won't be able to get all those turns on the coil so neatly, we can assume between 70-80% of them will fit. Therefore, 960 turns X .75 = 720 turns expected. Always buy a bit more wire than you figure you'll need, just in case your calculations are a bit off, or in case you really can wind the wire really neatly!

Figure how much wire is needed --- 720 turns needed; let's allow an extra 15%, so 720 X 1.15 = 828 turns. 828 turns X 50.25 inches per turn = 41615 inches, or 3468 feet of wire required. The wire table will tell you how many feet of wire are in a pound for the size wire you have chosen.

A suggestion at this point --- It will probably be cheaper to buy a 50 pound spool of wire then to buy only a couple of smaller spools of wire if you need only 25 pounds or so .... check with several wire suppliers before buying!

INSULATION CONSIDERATIONS

Beware of winding a coil for a motor which will operate on high voltage without using insulation between layers of wire in the coil. It is entirely possible to have a flashover between windings when the motor runs, due to the very high pulse produced by the motor. That is the reason I suggest starting with relatively low voltages. It also makes the commutator design easier.*

Copyright 1991-2005, R. M. Hartwell, II
Electrical Engineer

_________________________________________

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

[RonMaginnis842]

COMMISSION AND OMISSION IN THE ROBERT PARK'S BOOK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RonMaginnis842]

You know, we've got some really arrogant, Olympian mother-fuckers on this list who really, truly, honestly, think they know what the hell they're talking about but, ironically, don't know jack-shit ... or, more accurately, that's about all they know.

The only competent thing they can do is quibble, nitpick, postulate, urinate, jack-off, and post silly, juvenile insults that have the collective value of a warmed-over-dog-turd that they've been using as a dildo to ram up their most stupid fucking assholes.

Other than those tiny, minor deficiencies .... they're a great bunch of sports.

[Note: if this get's me kicked off the list -- I could truly give a mother-flying-fuck! ]

Hey --- if anyone rails against the fuckin' profanity -- please note: I didn't start the bullshit profanity. But I'm more than happy to contribute to it -- assholes. And, also, if any 2-bit geek-twerp hollers "but all this profanity is too much to stomach" --- well, then that geek-twerp can blow cock-suckin farts out of dead rats 'til the olde cows come home to have their pussy-colored udders serviced.

Am I frustrated .. even irritated? No ... I'm having a mudder fuckin' ball!!!!

I've certainly had some shit-ass fun postin only a handlful of posts 'bout joe newman's work.

My lil' fellas* want fuckin experimental data --- I've been mo' dan happy to giv'em som experimental data....

[*Please note: the lil' fellas are either too stupid, lazy, ignorant, or jest plain-olde jack-ass dumb fucks to see/test the technology for themselves. They'd much prefer to jack-off with overwhelming Olympian stupidity behind the safety of their lil' computers rather than make the effort to see & test the tech for themselves. Well, that's O.K. That's why they'll mind-fuck themselves and intellectually-masterbate until they drop dead of their own putrescent stupidity and amount to fuckin' zero .... ... Oh, I know, I'm just a verbal fornicator whose only claim to fame is shit-ass profanity..... HA! Well, my lowly pseudo-compatriots, if any geek-dick-sucker feels that way, please feel free (at your convenience) to eat shit and die! (only kidding, of course)]

With love,

Ron


MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS OF JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ENERGY GENERATOR

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


by

Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D.



Abstract.

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

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



Newman's Theory.

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

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

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

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



Description of Newman Motors.

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

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

Newman's Motors exhibit the following extraordinary characteristics:

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

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

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



EXPERIMENTAL DATA

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

COIL PARAMETERS:

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

ROTOR PARAMETERS:

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

BATTERY PARAMETERS:

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

DYNAMIC PARAMETERS:

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

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



RESULTS: 200 RPM at 590 VOLTS

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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



PHENOMENOLOGICAL THEORY

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

(1) JÒ + F(Ò) = K(sub t)I sin (Ò)

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

where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the expression for the efficiency becomes:

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

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

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



CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

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

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

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

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



REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

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

The latest commutator designs enable higher voltages to be utilized.

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