[RonMaginnis842] Pseudoscience?

[RonMaginnis842]

THE MAGNETIC CURRENT AND SINGLE MAGNETIC CHARGES

THE RESEARCH OF DR. FELIX EHRENHAFT

BACKGROUND:


Regarding lectures concerning Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft's experiments with Photophoresis:

There exists microphotographs of a Photophoresis phenomena for which there is no general explanation. The microphotographs were most interesting in their depiction of the activity of submicroscopic particles suspended in liquids and/or gases.

What is most unusual about the activity of these small particles is the following:

During the course of the experiment, the motion of the particles traced out a "spiral" path. However, upon magnification of a given section of a given spiral, one saw a "spiral" path within the path of the larger spiral. When a section of that second order magnitude spiral path was magnified, one saw an even smaller "spiral" path comprising that second order magnitude spiral path..... and when the third order magnitude spiral path was magnified, an even smaller spiral path was detected.

Continuing "spirals with spirals" paths were detected down to the limits of the magnification technology available to Dr. Ehrenhaft.

Are these "spirals within spirals" are related to the hypothetical motion* of the gyroscopic particle throughout the "shells of force" comprising magnetic fields, as pictured on pages 10/11 of the book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? [*spiraling helix and/or 3-dimensional toroid?]

Also curious is the fact that the winding shapes of some of these spirals in the microphotographs reminds one of the shapes described by Nikola Tesla with respect to Plate XLVIII in which Tesla wrote:

"One of the streamers is wonderfully interesting on account of the curiously twisted and curved appearance. It is hard to conceive how a discharge can pass through the air in this way when there exists a strong tendency to make it take the shortest route."

In viewing these microphotographs by Dr. Ehrenhaft, one has the distinct impression that something phenomenal was occurring, but no definitive explanation for the observations is known at this time.

The following is a paper (one of many) written by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft:

THE MAGNETIC CURRENT

[Published in SCIENCE, Volume 94, No. 2436]

Not only electric current but also magnetic currents flow through the universe.

I reached this conclusion by consecutive and persistent observation of single submicroscopic particles suspended in gases.(^1) Using this method in my small condenser, I can measure forces of an order of magnitude down to 10^-10 dynes. Therefore, my measurement of forces is more sensitive by the factor of 10^4 than any direct measurements of forces made so far. I was able to find new facts because methods of the highest possible sensitivity were used.

These observations can be summed up in two sentences:

(1) PARTICLES OF MATTER, IRRADIATED BY A CONCENTRATED BEAM OF LIGHT, MOVE IN A HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC AS WELL AS MAGNETIC FIELD IN OR AGAINST THE LINES OF FORCE.

(Electro-photophoresis, magneto-photophoresis). I have therefore concluded that these particles are charged under the impact of light. There exist not only electric, but also magnetic charges.

(2) PARTICLES OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE MOVE SIMULTANEOUSLY TOWARD AND AGAINST THE PROPAGATION OF THE LIGHT.

I called the movement away from the light, lightpositive, and that toward the light, lightnegative longitudinal photophoresis.(^2) I have therefore concluded that the light beam has potential differences along its propagation which cause the particles on which charges are induced to move in or against the direction of propagation. To the well-known oscillating fields in the beam of light have to be added these stationary electric and magnetic fields.

Before such fundamental conclusions can be drawn, one must first see if there is no other explanation possible in accord with existing theories. Working for decades on the experiments and their interpretation, I was forced to believe that only such an electromagnetic interpretation can be in accordance with all observable facts.

Heat or mechanical effects --- so-called radiometer forces (Crookes) --- cannot account for these phenomena for the following reason: There is a photophoretic force in liquids which is of the same order of magnitude as in gases, although no radiometer forces exist in liquids. Silver or copper particles in gases which are reflecting strongly exhibit a tremendous lightnegative movement, though they ought to be most heated on the side toward the light, and one would expect a movement away from the light. It seems impossible to explain the reversibility of the particles with corresponding reversals of the field. The energy of the fields alone is responsible for the orientation of the particles and is a quadratic function of the potentials. One therefore should not expect a change of direction in the motion of uncharged particles if the field is reversed.

Were the movement due to heating effects, one could not explain why the particles move across and along the inner part of the beam instead of going entirely out of it. It would also seem strange that the movement of nickel particles under the influence of the geomagnetic field, as
it was observed in my Institute in Vienna, Austria, could be compensated by a superposed magnetic field of about 0.4 gauss.

Furthermore, the movement of the particles always follows the lines of force, no matter from which direction the light may come. This would be impossible if the movement were due to heating effects. That some particles start to move suddenly from rest, that the photophoretic movement suddenly disappears and sometimes increases or decreases gradually, and many other observations cannot be explained by mechanical or heat effects.

When I came to the conclusion that there are single magnetic poles (magnetic charges), it was therefore not necessary to ask if this agreed with existing theories, but rather whether there are any experimental facts that contradict it. It can be stated here that so far there are no experimental facts which contradict this conclusion of the existence of single magnetic poles. A study of the literature made with Leo Banet showed the following situation:

It has been the predominating opinion up to the present time that a real quantity of positive or negative electricity can be enclosed within an arbitrarily chosen geometric surface. But no matter how the surface is chosen, it will always enclose the same amount of south and north magnetism. In other words, there are true quantities of electricity of either sign, but no true magnetic ones. This statement has been made quite clearly by James Clerk Maxwell in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism." Maxwell tried to prove that there was no such thing as
true magnetism. May I remind you here that in principio it is impossible to prove from experiments that something is non-existent. Furthermore, the two experiments which Maxwell quotes are not conclusive:

The first one states that a broken magnet gives two entire magnets with equal poles. If a non-magnetic piece of iron is broken, it can be observed that the fragments become magnetized in various ways on the broken ends. The effect is the same when a non-electrically charged glass or sulfur rod is broken, and shows at the ends various kinds of electric charges. This phenomenon is easily explained, since each breaking creates constriction. Each constriction, however, creates electricity and magnetism. The breaking experiment therefore, does not prove that true magnetism does not exist, as Maxwell stated.

The second experiment, which probably originated with the ancient Chinese and is quoted by P. Peregrinus (anno 1269), indicates that a magnet floating upon water directs itself, but does not move. From this has been concluded that the amount of north and south magnetism is
equal in each magnet. It is easy to perceive that the mobility of such a big floating magnet is much too small to show slight differences of charge. The particles on which my observations were made have a mobility a million times greater than that of the floating magnet of
Peregrinus. Such particles irradiated with light move in a homogeneous magnetic field in the lines of force. Thus my sensitive experiment gives evidence of the existence of true magnetism. In other words, the Peregrini-Maxwell experiment turns out to be positive in my small condenser, when light is used.

My interpretation not only explains all observations in a rather simple manner, but also makes a number of new conclusions possible. One of these is that light magnetizes matter. Leo Banet and I succeeded in magnetizing small pieces of iron by means of irradiation with ultraviolet rays. Lilly Rona has expressed the idea that, concluding from these experiments, it should be possible to extract electricity from the beam of light originating from these stationary components. I believe that she is right, and that it could be done without the use of the photoelectric effect, that means with deteriorating and decomposing matter itself.

Under the influence of the light, matter coagulates more readily because of the induced poles (charges). Sometimes the light separates amorphous and crystalline particles, and sometimes it makes crystals grow toward it (heliotropism of crystals).

Light causes irregularities in Brownian movement and therefore also in diffusion because of photophoresis.

Light causes ponderomotive forces to act upon matter apart from the effects of the light pressure. These ponderomotive forces are produced by the stationary components and induced charges. The latter have attracting or repelling effects.

I determined the magnitude of the charge of the magnetic ion and found it to be of the same order of magnitude as the electric one.

A new phenomenon which I called the trembling effect found a simple explanation, the frequent change of the magnetic charge occurring predominantly in weak magnetic fields in the beam of light.

Leo Banet has drawn important conclusions in regard to the effects on the sun and the earth that will be described in another paper.

Now I shall say a few words about the MAGNETIC CURRENT.

We have shown the existence of unipolar magnetic charges, which flow in a homogeneous magnetic field in or against the direction of the lines of force. This can be observed directly by means of a microscope. Therefore we have to deal with magnetic currents in a physical and technical sense. Around a magnetic current there exists an electric field. Furthermore, a magnetic current produces heat in a medium conducting magnetism.

I have attempted to show that a beam of light causes or induces not only heat and electricity, but magnetism at the same time.

--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.



(^1) F. Ehrenhaft, Annalen der Physik, 56: 81, 1918; Philo. Mag.,11: 141,1931; Annales de Physique, (Paris) 13: 151, 1940; Phys. Rev., 57: 562 and 659, 1940; Jour. Franklin Inst., 230, 381, 1940; Nature, 147: 25, January 4, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft and L. Banet, Nature, 147: 297, March 8, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3, 1941, "The Microcoulomb Experiment" (charges smaller than the electronic charge), see p. 36; F. Ehrenhaft and Leo Banet, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3, 1941. The older references about photophoresis are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151, 1940.

(2^) I have constructed the apparatus on which the above-mentioned phenomena could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New York. Descriptions of the apparatus and of the experiments are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151,1940.



FURTHER FACTS CONCERNING THE MAGNETIC CURRENT

Published in the Journal of the American Physical Society



The hypothesis of the electric current was founded chiefly upon three facts: The existence of electric ions, the decomposition of water (electrolysis), the circulation of the single magnetic pole around the constant electric current. Now those three facts have been observed in magnetism as well: the existence of magnetic ions, the decomposition of water through the magnet (magnetolysis), the circulation of a single electrostatic charge around the constant magnetic current.

In the microscope one observes that different gas bubbles as well as solid particles move in circles around the axis of the magnet simultaneously in opposite directions. Each of them reverses its direction of motion with the reversal of the magnetic field. The bodies carry positive or negative electrostatic charges. The existing laws of electrodynamics (Biot-Savart, H.A. Lorentz) cannot explain the new facts because the electrostatic charges in question are resting ones, etc. Just as the line integral of the magnetic force defines the intensity of the electric current (Ch. Oersted, A. M. Ampere), the line integral of the electric force defines the intensity of the magnetic current. Electricity and magnetism represent an indivisible union, reaching far above the union established by Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz.

The electrodynamic equations must be extended to include the term of magnetic current. These theses will be illustrated by microphotographs of the experiments.*

*The experiments could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New York City.

--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.



See also:

Physical Review, Vol. 65, Nos. 9 and 10, May 1 and 15, 1944, page 287 for letter entitled, "The Decomposition of Water by the So-Called Permanent Magnet and the Measurement of the Intensity of the Magnetic Current" by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft.

See also:

"Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science" --- Ten Lectures delivered at the University of Vienna during the summer semester of 1947 by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, U.S. Visiting Professor [compiled with the assistance of Professor Ehrenhaft, and Dr. Schedling, by J. Ferber and P.K. Feyerabend].

See also:

Lectures delivered in 1949 at the European Forum Alpbach by Felix Ehrenhaft, Karl Popper, Rosenfeld, M.H.L. Pryce, Max Hartmann, Duncan Sandys, Von Hayek, and Hans Thirring.

[RonMaginnis842]

AFFIDAVITS & EVALUATION

DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Signed]

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



To whom it may concern:

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

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

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

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

[Signed]

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

An Evaluation of Joseph Newman's Revolutionary Energy Machine

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

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

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

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

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

VT equals VE

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

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

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

[Signed]

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

[RonMaginnis842]

EXISTENCE OF "LESS-THAN-WHOLE" ELECTRONIC CHARGES

Existence Of "Less-Than-Whole" Electronic Charges
Confirmed At The Weizmann Institute Of Science

REHOVOT, Israel - September 22, 1997 --- Researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have provided the first unambiguous evidence that electrons can behave in an intriguing way that seems to defy common sense. An electron is a tiny particle that carries the smallest negative charge in nature. Yet a daring theory of physics developed 15 years ago argues that under certain conditions, an electric current behaves as if it were made up of fractions of electronic charges.

In an experiment described in the September 11 issue of Nature, Weizmann Institute physicists measured fractional charges one-third that of an electron.

"Mind-boggling as this may seem, this phenomenon is real," says study author Rafael de-Picciotto. "Of course, electrons don't split into fragments in an electric current, but under certain conditions it is indeed possible to measure a charge smaller than that of an electron."

The research team that conducted this experiment included de-Picciotto, Dr. Mikhail Reznikov, Prof. Mordehai Heiblum, Dr. Vladimir Umansky, Gregori Bunin and Dr. Diana Mahalu.



Intuition vs. Reality

Ever since American physicist Robert Millikan first measured the charge of an electron 80 years ago, this value has been widely regarded as a basic unit of electric charge. Scientists have consequently come to view electrons that make up an electric current as a flow of negatively charged, indivisible "balls." A current made up of fractions of an electronic charge, therefore, would seem a counter-intuitive idea, just as it would be absurd to describe a crowd made up of "less-than-whole" people or street traffic made up of "less-than-whole" cars.

However, if electrons are always regarded as "whole," it is extremely difficult to understand and describe their behavior under certain conditions. For example, some particular instances of this behavior, as in a phenomenon known as the fractional quantum Hall effect, observed in a strong magnetic field, remain unexplained.

In 1982, physicist Robert Laughlin of the United States proposed a theory that explained this effect and provided a very simple way of describing highly complex interactions between electrons. However, this explanation came at a "cost": the theory made the bizarre assumption that an electric current can be made up of odd-denominator fractions of electronic charges --- one-third, one-fifth, one-seventh, etc. --- of an electron.

In the new experiment, Weizmann Institute scientists designed a sophisticated system to measure such fractional electric charges, should they exist.

The system makes it possible to measure so-called "shot noise." In day-to-day environment, this noise results from random variations in the number and velocity of electrons and causes popping sounds in radio receivers and snow effects in television pictures. Under special laboratory conditions, "shot noise" can be analyzed to reveal the make-up of the electric current. This is possible because the noise has "ripples" left by the flow of electrons in a conductor. The size of each "ripple" is proportional to the unit of electric charge: the smaller the ripple, the smaller the charge, and vice versa.

The scientists passed an electric current through a semiconductor immersed in a high magnetic field, under conditions in which the fractional quantum Hall phenomenon is observed. They used sophisticated equipment to eliminate all extraneous sources of noise. The "shot noise" made by the current was then amplified and measured. It turned out to be made of charges one-third that of an electron.

"This is a beautiful manifestation of the strength of the theoretical methods used to predict such a counter-intuitive phenomenon," says Prof.
Heiblum.

The scientists' next challenge is to create conditions for the emergence of even smaller charges, one-fifth of an electron, and to measure these charges. This will require even greater refinement of the system because these tiny charges make smaller ripples that are consequently more difficult to measure.

This work was partly supported by the Israel Science Foundation and Austria's Ministry of Science, Research and Art.

The scientists are members of the Weizmann Institute's Condensed Matter Physics Department. They conducted the research at the Institute's Joseph H. and Belle Braun Center for Submicron Research.

The Weizmann Institute of Science is a major center of scientific research and graduate study located in Rehovot, Israel. Its 2,400 scientists, students and support staff are engaged in more than 850 research projects across the spectrum of contemporary science.

[RonMaginnis842]

Thanks for your comments, Dorman.

You wrote:
"What part of traditional mathematics should one decouple from ? What part of traditional mathematics had Faraday ignored ? I am sure one is still to abide by the basic rules of arithmatic, I suspect (the word being used in a good sense) that you mean something more specific..."

What I saying is that you CAN develop a useful paradigm with respect to the subject Newman addresses without the tool of mathematics. That is NOT to say that mathematics is not a very valuable tool (please pardon the double negative) --- but one can develop a "mechanical model" that provides fundamental insights into observable phenomena from a new perspective.

You wrote:
"Do you mean there are actual particles of matter that can be seen to be moving?"

Yes (in a sense from our frame of reference) ---- but note that the "actual particles" are simultaneously "mass" AND "energy" and, what is significant for this discussion is not that they be tagged specifically as "mass" or "energy" --- but that their important mechanical characteristic is their GYROSOCPIC spin. Another way of looking at it is that they are NEITHER "mass" nor "energy" --- but, rather, BOTH at the same time .... or, if you prefer, call them something else. I accept the term "gyroscopic MASSERGY."

You wrote:
So Newman's theory is just the same as Maxwell's ? Or does he contradict Maxwell somewhere ?

Newman's theory is a MECHANICAL theory. Newman has stated that based on Maxwell's writings, Maxwell understood the fundamental nature of electro-magnetic energy in the sense that such energy is MECHANICAL in nature and LITERALLY consists of MATTER-IN-MOTION.

You wrote:
"Will `push' vs. `pull' give an answer ? Maybe that's completely stupid.... Anyway, how do the X particles answer this ?"

It is the manner in which the gyroscopic massergies mechanically interact with one another (described in detail by Newman) which result in such observables as magnetic attraction/repulsion and the effects described by Fleming's Rule. It is how the PERIPHERIES of these "X's mechanically interact with one another that is key to understanding Newman's paradigm. Note the earlier comments relating to how moving a conductor between two magnetic poles (the discussion of Faraday's Generator in a separate post to this forum) is mechanically equivalent to the actions of a gyroscope. That is a beginning discussion of how Newman's introduces the subject of his mechanical paradigm.

You wrote:
"You mean the copper gets somehow magnetised?"

Yes. Newman has written, "copper is extremely magnetic --- so much so that it "deceives" the observer. [Conventionally-speaking, bars of certain elements such as copper, when freely suspended in a magnetic field arrange themselves at right angles to the lines of force of the magnetic field -- i.e., they are magnetized in the opposite direction to the magnetizing field. Such elements are called diamagnetic.]

As Newman describes in detail, the atomic domains of the copper atoms in the conductor coil of his Motor/Generator system are repeatedly/instantly aligned- and then instantly disaligned- causing them to release from the physical domains of individual copper atoms, fields of gyroscopic massergies that continually/repeatedly expand and contract from their originating atomic domains. A certain number of those gyroscopic massergies return to the atomic domains (which they comprise) while other gyroscopic massergies mechanically interact with the coil (via their periphery spin) and are "extracted" from the system as back-emf. Newman describes that process step-by-step in detail with associated graphics.

You wrote:
"Now I begin to understand (maybe). So this X is different from the usual matter I was earlier thinking in terms of. Does it also exist in vacuum ?"

In Newman's view, the gyroscopic massergy is the fundamental unit of the universe. I realize that some people have difficulty integrating in their minds this concept of the gyroscopic massergy with the classical concept of the atom and its constituent parts --- the neutron, proton, electron, etc. Newman claims that the 'classical' particles are composed of the more fundamental gyroscopic massergy, which is far, far smaller than conventional atomic/sub-atomic particles.

Personally, I like to think of it in terms of the following crude analogy:

The classical part of the atom -- neutron, proton, electron, etc. -- represent the STRUCTURE of the atom, just as your bone, organs, etc., comprise the STRUCTURE of your body. The gyroscopic massergies -- which continually flow interchangeably through that atomic structure -- represent the flowing SYSTEM of an atomic domain, just as your blood flows as a SYSTEM throughout the entire STRUCTURE of your body.

By that crude analogy, there would be TWO ways to obtain "blood" from your body: one could literally extract your organs, for instance, and squeeze the blood out of them. That would not be very efficient and would be "messy". Consider how inefficient and "messy" is nuclear fission with respect to resultant nuclear wastes, for instance. The second way would be to simply extract the already-flowing blood from one of the conduits in your body. That would be far more efficient and less "messy". It would also be less 'destructive' to the organism (or the atom).

Thus, what I'm suggesting is that we need to have an entirely new understanding of the atom.

In terms of what Newman has understood and accomplished, you could say that he is "converting mass to energy" (to use the classical terminology). But that is a limiting paradigm due to our previously limited understanding of the atom.

What he is REALLY doing is TRANSFERRING the "X" (the already-moving gyroscopic massergy) from a given atomic domain in the copper conductor of his system to become part of the electrical output of the system.

And thus, the gyroscopic massergy is NOT being either created nor destroyed, but is only being TRANSFERRED from one domain to another.

For instance: someone holds a length of copper wire in their hand and physically moves it --- relatively SLOWLY --- in a particular direction between two magnetic N and S poles (as in Faraday's classic generator) --- and a current travels along that conductor at a rate that is SUBSTANTIALLY faster than the original motion of one's hand holding that wire.

Newman concluded, therefore, that "X" was already moving in that field and that "X" was simply deflected unto the conductor. So what is that "X"? And what is the mechanical essence of that "X"? I believe it is Newman's position that the gyroscopic massergy (the "X") is far smaller than, and actually comprises the electron as well as other atomic particles. Consider if you will, the example of a lead shield, say about 3/8 inch thick. Such a shield will block atomic particles --- yet, if you have a very powerful permanent magnet placed on one side of that lead shield and sprinkle lead filings on the other side, those filings will still be affected. That example suggests that the "X" comprising that magnetic field are far smaller than conventional atomic particles and are thus able to easily penetrate the lead shield.

So what is the "X"? Newman is the first person that I know of who has provided a complete mechanical explanation for magnetic attraction/repulsion as well as Fleming's Rule -- the right-hand rule. Any electrical engineer is well aware of that rule --- but he only understands its EFFECT. He cannot explain in a fundamental mechanical way WHY the right-hand rule acts as it does.

You wrote:
"Wow ! But if Einstein lived for 50 more years after he first gave E=mc^2, why did he never correct this typo? Come on, I like the X particle bit, but this is a bit crazy, no?"

What do you mean by "typo"? Obviously it was not a "typo" in the traditional sense of the term since the document was hand-written not typed (on a typewriter) or typographed (on a letterpress).

For me, there is a difference between hitting the wrong key on a keyboard VS taking the time to physically "write" the letters "EL" --- I would postulate that Einstein deliberately thought/considered what those letters signified at the time he wrote them.

My take on the "EL" nomenclature is that was how Einstein INITIALLY viewed his now-famous equation and then he adjusted it to make it more general. And, for me, the earlier nomenclature suggests the influence of Maxwell's work upon Einstein's thought processes at that point in their development. (Note: I'm NOT suggesting that Einstein's "E" nomenclature is WRONG --- only that "EL" is a sub-case of "E".... and that Einstein's correctly opted for the more GENERAL "E" nomenclature.)

Regarding your closing comments about the nature of the "X" (what Newman calls the gryoscopic massergy) -- I appreciate your curiosity and interest in understanding the fundamental nature of the "X". As I understand it, Newman focus principally on the GYROSCOPIC mechanical nature of the "X" and how groups of "X's" interact to generate observable phenomena.

I've talked with those who say that Newman has his own personal hypotheses regarding the "ultimate nature" (whatever that means) of such gyroscopic massergies, how they came to perpetually spin at c and move at c, that they cannot be created nor destroyed, and how they are the fundamental units of our universe. I believe that he would regard those views as hypotheses --- and his principal focus is how the gyroscopic massergies mechanically interact with one another to generate magnetic attraction/repulsion (he has detailed pictorial representations of such interactions) and can be mechanically understood to assist in designing a system that provides for a new method of generating energy.

Thanks for your questions, Dorman!

Regards,

RM

"It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks he already knows."
--- Epictetus

[RonMaginnis842]

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

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

1) The electrical energy output is measured at more than four times the
electrical energy input. [Note: This _does not_ violate the Law of
Conservation of Matter/Energy if one considers the source of the additional
output to be the conductor coil in accordance with E = mc^2.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RonMaginnis842]

LETTER FROM

COL. THOMAS BEARDEN

The following is the original letter from Thomas Bearden regarding energy machine inventor Joseph Newman's pioneering work:

"Mr. Newman is a successful inventor with patented, marketed inventions. He is level-headed, sober, sane, and reliable. Further, he does have a very good Theory to explain what he has done. Many Doctors of Physics and Doctors of Electrical Engineering have already visited him, seen and tested the Motor, examined his Theory, and come away convinced that Joe Newman has what he says he has.

"As one might expect, the patent commissioners' responses have been totally inappropriate. Joe Newman has yet to have a fair shake, and he certainly deserves a patent, simply on the credentials of the scientists and engineers who have already examined the device and testified that it works.

"Newman's machine is clean as a newborn baby and non-polluting. In production it will be simple, cheap, practical, and imminently affordable by the average person.

"For that very reason, the entire massive energy cartel and control groups of the world are arrayed against him. They will see to it that Newman is destroyed unless powerful assistance and countermeasures are taken immediately. As you so well understand, Joe Newman doesn't have a TECHNICAL problem; he has a POLITICAL problem."

----- THOMAS BEARDEN, 1984

There are individuals who have copied the work of Joseph Newman and in some cases have attempted to claim it as their own.



The following is quoted from the January-February, 1986 issue of INFINITE ENERGY NEWSLETTER, Volume 1, Number 7, written by Gary Kring, NEF President, page 13:

"...I received a xeroxed copy of an article in LET'S TALK MAGAZINE, a publication of radio station KABC in Los Angeles, send to me by NEF members, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Hay. The article was written by Bill Jenkins, the host of the "Open Mind Show." A year or so ago, Jenkins had interview a theoretical physicist named Tom Bearden on his program. "We were discussing Nikola Tesla and T. Henry Moray," writes Jenkins, "and the very real prospect of today's science finally being able to achieve what those physicists had sone years ago: tap an energy source which was limitless and free."

"John Bedini, a young designer of audio devices and speakers, was listening to the program. Impressed with Bearden's ideas, Bedini began tinkering with his own energy multiplication device. After long conversations with Bearden of Alabama on the phone and much testing, Bedini was sure he had a device that put out more energy than it took in.

"Mr. Bedini had not wanted to patent the device but rather make it immediately available to the people of the world. When radio host, Bill Jenkins, got word of the device, he sent Dr. Patrick Flanagan, an electronics genius in his own right, to test it. "It worked," says Jenkins. "He had successfully developed a device that literally draws upon the free electrons which swirl around us, all the time, and harnessed them into doing work.

"Seeking to understand more about the nature of this alleged 'free energy' device, I read the text of a speech by Thomas Bearden, titled, 'Toward a New Electromagnetics,' as it appeared in an edition of Energy Unlimited. Bearden states that 'the universe is filled with fantastic amounts of anenergy; ultimately, that is what the universal vacuum is.' Anenergy, Bearden defines as a flow or flux of virtual particles -- bringing to mind Joseph Newman's concept of gyroscopic particles." (end of quote from INFINITE ENERGY NEWSLETTER)

__________________________________________________________________

The point of the above information is that Bedini apparently "learned" how to construct such a device from Mr. Bearden. Mr. Bearden in turn apparently "learned" how to build such a device from two gentlemen (friends of Bearden) whom he sent from Huntsville, Alabama to visit Joseph Newman and see a working prototype in the early months of 1984 --- we have a photograph of their visit with Joseph Newman. Those two gentleman reported back to Mr. Bearden as to how Joseph Newman's machine operated. One could easily hypothesize as to why Bedini wasn't interested in patenting the invention: it wasn't his to patent in the first place.

Joseph Newman had originally filed a patent application five years earlier (before 1984). And that patent application was, in turn, based upon more than 14 years of research and experimentation by Joseph Newman dating back to the mid-1960s.

Moreover, Thomas Bearden's "anerergy particles" --- Joseph Newman's gyroscopic particles [a.k.a. "gyroscopic massergies"] --- specifically originate from the magnetic fields generated in the coil and magnet rotor of Joseph Newman's Motor/Generators. Joseph Newman has described that mechanical process in great detail in his fundamental book.


Joseph Newman has described his technology as "producing greater external energy output than external energy input." [EEO>EEI]

That occurs in accordance with the concept that "energy cannot be created or destroyed --- only converted from one form to another." It is PRECISELY for that reason that he originally began his pioneering research in the mid-1960s. And, since his technology does indeed produce greater external energy output than external energy input, it represents a fundamental corroboration of the First Law of Thermodynamics and extends the concept into the ELECTROMAGNETIC "conversion"* of mass to energy.

*Actually, in a very fundamental sense, it is incorrect to claim that mass is "converted" into energy. Operationally speaking, the fundamental units are TRANSFERRED from one domain in the universe to another. Such fundamental units are simultaneously "mass" and "energy".

To further explain ---

Joseph Newman has never called his pioneering technology either "free-energy" or "zero-point-energy". The term "free-energy" is actually scientifically inappropriate: the technology is neither "free" in an economic sense NOR in a scientific sense. Why? Because:

1) It does cost SOME amount of resources/money to build a unit and,

2) The energy output DOES have to come from somewhere --- in this case from the atomic domains of the copper conductor.

The correct way to view the technology is that Joseph Newman is transferring gyroscopic massergies (originally termed gyroscopic particles by Joseph Newman) from one domain in the universe to another. Another way to describe the technology (as stated above) is to say that the energy machine "generates greater external energy output than external energy input" (EEO>EEI).

I will make the following statement and THEN I will "correct it":

The Newman Motor/Generator converts mass to energy ELECTROMAGNETICALLY

rather than through nuclear fission or fusion.

The above statement will enable someone not familiar with the technology to better understand what is happening.



Now I will correct or, more accurately, "refine" the above statement:



Actually, mass is never "converted" to energy. Why? Because "mass" and "energy" are not only equivalent but such terminology represents two macroscopic manifestations of the SAME phenomena.

The fundamental unit of the universe is the gyroscopic massergy.

All atoms and all subatomic particles are composed of combinations of gyroscopic massergies. The gyroscopic massergy "perpetually" spins at "c" (the speed of light) and moves in some direction at "c". Thus, the gyroscopic massergy is the mechanical equivalent of Einstein's equation of e = mc^2. However, the gyroscopic massergy is not "mass" one instant and then "energy" the next instant. The gyroscopic massergy is simply what it IS: it is something that is simultaneously BOTH mass AND energy!

It is how WE perceive it at different times that WE choose to describe it as either "energy" or "mass". But, from the gyroscopic massergy's perspective it is what it is --- and NEVER changes its mechanical behavior.

It is therefore correct to say that gyroscopic massergies are physically TRANSFERRED (not "converted") from one domain or location in the universe to another. When they are operating in one location (as within the atomic domains of the copper conductor), WE choose to call them "mass". When they are physically transferred to another location (as moving down the length of the copper conductor), WE choose to call them "energy". But they, themselves, are unchanging in their fundamental mechanical behavior and cannot be created nor destroyed.

Thus, Joseph Newman does not subscribe to the "ZPE" concept: that the energy produced by his Motor/Generator comes from the "aether".

The source of the gyroscopic masserges ARE the atomic domains of the copper conductor.

The true pioneer of this revolutionary technology is Joseph Newman.

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

--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL

[RonMaginnis842]

LIGHT and QUANTUM MECHANICS:

Additional Verification

by Joseph W. Newman



As though to seemingly coincide with the corroboration of my work by the "falling gyroscope experiment" conducted by the Japanese scientists at Tohoku University, the following article was brought to my attention [as published in the Rocky Mountain News, September 23, 1997]:

SCIENCE NEWS BRIEFING - Physics

SCIENTISTS BEAM AT CREATION:

"A trailblazing experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California has confirmed a long-standing prediction by theorists that light beams colliding with each other can goad the empty vacuum into creating something out of nothing.

"In a report published this month by the journal PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 20 physicists disclosed that they had created two tiny specks of matter --- an electron and its antimatter counterpart, a positron --- by colliding two ultrapowerful beams of radiation."

Joseph Newman continues:

Note: The above article states that two light beams collided and "CREATED SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING."

Fact: If you have nothing, you will NOT create anything (from that "nothing").

In Chapter 10 (entitled "Quantum Mechanics") and Chapter 11 (entitled "Light") of my book [The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman] I prove in a factual way that light consists of gyroscopic particles.

Specific note on page 73 in which I predicted:

"Gyroscopic Particles influence one another and subsequently, SUCH INFINITELY-POSSIBLE-DEGREE-GYRATIONS FORM INFINITE TYPES OF MATTER."

Note: Exactly as I predicted --- The scientists at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center had light beams collide with one another. And, as I predicted, the GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE composition of light causes such gyroscopic particles to mechanically influence one another and, as a result, move at right angles to the force of one another in collision. As a result, such gyroscopic particles began gyrating around one another to form matter.



I ask the reader to ponder the fact that in my book I mechanically prove with one Mechanical Explanation of the GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE:

The Mechanical Essence of Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Inertia, Light, an explanation of the Wave/Particle question of Light, the Universal Electromagnetic Composition of Matter, and a New Source of Energy on a 100% conversion of matter to energy in accordance with E=mc^2.

I ask the reader to consider that prior to my work, no fundamental mechanical explanation has ever been provided for even ONE of the above.

Once again, in gratitude to Dr. Robert Smith (Chief of Space Environment, NASA in Huntsville, Alabama) who had other physicists and engineers try to debate with me my life's work during the mid-1970s:

Such physicists and engineers specifically commented: "They would not attempt to debate me since I did not employ higher mathematics, but they wish to complement me for my diligent efforts to put forth a UNIFIED MECHANICAL FIELD THEORY."

Up until the time of their specific comment, I had been so intent on discovering truth, that it had not even dawned on me that I had, in fact, (mechanically) Unified the Fields until they brought it to my humble attention.

Interestingly enough, such great scientists as Erwin Schrodinger, Albert Einstein and others believed and predicted the possibility that a simple, mechanical explanation would replace "the mess of formulas which totally surrounds our subject."

Even the great mechanical genius, Michael Faraday, wrote to James Clerk Maxwell in 1857: "When a mathematician engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formulae? If so, would it not be a great boon to such as well to express them so --- translating them out of their hieroglyphics that we might also work upon them by experiment?"

Scientists have also long-debated whether Light was a Wave or a Particle.

In Chapter 11 entitled "Light," I have proven factually that "Light is electromagnetic in nature and consists of 'negative' and 'positive' gyroscopic particles traveling in the same direction and having opposite spins." Such gyroscopic particles mechanically explain the Wave and Particle Theory of Light.

The above-described tests conducted by scientists at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center verify EXACTLY WHAT I HAD PREDICTED.

I conclude the Chapter on Light with the following comment:

"By studying what I have written, you have glimpsed the Mechanical Essence of Quantum Mechanics: THE GYROSCOPIC-ACTION-PARTICLE. This 'Gyroscopic-action-particle' is the basic building block of ALL matter and is the mechanical essence of E=mc^2 . . ."

At the beginning of my Chapter on Light I feature a quotation from John Archibald Wheeler who predicted that what I have done, would be done:

"Someday we'll understand the whole thing as one single marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful that we may say to each other --- 'Oh, how could be have been so stupid for so long? How could it have been otherwise!'"

TRUE! And the "one single marvelous vision" is: THE GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE.

I urge the reader to review Chapter 10 encompassing Quantum Mechanics which is a prelude to Chapter 11 entitled "Light." May it stimulate your mind for truth.

Joseph Westley Newman

[2000AD]

So basicaly he completely ignored most of the posts that refuted him and posted a shitload of crap?

[Imperial Overlord]

He's spamming us without mercy. He's either a troll, a moron, or an investor. Possibly all three.

[Winston Blake]

He's spamming us without mercy. He's either a troll, a moron, or an investor. Possibly all three.

Hell, i wouldn't be surprised if he was Newman himself. Although that and option 2 probably aren't mutually exclusive.

[Imperial Overlord]

If he's Newman, all three apply.

[The Spartan]

blahblahblah technobabble blahblahblah bullshit appeals to authority blahblahblah baseless accusations blahblahblah "proof" blahblahblah

So, Mr. New...errrr, I mean Maginnis. Are you going to not spam us with mountains of bullshit and give us actual proof? Maybe address GrandMasterTerwynn's question about using the output of the device as an input? Or are you going to continue trying to overwhelm us with reams of technobabble gobbledygook and appeals to authority? Anything of substance at all?

Spamming us with ridiculous amounts of information will not make our eyes glaze over and cause us to acquiesce. Most of us either have Hard Science degrees, have highly skilled science debating skills, and/or very finely tuned bullshit detectors. So you're going to have to do better than this.

If you really want to convince us, have your... errr, I mean Newman's machine tested and published by a peer reviewed journal. Oh wait that's right, you, I mean he can't do that because it's bull... err, I mean, they might steal the design....

I second what Nephtys said. Can someone lock this thread? And possibly even bring this joker to Mike's attention? I suspect he's got ulterior motives involved with this.

[Braedley]

All I see is a mountain of crap. Ron, if you really want us to take you seriously (and currently, none of us do), you will not spam a forum with totally useless testimonials, and if you feel the need for us to read an article, you will LINK it! At least that way, someone may read it!

BTW, in one of the articles, I saw a bunch of equations, and as I stated in an earlier post, I'm an engineering student, which puts me in a position to comment on them. From what I could tell at a glance, none of the units matched up (not that the author showed any to begin with), which totally invalidates the equation.

Also, I believe that, given a few days, I could present a simple electrical circuit who's apparent output power exceeds the apparent input power (apparent power generated by a resistor is simply the absolute RMS voltage drop accross the resistor times the absolute RMS current through the resistor when using a sinusoidal sorce). However, it will also be shown that the usable power (in the form of heat) produced at the resistor is much less than what is actually inputted, and what is actually stored in the capcitor(s) and inductor(s) at any given time.

Geez, my semester's over in 5 1/2 hours and I'll be doing more school work to prove this guy's wrong. Anyone else see a problem with this?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

<Ten posts of worthless free-energy woo-woo palm-fucking trolling asshattery snipped.>

Posting the insane bullshit rantings of Newman, and electromagnetic research that is not only two centuries out of date, but has been refuted, superseded by something better, or outright withdrawn by the original researchers is not proof that Newman's DC motor is anything more than a simple DC motor.

Of course, I bet you believe in crystal energy, UFOs, and homeopathy too.

Also your fallacious appeals to authority are equally worthless. The Patent Office has put its rubber stamp on inventions that are, frankly, ludicrous. The US Patent Office is not a credible authority. A court of law is not a credible authority on engineering or physics.

There is still no mention of what happens when you take the output of Newman's device, and use it as the input to the device. If it really produces more power than it uses, then the result should be perpetual motion machine.

Your debating tactic of dump a mountain of bullshit on your opponent and hope they suffocate or flee the field is classic troll behavior.

You, sir, are useless.

[RonMaginnis842]

Insults, like crap, cuts both ways. You insult me, I'll insult you. You asked for explicit reports from experts who have seen/tested the technology and I provided it. You asked for measurements and test reports of the technology and I supplied it. Now the data and information provided gets dismissed by you as a "load of crap". Well, your statement and opinion in that regard is a load of crap. If you're too stupid, ignorant, or just plain olde dumb to understand the significance of what was posted --- that's your problem.

Someone wrote:
"There is still no mention of what happens when you take the output of Newman's device, and use it as the input to the device. If it really produces more power than it uses, then the result should be perpetual motion machine."

That's pure bullshit. That question was addressed. If you still don't understand it, reread the comments posted on that subject until you do. And, just how many times in how many different ways do I have to explain that the machine does NOT "produce more power than it uses". Your use of that expression demonstrates you have no comprehension of the nature of the technology. If you're too much of a moron to understand why that statement by you is fallacious, then you can stick your head in a barrel (of increasingly expensive crude oil) and suck it up.

Some idiot writes:
Also, I believe that, given a few days, I could present a simple electrical circuit who's apparent output power exceeds the apparent input power (apparent power generated by a resistor is simply the absolute RMS voltage drop accross the resistor times the absolute RMS current through the resistor when using a sinusoidal sorce). However, it will also be shown that the usable power (in the form of heat) produced at the resistor is much less than what is actually inputted, and what is actually stored in the capcitor(s) and inductor(s) at any given time.

What a load of crap. Once again read (and understand) the information I posted on the list and you'll just how stupid your comments are.

Another idiot posts:
"Your debating tactic of dump a mountain of bullshit on your opponent and hope they suffocate or flee the field is classic troll behavior. You, sir, are useless."

No, idiot, it is you who are useless -- and whose responses are pure bullshit. And how can one 'debate' with an idiot (you)? I provided information to those with enough of a mind to comprehend it. Obviously, that does not include yourself. Do me a favor: go back to you sceptic tank and suck up the droppings from the parrots your parrot.

As to the "publishing for peer review" approach --- Newman devotes an entire chapter describing in detail the pass-the-buck run-around he got years ago naively attempting to go that route. Screw the "peers". In Newman's case he has no "peers" because he is the innovator of a new technology which his "peers" (in general, with notable, open-minded exceptions) are incapable of understanding as a result of their inherited prejudices, bias, and parrot-like "learning" skills.

Yeah, he plans to demonstrate his new technology including the major innovations he's added to his fundamental designs. Will you have the curiosity to see it for yourself?

I won't hold my breath.

[Kuroneko]

Mr. Maginnis seems well-versed in Mr. Newman's invention, so he should have no problem explaining the relevant physics himself in a more concise manner. In any case, any attempt at such should be made one step at a time. The beginning seems to be the analogy of the gyroscope, with justification of the permanent magnet, which seems just a long-winded way of saying that the constituent particles have spin, and consequently a magnetic field. This is so much like discovering America through the toilet window (if I care to look, there it is) that I have to wonder what the point is. (Although the analogy is not quite exact, as the particles and actual gyroscopes have different rotational behaviors.) Is there any deeper meaning to this analogy?

[Darth Wong]

Anyone who says that going straight to the public via a website is a superior establishment of credibility as compared to the scientific peer review system is obviously an idiot, a liar, or both. Einstein found the peer review system adequate for his theory of relativity, so it should be more than adequate for this bullshit.

Mr. Maginnis, your next post had better be a concise explanation of the physics involved, in your own words. No more bullfuckery and smokescreens via volume.

[Il Saggiatore]

Insults, like crap, cuts both ways. You insult me, I'll insult you.

Who cares about the insults?
We asked for evidence.

You asked for explicit reports from experts who have seen/tested the technology and I provided it.

We asked for evidence and you give us reports from "experts".

You asked for measurements and test reports of the technology and I supplied it. Now the data and information provided gets dismissed by you as a "load of crap". Well, your statement and opinion in that regard is a load of crap. If you're too stupid, ignorant, or just plain olde dumb to understand the significance of what was posted --- that's your problem.

Someone wrote:
"There is still no mention of what happens when you take the output of Newman's device, and use it as the input to the device. If it really produces more power than it uses, then the result should be perpetual motion machine."

That's pure bullshit.

It is obvious that you have no clue: you said "EEO > EEI".
If this correct, you can take some of the "EEO" and use it as "EEI" and still have some "EEO" left to be used on a load.
That's not too hard to understand, isn't it?

That question was addressed.

The part where you said something like "it's a question of timing"?
Now, that is bullshit.

If you still don't understand it, reread the comments posted on that subject until you do. And, just how many times in how many different ways do I have to explain that the machine does NOT "produce more power than it uses".

So now your "EEO > EEI" is wrong?

Your use of that expression demonstrates you have no comprehension of the nature of the technology. If you're too much of a moron to understand why that statement by you is fallacious, then you can stick your head in a barrel (of increasingly expensive crude oil) and suck it up.

Sorry, I just spilled my tea over the keyboard from laughing.
Were you talking to yourself?

Some idiot writes:
Also, I believe that, given a few days, I could present a simple electrical circuit who's apparent output power exceeds the apparent input power (apparent power generated by a resistor is simply the absolute RMS voltage drop accross the resistor times the absolute RMS current through the resistor when using a sinusoidal sorce). However, it will also be shown that the usable power (in the form of heat) produced at the resistor is much less than what is actually inputted, and what is actually stored in the capcitor(s) and inductor(s) at any given time.

What a load of crap.

Of course, you have no clue about electrodynamics.
You just dismiss what you don't understand as a load of crap.

Once again read (and understand) the information I posted on the list and you'll just how stupid your comments are.

Another idiot posts:
"Your debating tactic of dump a mountain of bullshit on your opponent and hope they suffocate or flee the field is classic troll behavior. You, sir, are useless."

No, idiot, it is you who are useless

We asked for evidence and you started spamming: you are useless to us.

-- and whose responses are pure bullshit. And how can one 'debate' with an idiot (you)? I provided information to those with enough of a mind to comprehend it.

Ah yes, the old "you are close-minded" accusation.
You dismiss out of hand the criticism to Newman's claims, and we are close-minded.

Obviously, that does not include yourself. Do me a favor: go back to you sceptic tank and suck up the droppings from the parrots your parrot.

Go back to school.
In your posts you just mindlessly repeated what you read or were told.

As to the "publishing for peer review" approach --- Newman devotes an entire chapter describing in detail the pass-the-buck run-around he got years ago naively attempting to go that route.

And it didn't dawn to him that he might be doing something wrong?
Typical pseudo-science.

Screw the "peers". In Newman's case he has no "peers" because he is the innovator of a new technology which his "peers" (in general, with notable, open-minded exceptions) are incapable of understanding as a result of their inherited prejudices, bias, and parrot-like "learning" skills.

What's next: comparisons to Galilei?
At least Galilei could provide evidence for his claims, evidence that could be investigated properly by his peers.
You should spend more time understanding why Newman is wrong.

Yeah, he plans to demonstrate his new technology including the major innovations he's added to his fundamental designs. Will you have the curiosity to see it for yourself?

Ah yes, the usual promises.
How much are we supposed to pay to see it?

[Nephtys]

As to the "publishing for peer review" approach --- Newman devotes an entire chapter describing in detail the pass-the-buck run-around he got years ago naively attempting to go that route. Screw the "peers". In Newman's case he has no "peers" because he is the innovator of a new technology which his "peers" (in general, with notable, open-minded exceptions) are incapable of understanding as a result of their inherited prejudices, bias, and parrot-like "learning" skills.

It's amazing that we get /any/ progress done today. For the last hundred years, nobodies have been making legitimate discoveries that.. gasp.. are /not/ surpressed by some percieved conspiracy by all of the scientific community. For crying out loud, if this worked and people really WERE out to get you... they'd just steal the work and pass it off as their own innovation. You're volume spamming meaningless tripe, much of which has been systematically disproven over the last century, such as most of Maxwell's work you cite from. Please, respond to Wong's post and explain to us one, last, clear time how this thing works. Hell, if this honest-to-god worked, one could take it overseas and make a killing off of it abroad.

[Zoink]

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

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

Principle Physicist? Somebody should have heard of him then, right?

Nothing on the internet, except Newman articles and this from www.randi.org:

http://www.randi.org/jr/071604an.html

WHERE IS HASTINGS?

"Inventor" Joseph Newman delights in listing "scientists" who have endorsed his claptrap "free energy" machine, and I mentioned one in my www.randi.org/jr/070204another.html page, a Dr. Roger Hastings. Newman advertises him to be "Principal Physicist, UNISYS Corporation," and quotes him as declaring that:


The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale, commercial development of this [Newman's] invention.
Remember? Well, now here is reader Bruce McGlashan of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, who did a bit of research:


I work for a customer of Unisys, and I've never sensed any woo-woo tendencies in that company. I talked to one of our Unisys support staff members, and he looked up this Dr. Hastings for me. Hastings' name does not appear on either the internal Unisys corporate directory or the internal e-mail system. The staff member also has never heard of anyone at Unisys being referred to as "Principal Physicist."
A quick Google search showed that Dr. Hastings might have worked for Sperry-Univac before they merged with Burroughs to form Unisys. My Unisys colleagues work for the Burroughs side of Unisys. I also found references to Hastings working for North Dakota State University, so I went to their website and looked for him in the online phone directory. Other faculty appear in the directory, but there is no Roger Hastings listed.

I have to wonder what Unisys and the North Dakota State University would think of the use of their name in this manner.

A rightly angry Unisys employee also wrote to me:


In your commentary you refer to the citation of "Dr. Roger Hastings, Principal Physicist, UNISYS corporation" on Joseph Newman's Website and also repeated all over the web. I actually work for Unisys, and so I searched our internal directory and found no listing for Roger Hastings. He may have worked for Sperry Corp at one time, and is sometimes cited as such, but the merger of Sperry & Burroughs to form Unisys happened in 1986. Let's nail this canard that Unisys Corporation has any connection with pseudoscience.
So, Dr. Hastings, just where and who are you? Do you exist? If so, what part of your expertise qualifies you to assert that the Newman "discovery" could "uplift" the human race?

I urge readers to do a search on "Dr. Roger Hastings" and find, as I did, that almost every reference to him is found in data published by or about the Newman device! Interesting?.

You've been outblurbed!

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Insults, like crap, cuts both ways. You insult me, I'll insult you. You asked for explicit reports from experts who have seen/tested the technology and I provided it. You asked for measurements and test reports of the technology and I supplied it. Now the data and information provided gets dismissed by you as a "load of crap". Well, your statement and opinion in that regard is a load of crap. If you're too stupid, ignorant, or just plain olde dumb to understand the significance of what was posted --- that's your problem.

Newman has been demonstrated to be dishonest. The physicist "Roger Hastings" whose authority is used to demonstrate the credibility of Newman's crackpot free-energy machine doesn't appear to exist. Whoops!

Furthermore, he has avoided any outside tests of his inventions. Whoops again!

Of course, this is because Newman's device would fail under rigorous testing from an outside authority.

Then again, Newman is wildly delusional. In fact, he says:

God awoke me at 4:00am this morning and told me how
to capture every bit of the massive back-spike
and simultaneously charge the battery pack.

Someone wrote:
"There is still no mention of what happens when you take the output of Newman's device, and use it as the input to the device. If it really produces more power than it uses, then the result should be perpetual motion machine."

That's pure bullshit. That question was addressed. If you still don't understand it, reread the comments posted on that subject until you do. And, just how many times in how many different ways do I have to explain that the machine does NOT "produce more power than it uses". Your use of that expression demonstrates you have no comprehension of the nature of the technology. If you're too much of a moron to understand why that statement by you is fallacious, then you can stick your head in a barrel (of increasingly expensive crude oil) and suck it up.

Do you enjoy wasting my time? Newman's own statements claim that he's producing more output power than he's putting in.

Joseph Newman's Energy Machine is now reducing the input power by more than 50%, while the output power, torque, and speed increase by more than 300%!
...
The facts filmed in the recently-produced video prove and echo the comments made by
Ray-O-Vac chemist Pat Spellman when he stated on television:
"THERE IS APPARENTLY MORE ENERGY BEING PRODUCED
THAN THE BATTERIES ARE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING."

He is implicitly claiming to produce more output power than input power. Concession accepted.

Some idiot writes:
Also, I believe that, given a few days, I could present a simple electrical circuit who's apparent output power exceeds the apparent input power (apparent power generated by a resistor is simply the absolute RMS voltage drop accross the resistor times the absolute RMS current through the resistor when using a sinusoidal sorce). However, it will also be shown that the usable power (in the form of heat) produced at the resistor is much less than what is actually inputted, and what is actually stored in the capcitor(s) and inductor(s) at any given time.

What a load of crap. Once again read (and understand) the information I posted on the list and you'll just how stupid your comments are.

Take a simple electronics or circuit analysis course. Better yet, take one and pass it.

Another idiot posts:
"Your debating tactic of dump a mountain of bullshit on your opponent and hope they suffocate or flee the field is classic troll behavior. You, sir, are useless."

No, idiot, it is you who are useless -- and whose responses are pure bullshit. And how can one 'debate' with an idiot (you)? I provided information to those with enough of a mind to comprehend it. Obviously, that does not include yourself. Do me a favor: go back to you sceptic tank and suck up the droppings from the parrots your parrot.

I ask myself the same question. All you're capable of doing is copying and pasting articles from Newman's website. You've been doing nothing but parroting since you've shown up. It's been repeatedly pointed out that Newman is a crackpot. I'm just providing additional documentation of that fact.

As to the "publishing for peer review" approach --- Newman devotes an entire chapter describing in detail the pass-the-buck run-around he got years ago naively attempting to go that route. Screw the "peers". In Newman's case he has no "peers" because he is the innovator of a new technology which his "peers" (in general, with notable, open-minded exceptions) are incapable of understanding as a result of their inherited prejudices, bias, and parrot-like "learning" skills.

The peer review process works. It's produced our current understanding of the world. Unlike your, frankly idiotic, view of the scientific establishment, real scientists have refined seemingly radical theories through peer review and testing. Of course, I bet you also think the world was created in six days by an invisible sky-man. Those people use the exact same tactics that you do.

Yeah, he plans to demonstrate his new technology including the major innovations he's added to his fundamental designs. Will you have the curiosity to see it for yourself?

I won't hold my breath.

Of course he'll "demonstrate" his new technology. Of course, he'll only demonstrate it to rubes like you who are willing to pay him and accept his flim-flam with a minimum of incredulousness. Of course, his demonstration will be set up to discourage close inspection of what is actually going on, and if someone who isn't one of his lackeys asks to test the machine in a controlled environment, he will refuse, of course.

[Zoink]

If I were a big oil executive, what would I do if I heard about this invention? Would I:

(a) try to stop the guy from getting a patent. Of course that doesn't stop the machine from being built, sold, or developed. In fact, if the research leaked out then anyone could build the thing and my company would be bankrupt.

(b) throw a truckload of money at the guy. Hire him as a chief researcher and get the guy a nobel prize. Buy all the research and use my money and influence to get my own patent. Then bury it until I can develop my own devices based on the technology, making billions in profit.

Potential bankrupcy or potential billions in profit? Hard choice.

Furthermore, he has avoided any outside tests of his inventions. Whoops again!

Didn't you know?

He only let's people who don't want to give him a million dollars (Randi prize) test the thing! A well known person with money and credibility begging to test it? Get lost! He only let's his mom, oops I mean Dr Barba Wattleworth PhD from Princeton University - Queen of the Wicker People and slayer of Dragons, test it.... lol.

[RonMaginnis842]

More bullshit from some morons on this list.

Dr. Roger Hastings was featured on CBS Evening News endorsing Joseph Newman's technology. Of course, with the idiotic morons on this list, they would be stupid enough to suggest that "CBS planned the whole thing and invented Dr. Roger Hastings out of thin air". <LOL!!>

Dr. Hastings worked with both Sperry and later Unisys after the name change. If someone at Unisys can't locate him, I would suggest they check those individuals who retired from their company.

And if that's too difficult, I could frankly give a crap whether you believe he existed or not. If anyone is really so stupid as to believe he did not appear on the national news endorsing Newman's work, I could give a flying fuck, as well.

Oh --- and the snide comment about Newman "charging" for a demonstration of the technology --- more bullshit from another imbecile.

I have posted extensive documentation describing in detail how the technology works. If some morons on this list are too stupid to understand what's posted --- you are welcome to ignore it, ridicule it, or shove it up your collective assholes.

Have a great weekend!

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

More bullshit from some morons on this list.

Dr. Roger Hastings was featured on CBS Evening News endorsing Joseph Newman's technology. Of course, with the idiotic morons on this list, they would be stupid enough to suggest that "CBS planned the whole thing and invented Dr. Roger Hastings out of thin air". <LOL!!>

Dr. Hastings worked with both Sperry and later Unisys after the name change. If someone at Unisys can't locate him, I would suggest they check those individuals who retired from their company.

And if that's too difficult, I could frankly give a crap whether you believe he existed or not. If anyone is really so stupid as to believe he did not appear on the national news endorsing Newman's work, I could give a flying fuck, as well.

Oh --- and the snide comment about Newman "charging" for a demonstration of the technology --- more bullshit from another imbecile.

I have posted extensive documentation describing in detail how the technology works. If some morons on this list are too stupid to understand what's posted --- you are welcome to ignore it, ridicule it, or shove it up your collective assholes.

Have a great weekend!

You've been asked to put up or shut up. You've demonstrated that you're incapable of doing anything but posting articles from Newman's site, and then getting whiny and nasty when called to the floor on your bullshit. You've been asked to explain why your point of view is correct, in your own terms.

Extensive searching for "Dr. Roger Hastings" turns up nothing at all, unless connected with the whole Newman fiasco. And his appearances on television to support Newman were all made back in the early to mid 1980s. After that, he apparently fell off the face of the Earth and was promptly eaten by A'tun the Giant Space Turtle. We hear nothing from or about this guy now that proves he's the credible, objective authority he is claimed to be.

And claims that all Newman is out to do is to make himself a lot of money are nothing but bullshit? Wrong. His site is one enormous peddling of Joseph Newman books, Joseph Newman DVDs, Joseph Newman videotapes, Joseph Newman blueprints . . . all of which are aimed at making money. You have to scroll down to the very bottom of the page, through all the incessant hawking of Joseph Newman crap before you get some half-assed testimonials that are ten to twenty years old, and some wild-eyed woo-woo theories that could have been written by an eight year old child, or a Creationist.

In short, concession accepted. I do so look forward to voting "yes" on your likely inevitable titling thread.

[Colonel Olrik]

This thread is going down. This bullshit makes engineers cry (cries).