"I don't even need to read the rest of the posts in order to tell you that this guy has been, currently is, and forever will be full of shit. His claims of unity and over unity machines (machines that output as much or more usable energy than what is inputted) are just that: claims. He has been discreditted by so many reputable scientists that I can't even begin to count them. As Homer Simpson would say, "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics, young lady." The only difference between him and other so called inventors of perpetualy motion machines is that "simple" physics (ie high school physics) doesn't readily discredit him."
Bradeley — In the first place, I understand that Newman has never claimed that his technology is an attempt at a so-called "perpetual motion" machine. Please name the "reputable scientists" WHO HAVE SEEN & TESTED the technology and subsequently discredited it. Newman lists over 30 scientists and engineers (and their affidavits were submitted to the U.S. Patent Office) who HAVE SEEN AND TESTED IT and signed affidavits that it operates as claimed by the inventor.
In addition, Special Master/Technical Expert & former Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office -- William Schuyler --- appointed by a Federal District Court in Wash., D.C. who evaluated Newman's work and reported that (quote) "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."
"Pseudo science is either ignorance or fraud. Because the patent office recieves so many claims for perpetual motion machines, it has stated it will only give a patent when it is presented with a working model. Newman's failure to do so and his advertising of a working machine along with claims of "scientific verification" (not that I believe him) means he wants money for a machine that cannot pass scruitiny. What does that sound like to you?"
Again, that statement doesn't match with the facts. Newman repeatedly attempted to submit a "working model" to the Patent Office, but the bureaucrats at the PTO refused to accept/look at it. And the patent examiner who labeled the tecnology "pepetual motion" was found by a Federal Court to be technically incompetent and later admitted that he did not carefully read Joseph Newman's patent application.
"Selling physics-violating snakeoil gizmos is pretty much fraud to me. You know, if we actually had a way to generate power like that, we'd ACTUALLY USE IT. Hell, if people are afraid of his theories, and if they work, they'd merely STEAL IT. I'm sorry, utter fraud."
The technology does not "violate the laws of physics" and Newman has never claimed that it does. He states that his technology extends the laws of physics into a new area.
Look: if the bureaucrats at the NBS (now NIST) are such "experts" --- then one would think they'd be intelligent enough to follow their OWN test protocol. But that was not the case. They botched it.
Il Saggiatore wrote:
"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. 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.
Il Saggiatore wrote:
"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".
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. Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell both recognized that ELectromagnetic fields consist of REAL, PHYSICAL, MATTER-IN-MOTION.
Michael Faraday wrote:
"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space."
"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."
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."
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:
"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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.