http://www.josephnewman.com/

I'm afraid I don't know enough to draw judgment on this (domains of atoms and whatnot), but the gist of this is that this fellow claims to have found a way to convert the mass of copper to energy with perfect efficiency in a manner that does not involve fission or fusion.

The presentation of the concepts involve certainly aren't leading me any closer to buying it, though.

What do the better informed people on the board think of this?

I don't even need to click the link to find out. Your description shows it is obvious bullshit since this guy doesn't seem to understand the laws of thermodynamics.

I get big sparks off my Van De Graff too.

---

Don't abandon democracy folks, or an alien star-god may replace your ruler. - NecronLord

I might have misinterpreted the 100% efficiency part.. but I'd like to know how farfetched the mechanism for converting the mass in that copper into energy is.

It's pure bullshit. There is an excellent book Voodoo Science which dealt with this kind of thing (a whole chapter on this phenomena), among others. The wild claims of performance and the "persecution by the scientific community" are also great indicators. The person is either ignorant of how it actually works or has crossed the line into fraud.

---

The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

He's completely full of shit. He's been touting this thing for 20 years or so and has never allowed a full up test to be conducted to my knowledge.

He's also completely ignorant if he genuinely thinks for a second that he can get 100% efficiency out of anything.

The web page tics all the boxes in the pseudo-science checklist:
- long web page with no interruptions;
- bolding of the "important" statements;
- trying to sell you a book or a video;
- accusations against the scientific establishment ("they are frauds" ,"they opposed my ideas because they are afraid", "they refused to debate, the cowards", e via farneticando);
- claims of having "absolute proof";
- appeals to his many-years-long experience (like Tom Bearden).

If you can find it, criticism to Newman done by proper scientists should be quite instructive.




(By the way, this is my first post. Oh the thrill!)

I have an old PT Barnum flyer. Whenever I suspect something is fraudulent, I just hold the flyer up next to it. If I think they match, then it's fraud.

System's never failed me. In fact, that's how they found out that Dan Rather's documents 'bout the President were phony. The PT Barnum trick.

---

The Great and Malignant

don't suppose there's an image of this flyer on the web somewhere?

The WOW CHECK IT OUT presentation gave me the impressions that Il Saggiatore listed out so well.

The whole "evil, close-minded scientific conspiracy is stamping on me/us" thing never seems to get old, though. I'm guessing that's because your man on the street isn't aware of what science and a scientific approach really is.

It's more a... figurative flyer. A flyer in my mind, so to speak. It flies metaphorically, or some such zen nonsense...

---

The Great and Malignant

Just because it doesn't merit its own thread:



Give those people a raise!

That was deep.

---

Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker

How did we ever get things done before government committees were invented?

I've been following Newman's work for several years. Like many, I'm skeptical --- but having visited his website at http://www.josephnewman.com and read about all the posted documents, there are several things that suggest he may be on to something.

There was a Special Master/Technical Expert & former Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office 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."

Also, I understand that over 30 physicists, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers have tested his device and signed affidavits that it performs as stated.

About 3 months ago I did speak to a man who has invested in Newman's technology -- and he said that before he invested, Newman told him he should visit his lab, bring along his own expert(s) and test the device to his/his expert's satisfaction before investing anything. That doesn't sound like the actions of a scammer.

From what I've read on the website, Newman only seeks a patent for his invention --- which wouldn't cost the taxpayer anything. Then he could stand or fall in the marketplace.

Having reviewed the evidence it appears that the one instance that the NBS (now NIST) did conduct testing on a small prototype of Newman's machine was done incompetently, e.g., the guys doing the testing grounded all tests; I find it interesting that not a single test was done without such grounding. You'd think they'd have the curiosity to conduct at least ONE such test.

Also, from reviewing Newman's website, it seems he does not call his technology "ZPG", "zero-point energy" or "free energy" --- all of which he claims are scientifically inaccurate. He does claim that the excess energy produced by the system comes from the materials used within the system. Thus, the net output exceeds the EXTERNAL input, but only because internally produced energies are added to the equation.

I say, give the guy his patent and let him rise or fall in the marketplace.

Ron

Let me guess, you found this out on his website?



Test data? Evidence of this assertion? Anything more substantial than an anecdote?



I'd like to see that. It would be comedic gold.



Bullshit. Adding a ground to his apparatus would not reduce the efficiency to the extent at which he claims. I remember seeing something about that on the Discovery Channel more than 10 years ago (so my memories a bit fuzzy, take this as you will) but with the grounds on, his efficiency was so poor that they were losing power instead of creating any. 100% efficiency my ass.



Yes, lets. I could use a good laugh.

---

The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari
Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker

You don't give a patent on a fraud, no matter how good the sales job.

---

The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

I'll willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until it's proven otherwise. You've accused him of "fraud". O.K. That's a very specific charge. Please provide the specifics. What are the names of the individuals he has defrauded and when/where did he defraud them? And IF you can name such specifics, then also provide the specifics of the legal action taken against him by the authorities for such "fraud".

The statement about the "30 physicists, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers have tested his device and signed affidavits that it performs as stated" was featured on a CBS Evening News report about his work. The broadcast also showed copies of the affidavits signed by the scientists who've endorsed his work.

Look, either Newman is providing potential investors the opportunity to test his technology (with their own experts) or he isn't. And if he is doing that --- as was stated to me --- then those are not the actions of a scammer.

You say my comments about the so-called "NBS test" are "bullshit". Fine. Well, why can't the "experts" at the NBS follow their own damn protocol? It was THEY who drew up the test protocol with NO ground. Yet they grounded the device on EVERY SINGLE TEST they conducted. Come on --- how 'bout them having a little curiosity and at least doing ONE test without grounding the device. The physicist Dr. Roger Hastings described how the NBS bureaucrats botched their own tests:

1) The input voltage into the energy machine was restricted. That's 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.

Dr. Hastings concluded 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."

Like I said, give the guy his patent and let him rise or fall in the marketplace.

Ron

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.

---

My brother and sister-in-law: "Do you know where milk comes from?"
My niece: "Yeah, from the fridge!"

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?

---

The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

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.



Just because they're scientists doesn't mean they're GOOD scientists. CBS is not the end all in scientific journals, and 'experts' on TV are about as trustworthy as faith healers.



Selling stuff that doesn't work seems like Fraud to me.



...so after people fail him, he's an unbiased source to how valid the said tests are?


What's with the personal interest in this, anyway? Anyone who figures there's a conspiracy of science against him is a total crank at worst, stubborn charletan at best. Refusal to debate a crank isn't something to be ashamed of. Debating a twit like this would damage someone's reputation just by wasting time and breath.

Okay. I'm calm now. Damn, I hate pseudoscientist persecution complex.

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.


We already have this: it is called fossil fuel and it is used in internal combustion engines.
Where do those "internal energies" come from in Newman's machine?

not to mention the idiotic claim that he can convert such items to generate power with 100% efficiency. laws of entropy, iirc, make such a claim impossible for any technology.

YOU CAN'T PRODUCE ENERGY!!!! You are only able to change one form of energy into another form! The closest you get to producing energy is through nuclear, but you loose mass according to Einstiens equation E=mc^2 . Some examples of changing energy from one form into another inclued (but are certainly not limited to):

1. Sound to electrical through the use of microphones
2. Electrical to machanical through a motor
3. Chemical to machanical through an interanl combustion engine
4. Electrical to heat through a heating element
5. Chemical to electrical through a battery

I could continue, but I think you get the point. You can't get something for nothing! NO FREE ENERGY!!!

---

My brother and sister-in-law: "Do you know where milk comes from?"
My niece: "Yeah, from the fridge!"

Bradeley wrote:
"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."

IO wrote:
"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.

Nephtys wrote:
"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."

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."

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.

Ron