Talk:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Closed Loop Operation?

If his machine works as he says. He could just sell electricity with very little cost and very high profit. If the energy is coming from the copper mass then it would be very easy to provide enough copper to last for a very long time with very little expense. According to E=mc^2 the amount of energy in a metric ton of copper is 8.9876e+19 joules. This is more than the yearly electricity consumption of the world as of 2005. He could also connect the output to input or chain these devices together to either produce a self sustaining energy producer or an energy amplifier. And since from what I have read he can produce more mechanical energy than the electrical energy input. A device like that could accomplish what I mentioned. Any device like this would make someone a billionaire. Lambedan (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question. Newman has some kind of an answer for the "why not connect output to input?" question - I believe that he claims that the output electrical energy is in the wrong form to power the input. But a decent sized bank of transformers and capacitors would fix that - so mainstream science doesn't buy this argument. However it's tough to find good sources to back up this kind of argument - so it's hard to put it into the article. SteveBaker (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue comes up with every purported "over unity" device, and the excuses are entertaining if nothing else. Obviously, a closed loop test would be a much more effective way of arguing for a patent than parading a string of dubious "experts" before a judge, but as far as I can tell, Newman himself has never even addressed the issue (the words "closed" and "loop" appear nowhere at his website). Defenders argue endlessly about it on blogs, eg [1] but it basically boils down to their inexplicable belief that building a simple DC regulator circuit is somehow really hard. If the machine operates as Newman argues, then a closed loop test should be trivial, and the fact that there hasn't been one is worth mentioning in the main article.Prebys (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored this section, but changed the somewhat inflammatory section heading. The issue of closed loop operation is certainly a valid topic for this article. Everyone, please try to stay on topic.Prebys (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Newman has never claimed that the technology operates as a closed loop. From the beginning he has stated that the technology "produces greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input". Period. I've found that when someone says it is "simple" to simply loop the energy back into the machine to power itself, that same person also admits to not understanding the technology. Thus, for someone to say that "X" should be done with the technology when they really don't understand the technology in the first place further demonstrates that very ignorance of the technology. To anyone who says it should be "simple" to simply feed the output energy back into the machine, I say: it should be even SIMPLER to measure the external input energy; then measure the external output energy; then COMPARE. If that external output energy is GREATER than that external input energy, then Newman's technology has again been corroborated. And, if we can manage to put a man on the moon and build complex weapons of mass destruction, we should be able to measure the external input/output of a motor/generator. 206.255.88.80 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - User:206.255.88.80 is in fact User:ESoule - he appears to have forgotten to log in. SteveBaker (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did log on. ESoule (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The deal is that IF the output could be connected to the input - and IF the machine worked as claimed - then it would run forever. If the electricity it generates is of any use to anyone for anything, it ought to be possible to use it to (say) charge up some batteries - and since the input can be driven from a bunch of batteries (something that has been demonstrated on MANY occasions (so we're told) then it's really, REALLY hard to understand why the output cannot be connected to the input. I'd like to hear why that can't be done. Is it because the electricity that comes out of the machine is somehow magically incapable of charging batteries? If so - why? Newman has repeatedly claimed that we could be running our cities off of these contraptions - so why can't he charge up a set of batteries with it?

If that is done and the machine really does run for months at a time then we have something truly impressive and interesting that would be hard to fake. Directly measuring the output of the machine (as the NBS did) and comparing it to the input merely demonstrated that it is a rather inefficient electric motor that in no way produces more energy than it consumes...that experiment has been carried out and the results are in. As the NBS discovered, measuring the power output is tricky because the output isn't any kind of nice, smooth voltage - it's a bunch of spikes and noise. Since traditional voltmeters and ammeters are notoriously bad at producing accurate readings from such signals, it's no surprise at all that someone like Newman with minimal math and science knowledge could have convinced himself that something amazing was going on. The other obvious way to try to measure the output would be to look at it on an oscilloscope - but, again, the spikey aperiodic noise signal it produces is not amenable to that approach.

But if the machine is as useful as Newman claims - using it to charge up some car batteries would be a great demonstration of that fact - and then connecting output to input and running the machine for far longer than the batteries could have turned it by themselves is a trivial matter which would produce a truly amazing demonstration. I can't imagine why such a demonstration hasn't been done...unless of course Newman knows it's all a bunch of hooie.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Newman claims can turn electrical power into mechanical power with efficiencies as high as 200000%^[1] If that's the case, perhaps ESoule can explain what else I need to know about the technology to "close the loop". I could easily do it with a bicycle generator.Prebys (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote Joseph Newman regarding the "loop question" (pages 58/59 from The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman):

"There are those individuals who will ask the question: 'Why can't one simply feed the generated, output current back into itself, eliminating the need for an input battery?' The answer is simple: The energy involved in this system (consisting of gyroscopic particles) is composed of real, mechanical entities which will work against themselves as would unaligned gears, just as readily as they will work together in utilizing or generating power." [Referring to Figure 21-A on page 58.] (Envision two bar magnets with a spring connected to the south pole of one magnet and the north pole of the other magnet.) "Also "envision that the two magnets have a strong magnetic field that is capable of compressing the spring. One would not expect the spring to then recoil and push the two magnets apart. Reason: The gyroscopic particles emanating from the atoms of the two magnets are the mechanical essence of E = MC^2 and, consequently, such particles will keep the spring compressed. However, if one has a 'triggering mechanism' or a catalytic effect that causes the atoms of one or both of the two magnets to align and unalign, then the spring would recoil, pushing the two masses apart. When the atoms are aligned, the spring would again be compressed via the generation of the magnetic field by the aligned atoms. This process would continue to repeat itself.

"A similar effect (created by the gyroscopic particles via E=MC^2) is observed when the current is prohibited from returning to a conventional generator. If a mechanical means is constructed to 'trap' the electric current and prevent it from completing a circuit, then the gyroscopic particles of the current have a capacity for continuous work without the necessity to increase the power input from the generator system. However, if the circuit is complete and the electric current moving within the system performs no 'Obvious' Work, Force, or Power, then the gyroscopic particles comprising the current will -- upon returning to the generator -- increase the need greater power input into the system. Reason: Such action occurs as a result of the very fact that these gyroscopic particles are literally the 'mechanical essence of E=MC^2' and it appears they cannot be destroyed. This fact results in these gyroscopic particles having a 'cumulative effect.' [See Figure 21-B1 and Figure 21-B2.]

"In Figures 21-B1 and 21-B2, the depicted motor also acts as a generator. In 21-B1, if the leads are shorted out with only 1 ohm of resistance in the generator's conductor, there will be a resistive force equal to the pull-force that one exerts in pulling the pull-cord attached to the pulley on the motor (generator) shaft. Reason: The conductor cuts the magnetic field of the permanent magnets, thereby releasing gyroscopic particles (current) from the magnetic field. These released gyroscopic particles which travel into the conductor then have their spin at right angles to the balance of gyroscopic particles (spin) remaining in the magnetic field which in turn generates an opposing 'Obvious Force.' These gyroscopic particles continue to move continually throughout the shorted conductor as the conductor continually moves through additional 'lines (shells) of force' within the magnetic field which, in turn, results in even more gyroscopic particles (current) being released within the conductor. This successive number of gyroscopic-particle-releases is what creates the 'cumulative effect'.

"One can easily prove this previous statement to be a fact by simply conducting an experiment. Observe that the harder one pulls on the 'pull-cord' (Figure 21-B1), the more the resistive force will equal your pull. Frictional force is additional. One can therefore easily observe that one is producing no 'Obvious Work, Force, and Power' outside of the system and yet one is using significantly less input power. Why the difference? Answer: In Figure 21-B1, one is producing high current (volume of gyroscopic particles which acts as a 'brake') and virtually no hydraulic pressure (voltage). However, in Figure 21-B2, one is producing high hydraulic pressure (voltage) and low current (volume of gyroscopic particles completing the circuit), therefore, the 'braking effect' is drastically reduced.

"Lenz's Law states that 'the current induced in a circuit due to a change in the magnetic flux through it or to its motion in a magnetic field is so directed as to oppose the change in flux or to exert a mechanical force opposing the motion.'

"Lenz's law is simply an observation of this cumulative effect of the gyroscopic-particle-spin (comprising the current produced) being at right angles to the spin of the gyroscopic particles remaining in the magnetic field. Prior to my work, the true nature of the magnetic field has never been fully understood.

"Returning to the question, 'Why can't one simply feed the generated, output current back into itself?' I would answer: If one blindly (via mechanical implicitness) feeds the current produced from a system back into itself, then a 'braking effect' will occur which will negate the desired results.

"It should be obvious to the reader that the prior teachings have indicated that all power produced from any type of conducting system was the result of current flow and was not from the conducting system itself. As a result of that view, all prior systems have been deliberately designed to utilize high current-flow to produce power.

"If you have mastered my teachings up to this point, then you should be principally interested in the voltage (hydraulic pressure), since the current (gyroscopic particles) simply acts as a catalyst for any system into which it flows. As I indicated above, the gyroscopic particle composition of the current cannot be depleted as it moves through the system. As a result, the current completes the circuit to the generator and a 'braking-action' occurs to create the cumulative effect. If the current was to complete the circuit and return to the battery, then such current would, according to Faraday's Law of Electrolysis (which depends upon current flow [gyroscopic particles]), produce an undesired chemical action and destroy one's ability to utilize the elements of the battery in accordance with E=MC^2.

theta-pinch

The voltage is simply the result of the electrical field repulsion of like charges which increases with their proximity. An electrochemical battery is a way to free up negative charges in high density, while a metallic wire conductor is used as sort of "air-hockey table" on which the electrons can easily glide along a constrained path. If the path consists of a helical trajectory, then electrons will travel along that helical trajectory, which produces a magnetic field. Reversing the direction of the current reverse the magnetic moment caused by the current. When the proximity between charges in the battery can be maintained, the voltage will persist on producing current. If electrical charges would take a longer time to reach the end of the circuit, electrical potential (voltage or electrical potential energy per charge unit) can be maintained to sustain the current reversals of all the charges existing in the coil thus far. Reversing the direction of the current reverses the direction of its magnetic field. Keep in mind that a magnetic moment of a system (such as a loop of electric current, a bar magnet, an electron, a molecule, or a planet) in an externally-produced magnetic field has a potential energy U, and is expressed by:

, where:

is the system's magnetic moment, measured in ampere meters-squared, and

is the externally magnetic field (such as that from a solenoid), measured in teslas or, equivalently in newtons per (ampere-meter).

Therefore, switching the direction of a solenoid's magnetic field can cause a magnetic object to go from a positive potential energy to a negative potential energy and vice versa.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

When he says "current", he really means Birkeland currents. He is talking about arbitrarily small amounts of charge traveling in spiral paths in magnetic field lines, and that these spiraling currents that give essence to the magnetic field. How does this occur? When these arbitrarily small charges repel each other due to their like charges, they swerve off in a direction, creating spirals. The spirals in turn create tiny magnetic domains. The magnetic fields produced by the spiraling movement of these arbitrarily small charges contribute to a greater magnetic field whose lines naturally curve over longer distances. These "currents" are cause and effect of the charges' spiraling motion. In Joseph Newman's language, the spin/spiraling of these charges constitute the bodies of gyroscopic particles and are themselves gyroscopic particles.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"The very electrolytic action described by Faraday's Law is proof that the current within the system has not been depleted. With a correct technical system, such current should be harnessed for more productive purposes since the gyroscopic particles (which comprise the current) have an infinite capacity for work." [end of quote] ESoule (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. In a few paragraphs, you have established beyond any question Joe Newman's complete and utter ignorance - not just of the laws of physics, but of the most basic rules of logic. All I can say is "thanks". If I had written for a week straight, I could not have done a better job. I stand in awe.Prebys (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying that doesn't make you superior.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah.... so I see from Prebys that we're going to indulge ourselves in some good olde juvenile sarcasm and initiated insults. OK. Well..... thanks, Prebys. You've engendered in me a desire to extend a personal and loving "WOW" to you, as well, Prebys ... I applaud your profound sarcasm. And I thoroughly respect your right to inhabit the Land of the Intellectually Dishonest. ESoule (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to ESoule: I see your knowledge of English is on a par with your knowledge of physics. It would be "sarcasm" if I had suggested that your explanation was logically persuasive. I assure you I was being quite sincere. I honestly couldn't have done a better job of making Newman (or you) look foolish.Prebys (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Prebys, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by crediting your sarcasm. Since you claim you were being sincere, then I acknowledge your intellectual dishonesty and note your petty and juvenile insults. And, as the olde saying goes, if you think Newman's discussion makes Newman (or me) "look foolish" then, coming from someone such as yourself for whom I have zero respect, I'll accept your intended insult as a compliment. ESoule (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - so let's try to assume Newman's statement on this makes some kind of sense. If what he says is true - then the electricity generated by his Energy Machine is somehow 'special' - aligned in some weird magnetic/mechanical way such that the machine that generated that electricity can't accept that electricity as input. OK - so if that's true - can the output of one Energy machine drive the input of a second energy machine? Can you then connect the second machine's output back into the input of the second? I presume he's going to say "No"...because if he says "Yes" then we can connect up two of his gadgets to make a perpetual motion machine and he knows that he must not say that at any cost. OK - I'll buy that - if we live in his world of physics then we have two sorts of electricity - the ordinary kind that batteries and bicycle generators and nuclear power plants generate that CAN be used to drive a Newman Machine - and the different kind that his machines generate that can't drive a Newman machine...this must be true...right?

Preb, there's nothing "special" about the electricity generated by Newman's energy machine --- other than Newman (unlike yourself) understands its mechanical essence. However, it's possible that in your worldview, that makes him "foolish". In my worldview that makes you "intellectually dishonest". ESoule (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens if I use this 'special electricity' that comes out of an Energy Machine to charge some batteries. Is that possible? I assume the answer is "Yes" - because if the answer is "No" then this electricity is not in any way "normal" electricity and who knows what other things we might discover that it can't do...suddenly 'Newman special electricity' might be useless for many applications.

So if I can charge batteries with the output of an energy machine - can I then use those batteries to power an energy machine - of does the battery somehow "remember" that it was charged with special electricity and produce special electricity when you discharge it?

If it can be charged with special electricity and when discharged produces 'normal' electricity then we can use some batteries and some motor-driven switches with two batteries. Battery A drives the Newman machine - while battery B is being charged up by that very same Newman machine. After a few minutes, a slow moving motor switches the connectors on the two batteries so that Battery B drives the Newman machine while Battery A is recharged. In such a fashion we have managed to effectively connect the output to the input and we'll have ourselves perpetual motion.

Since I strongly suspect Newman won't like that suggestion - I'm pretty sure he'll say that - No - when you charge a battery with electricity from a Newman machine, the little gyroscopic massergies (or whatever they are) "remember" that they came from a Newman machine - so that a battery that a Newman machine charged up cannot subsequently be used to drive that machine. OK...well, I don't understand these gyroscopic doo-hickies - so that's maybe possible.

But I'm a determined person. I'm going to take a motor-generator pair - a conventional electric motor - connected by an electrically isolated shaft to a generator. The motor is driven by "special Newman electricity" - but it turns a completely normal generator - which produces "normal" electrical power to drive the Newman machine.

Now we can make a closed-loop setup without problems and demonstrate that the Newman machine does (or does not) run forever. I'll admit that motor-generators are pretty inefficient - no better than 50% - but Newman claims his machine is much more than 200% efficient - so there should be absolutely no problem.

I just KNOW there's a reason in Newman's whacky world of physics that this won't work...but it's going to be amusing to find out what that is.

So - in anticipation of being told that the shaft connecting the motor and the generator somehow passes the gyroscopic massergies (sheesh!) from one to the other - or that mechanical action is also 'polluted' by Newman energy such that you can't do this simple trick - I'll build a new machine which I'll call a "Mechanical Battery". Inside there is a heavy weight tied to a rope and pulley system - and a motor and a separate generator. To charge this "battery", you apply electrical power to the motor - and let it pull the weight upwards (via some suitable gearing) to a height of 50 feet. To discharge the battery - you allow the weight to fall - pulling a cable that though a suitable set of gears, turns the generator which produces electricity. I put this into a large black box and paint "Battery" on the side.

So Newman's machine can "charge up" my battery by hauling up the internal weight to 50'. Then when the weight falls - it's driving a completely standard generator...utterly standard. It'll produce totally standard electricity - not the 'special Newman stuff' with the screwed up gyroscopic particles. So the output of my "Mechanical battery" could SURELY drive the Newman machine successfully. So now we do the same trick - we have two of these "batteries" and one is being "charged" while the other is "discharged" and we have a working perpetual motion machine - right? Finally?

No - please don't tell me that Newman claims that somehow the gravitational potential energy of my heavy weight "remembers" that it's been created by a Newman machine? No - please don't tell me that.

Well OK - if you are going to say that...Can I use the Newman machine to boil a large reservoir of water - which we'll turn into steam and use to drive a turbine that will generate power to run the Newman machine - so now, for THIS to fail - the very molecules of water in the steam have to somehow "know" that they were boiled off the water using Newman's special electricity - and then when they turn the generator somehow pass on that "knowledge" onto the output electricity so it can prevent the Newman machine from being driven by it.

So ALL matter can be "polluted" with Newman energy and then be unable to drive a Newman machine subsequently? I'll be forced to point out that a ship - being pushed through the water by a Newman machine is accumulating kinetic energy - and is THAT is 'special' so that it can't be used to turn a turbine to drive the Newman machine in perpetual motion? If it is - then the ocean it drives through - the very air it passes through is collecting "Newman energy" to prevent it's motion driving a Newman machine.

If we really have such machines then gradually everything around us would be polluted with special Newman energy - and sooner or later, all of our Newman energy machines will stop working forever because there will be no way to power them with non-special electricity.

You see - you can't duck out of the "closing the loop" argument. If the machine generates more energy than it takes in, it MUST be capable of being connected back to itself and thereby becoming perpetual motion. It's quite utterly unavoidable.

QED. SteveBaker (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Newman has specifically stated that the energy machine produces greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input. To say that the machine "generates more energy than it takes in" is incomplete (at best) and imprecise (at worst). Since the machine produces energy INTERNALLY as it operates, then the total external energy inputed into the system plus the internal energy produced as the machine operates is EQUAL to the total external energy output (electrical, mechanical, and/or rf) produced by the system. ESoule (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The blue points would represent what is perceived as the galaxies of the early universe. The galaxies in the center are surrounded by galaxies and all the other blue points, four of which correspond to the WMAP quadrapole. The Newman effect is exhibited more highly in the perimeter regions which have greater cluster sizes of galaxies and experience less time dilation than the constricted blue regions. The smaller galaxies of the early universe, despite an apparent optical effect due to their angular diameter distance from our region of the universe, would certainly appear bigger for their size, due to the spiral convergence of world lines onto the blue points. The Julia set is a two dimensional manifestation of Newman's theory, as it would apply to the Universe.

The catch is so simple. Radiative heat loss that occurs with the use of these internal energies will cause energy to leak into outer space. The only way to perceive perpetual motion then is therefore to a continual decrease in the size of the system, such that people, stars, planets, and galaxies exhibiting the Newman effect shrink relative to others who are less pronounced in the Newman effect. The result would be a perceived expansion of the universe.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an explanation of how the universe works. I'm very simply asking whether this machine can charge a battery or not. That's not really a very hard question. Can it do that or not?

Radiant heat is not a problem (in principle). We'll enclose the machine in a waterproof container and surround it with a water jacket. When the radiative heat builds up the temperature to the point that it boils the water, we'll collect the steam and use it to drive a steam-turbine generator with which we'll drive the machine. The condensed steam goes back (as water) into the water jacket - just like in a nuclear reactor. If the machine doesn't like running at 100degC - we'll use a liquid that boils at a lower temperature. If it generates more energy than it consumes - even as radiant energy - that's not a problem in principle. But we don't need to do that - despite whatever loss of heat, Newman claims that the machine produces more electricity than it consumes. If it can recharge a battery - we can close the loop.

So: Can Newman's energy machine charge a battery? Yes or no.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes. Take a rechargable battery. Charge it again through an outlet. Do the same with other batteries. That won't even cost you a penny per battery. Including overhead, let's say we get Newman machine to have a mechanical output greater than the power stimulus from the rechargable batteries. Let's assume the mechanical energy output from the motor is greater than the energy from batteries only. Obviously, you can harness the mechanical energy with a generator, feed it into the electrical system to charge the batteries again through the outlet. That was easy.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - so I'll ask you the same question I'm trying to get ESoule to answer: If I can charge a battery using the machine (through some direct or indirect means like a power inverter and a battery charger or something) and if I can run the machine from a battery that's been charged like that - then it follows that I could build a fairly simple apparatus that would charge one battery while the other is running the machine. Then I could arrange that when the battery thats driving the machine runs low on power - I would detect the fact and switch the freshly charged battery in to replace it and put the discharged battery on charge using the output of the machine. I could easily devise a means to do that using (say) electromechanical relays such that the output of the machine was never directly connected to the input (which Newman claims would lock the machine solid)...so no direct connection from input to output - yet the machine is still providing the energy to drive itself. This is (by any normal definition) a perpetual motion machine. Will that work? If not, what is so special about the battery that was charged by the machine compared to a battery I charged some other way? You see if the machine generates more energy than is required to drive it - then there is no concievable way for you to prevent me from (at least in theory) closing the loop and turning it into perpetual motion. SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is called a "perpetual motion machine" if built in such away. So you are right. But we must be careful in saying where the energy comes from. In all likeliness, it has to come from somewhere. Personally I have a feeling there is some truth to Hindu cosmology and Jain cosmology and I hope to prove their origins sometime in my lifetime. :)Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And I'll pass along the following document regarding Newman's technology --- written by Dr. Roger Hastings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result:

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

DATA ON THE NEWMAN MOTOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mechanical losses in the rotor were measured as follows:

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

Rotor Speed, radian/sec: 4.0 //// Power Dissipation, watts: 6.3 //// Power/(Speed Squared), watts/(rad/sec)^2: 0.39

Rotor Speed, radian/sec: 3.7 //// Power Dissipation, watts: 5.8 //// Power/(Speed Squared), watts/(rad/sec)^2: 0.42

Rotor Speed, radian/sec: 3.3 //// Power Dissipation, watts: 5.0 //// Power/(Speed Squared), watts/(rad/sec)^2: 0.46

Rotor Speed, radian/sec: 3.0 //// Power Dissipation, watts: 3.5 //// Power/(Speed Squared), watts/(rad/sec)^2: 0.39

Rotor Speed, radian/sec: 2.1 //// Power Dissipation, watts: 2.0 //// Power/(Speed Squared), watts/(rad/sec)^2: 0.45

Rotor Speed, radian/sec: 1.7 //// Power Dissipation, watts: 1.2 //// Power/(Speed Squared), watts/(rad/sec)^2: 0.42

Rotor Speed, radian/sec: 1.2 //// Power Dissipation, watts: 0.7 //// Power/(Speed Squared), watts/(rad/sec)^2: 0.47

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

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

MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF NEWMAN'S MOTOR

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

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

where

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

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

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

where

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do the constants, K, mean?

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

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

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

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

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

   [Signed]

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

________________________________________end of document. ESoule (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In you case you miss the show on New Energy

I just saw Newman again on the Beyond Invention show on the Science Channel. Evan Soule, Dr. Al Swimmer, and (I think) Milton Everett were on there. Schedule: http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=48.13776.120356.11352.xKmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know – I can’t believe Discovery airs such garbage. — NRen2k5, 16:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there will always be those who enjoy initiating juvenile insults. Judging by the responses alone, the Discovery airing was excellent. That an intellectually-dishonest mind would believe it is "garbage" is not surprising.206.255.88.80 (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - User:206.255.88.80 is in fact User:ESoule - he appears to have forgotten to log in. SteveBaker (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

When I made that post I was logged in according to Wikipedia. ESoule (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably the gyroscopic massergies in your terminal were interacting with the Wikipedia server and...I'm sorry - I'm laughing too hard to type. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right! Just as the gyroscopic massergies in your mind are tickling your neurons..... I enjoy a chap with a sense of humor.... beats the hell out of the lil' juvenile insulters. :-)) ESoule (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Heheh! Well yes...so how about some straight answers to some really simple questions? I don't need a long explanation. A simple yes or no will suffice for each:

We're told that the electricity that a Newman machine produces can't be used to drive that same machine for some hard-to-understand reason. Well, it's hard for me to understand - you and Newman seem to understand the explanation - so I'm going to have to break the problem down into manageable chunks. So let's go with four REALLY simple questions:

1. Can the electricity generated by a Newman machine be used (perhaps through some suitable frequency/voltage/current conversion/limiting circuitry) to charge a simple rechargeable battery?
2. If yes....Can the electricity produced by a battery that was charged by a Newman machine at some time in the recent past be used to drive that very same Newman machine sometime later?
3. If yes....Can I make a closed-loop system by charging one battery from the Newman machine while running the machine from another, identical, battery - then by some automatic means (relays or something) swap the two batteries when charging is complete?
4. If yes....Would that permit the machine to run 'perpetually' (at least until some mechanical failure or natural disaster occurs)?

Thanks in advance! SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. = Yes.

2. = Yes. Typically the energy machine charges the batteries while it operates to produce, for instance, a mechanical output. A major problem with respect to the batteries has been that the back-charging effect of the system as it operates OVERcharges the batteries to the point where they began to rapidly break down.

3. = The key words you have used are, "then by some automatic means (relays or something)..." When relays, etc. "kick in" the braking effect described by Newman occurs.

4. = The machine will never run "perpetually" if you mean that in a scientific sense, e.g., as long as the universe exists ... presumably (at this point) into infinity. Why? Because there is not an "infinite" amount of copper in the conductor coil. Now, if you can, by some rather amazing means, provide a machine with an infinite conductor coil then, in principle, it will operate into infinity ("perpetually"), barring mechanical failure such as ball bearings or a natural disaster (from a human perspective) such as the heat death of the universe. ESoule (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - excellent! So we can recharge batteries using the machine - and those batteries can be subsequently be used to power the machine....but there is some problem with making a closed-loop perpetual motion machine because of some strange effect. Let's discuss that.

I'm VERY puzzled by your answer to (3) above. So let's explore that for a moment. Since this question/yes-no answer format is working so well so far, I have a few more questions: They are rather long and detailed - for which I apologise in advance:

Here is my hypothetical setup: Suppose I have a Newman machine - I connect the output to a suitable battery charger. I have two batteries. One is connected to the battery charger via a pair of wires...using alligator clips perhaps (I'm British - we call them "Crocodile clips"...but that's another story). The charger and it's battery are NOT connected to the input of the Newman machine in any way. A second battery (which was charged by the Newman machine an hour ago) is driving the machine via a pair of wires - which are also connected to the battery with alligator clips. According to your answers (1) and (2), this will work just fine.

Eventually, the first battery is fully charged and the battery charger's overload protection will kick in to protect it. And eventually the voltage in the second battery will start to decline, indicating that it's running out of charge. Because (we're told) the Newman machine produces more electricity at it's output than it consumes at it's input, the "input battery" will not run out of charge until sometime after our "output battery" is fully charged. Now - suppose I employ an assistant to occasionally measure the voltage on the battery that's driving the input of the Newman machine - and when it gets low, he'll pick up the battery that's on charge, unhook it from the charger and connect it in parallel with the battery that's running out of juice. Then he picks up the battery that's dying - disconnects it from the input of the Newman machine (which will keep running on the fresh battery that he just hooked up) and hooks up the dead battery to the battery charger. In this manner, the Newman machine's input is never directly or indirectly connected to it's output - so squirly gyroscopic massergy things don't happen.

1. Your responses to (1) and (2) above indicate that this system should work perfectly. The machine can run forever so long as my assistant continues to swap the batteries over whenever one runs low on power...alternately charging one battery and running on the other (at least until the machine or the batteries wear out or my assistant drops dead from boredom!). Would this work? (I don't see why not - but let's be REALLY sure about that).
2. If yes: One day, my assistant comes along and says "Steve, I've spent my entire career swapping batteries in your crazy quest for perpetual motion - I'm sick of it. I QUIT!". Yikes! I'm never going to be able to recruit another person to do that job. Maybe I need a robotic assistant? How about an industrial robot - but before I go and spend a hundred thousand dollars on a robot - I want to be sure that there isn't some special "human energy" that makes swapping batteries possible to a person - but not to a sophisticated robot. Can I use an industrial robot to swap the batteries over instead of inflicting this tiresome task on a human assistant?
3. If yes: Well, my industrial robot wears out rather quickly because it's juggling heavy batteries around all day. I realise that instead of literally picking up and moving batteries around from charger to the input connectors of the machine - we could reprogram the robot to simply reconnect the wires. So when the "input battery" starts to run low it disconnects the wires leading from the charger to the "output battery" and connects a pair of wires leading from the freshly charged battery to the input of the machine (in parallel with the battery that's running low). Then we disconnect the wires leading from the "dead battery" and connect them to the charger. Will this work to keep the machine running indefinitely?
4. If yes: Industrial robots are expensive - so I decide to simplify things a bit. Instead of the robot connecting and disconnecting wires, I use a little electric motor that has a cam on the end that flips a light switch. When you need to disconnect a wire, you make the motor spin one way and it pushes against the switch and turns it off. When you need to reconnect the wire, you run the motor backwards and it switches the switch on. We use a bunch of these contraptions to switch the connections between the batteries instead of an industrial robot...but nothing really changed - we're still swapping batteries every hour or two and there is still never an electrical connection of any kind between the output of the Newman machine and the input. If we activate these motor/light-switch things appropriately, we can "swap" the two batteries automatically as needed. Do we still have a machine that'll run until it wears out?
5. If yes: Instead of using motors to switch the switches - let's use solenoids - a solenoid is just a "linear" electric motor - it pushes a rod in and out instead of spinning a rod around. Electrically-speaking it's no different from the situation above...Oh - but hold on! I can save myself some effort. You can buy things just like that at RadioShack! They are called "Relays" - we have an article about them right here in Wikipedia: Relay. Doh! Well, I could have saved myself a LOT of effort with human assistants and robots and motor/light-switches. Because the relay physically connects and disconnects wires - it's no different than the situation in all of my questions above - it doesn't ever connect the output of the Newman machine to it's input. So can I use a bunch of relays to disconnect and reconnect the wires just like the robot did?
6. If yes: Then your answer (3) is incorrect (probably you didn't know what a relay does - or perhaps misunderstood my intended use of them). Do you want to change your answer to question (3) above in the light of the fact that a relay can disonnect the battery from the output of the Newman machine BEFORE it reconnects it to the input - so the output of the machine is NEVER physically connected to it's input?
7. If yes: My ancient (restored) 1963 Mini Cooper has a pre-modern-electronics circuit that uses relays to connect the car's generator to the battery ONLY when the battery needs charging - it's clunky and old and a pain in the neck actually - but it works OK. It uses the charge on the battery to hold a relay open so that the car's generator is physically disconnected from the battery. When the battery runs low (eg from running the headlights), it can no longer hold the relay open and the relay is pulled back with a spring and connects the battery to the generator. As soon as the battery has enough charge, it can again energize the relay and disconnect itself. It's an amazing piece of pre-electronic-society technology - and it's VERY simple - you can actually watch the big brass contacts opening and closing. I could use one of those with each of the two batteries to connect them to the charger when they run low. And I could use the same gadget with the contacts swapped over to keep the fully charged battery connected to the input of the machine. So the battery swapping would be entirely automatic - whenever the battery goes flat it connects itself to the charger - whenever it's charged, it connects to the input of the Newman machine. With a couple of Mini Cooper battery relays - I have a setup that allows:
   • The output of the Newman machine to charge a battery.
   • The input of the Newman machine to becrun from a different battery.
   • The automatic switching of dead batteries from input to charger - and when charged, from charger back to input.
   • A completely closed loop system - BUT one in which the output of the Newman machine is NEVER electrically connected to it's input...that's very important. There is NEVER an electrical connection between the two.
   • This setup will therefore run "perpetually" (ie it'll only stop due to mechanical failure - not because it ran out of energy).

So, unless you have a "No" answer to one of those questions, I've established a rather simple mechanism using 1960's technology - nothing more fancy than a battery charger and a couple of $5 relays that'll allow Newman to run his machine "perpetually". I hereby give permission for Joseph Newman to take my idea, make it work - and patent it....but I sense there must be a snag...let's see.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For nearly 25 years I've encountered from time to time a chap who is educated beyond his level of intelligence and is afflicted with "SND" -- what I term "Simon Newcomb Disease". As you may recall, Dr. Newcomb was the highly educated professor who once 'proved' why man could never fly in a heavier-than-air machine. He chose to publish his insightful treatise on that subject in 1903. That's called impeccable timing.

About 12 years ago on an internet forum chiefly comprised of electric-motor, armchair theorists and a few practical builders, a fellow from Australia who I'll identify as "G.W." thoroughly enjoyed attacking Joseph Newman and my postings regarding Newman's work. He repeatedly demonstrated his skill at sarcasm and ridicule and had great fun with my post from Newman that described the "braking effect". GW enjoyed "proving" beyond any doubt that Newman was insane and hadn't a clue about physics or electrical phenomena.

Then one day, GW's posts ceased. Months went by. Finally, GW again appeared on that forum and he wrote in a posting, "He's got it!!" The "he" referred to Joseph Newman. Apparently, during his absence from the forum, GW built a small version of a Newman machine and tested it for himself. He said he now understood the "braking effect" and that Newman was right. As result, GW now realized what Newman had been saying. About a year later while traveling overseas, I met GW in Adelaide and we had an enjoyable lunch discussing Newman's work.

I relate this incidence because I'll admit that at the beginning of our internet forum interaction, I suspected that GW was simply another SND-sufferer who, in economic terms, "knew the value of everything and the price of nothing." But GW surprised me. He got out of his armchair and actually BUILT and EXPERIMENTED with his own version of Joseph Newman's technology. For that I respect him. ESoule (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And, speaking of switches & commutators, the following document was written by electrical engineer R. M. Hartwell II, who has extensively tested Newman's prototypes:

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

THE COIL: OPERATING VOLTAGES

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

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

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

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

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

What is the best type of magnet*?

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

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

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

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

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

Note: in the newest designs, the magnetic rotor configuration is designed differently. Suppose the magnet when assembled is 11 inches long. If we allow 1/2 inch clearance between the ends of the magnet and the inside of the coil form, that will make the coil form inside diameter about 12 inches. Allowing 3/4 of that size, the coil would be about 8 inches long.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, like most of the stuff you post, this is cut and pasted directly from the web^[2], so please don't bloat an already overly long article when you could simply post a link (see Wikipedia cheatsheet if you don't know how to do this). Second. R.M. Hartwell II appears to be another in the long list of non-persons. A search of the web for him reveals a handful of hits, as usual all related to the Newman motor. Third, he doesn't identify himself as an electrical engineer. You just made that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prebys (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable under these circumstances to simply delete the L-O-N-G insertion and replace it with a link and a brief explanation of what you did. Incidentally, I hunted for Hartwell too - no luck - another allegedly well-respected engineer with absolutely ZERO web presence except for occasional mentions on Newman's many sites. SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Made it up, Prebs?" Hardly. At the site: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086&hl=en --- there are featured a series of CBS Evening News & WWL-TV news clippings which include, among others, interviews with Ralph Hartwell who certainly existed and was the chief electrical engineer for WWL-TV. When he first met Newman, at the prompting of WWL-TV, he said to himself, "Oh, no, not another 'perpetual motion' machine..." Like you, he was highly skeptical and (to say the least) very dubious of Newman's claims. It would not be a stretch to say he probably considered Newman deluded, at best, and insane, at worst. However, unlike you, he had the curiosity and integrity to take it further and investigate Newman's claim with a sincere and open mind. He was intellectually honest. He set aside his prejudices and preconceived notions and began testing Newman's prototypes. The more and the longer he tested them, the more interested and then fascinated he became. Eventually, he joined the other scientists and engineers and signed an Affadivit in which he agreed that the Newman energy machine did produce greater external energy output than external energy input. ESoule (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that's really old. Hastings hadn't even started to lie about working at Unisys (or Sperry-Univac) yet, and was simply identified as "Minnesota PhD". Second, the two people speaking (I guess one was Hartwell?) are simply identified as "engineers", which at a TV studio could mean just about anything (guys who hook up microphones, for example). They were always photographed them in front of oscilloscopes to make them look like electrical engineers, but that doesn't prove anything. Nothing was said about their qualifications. Third, TV news is notorious for believing anything, and has a particular taste for perpetual motion machines. Finally, if he really had a working motor that long ago (it was what 25 years?), why hasn't he produced anything anyone cares about? I'm sorry, there's just not a lot of market for trucks that drive at 3 miles per hour for 20 minutes.Prebys (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

_________________________________________

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

_____________________________ end of document. ESoule (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Er - yeah. Well, thanks. Does that mean that I've got you argued into a corner so you can't answer my questions (1)...(7) above? There is no way for me to convincingly deduce anything from the long post you provided above. My questions are not difficult for someone familiar with the machine. The lengthy build instructions you posted are useless - if were to build one (which I won't because I KNOW it won't work) and indeed, it doesn't work - you'll just claim that I made some trivial mistake in building it...so that's a waste of my time. But rather than giving me a long lecture on Newman physics (which I won't be able to understand because you are using words and employing math in ways alien to me) - if you would be so kind as to answer some really basic questions - that would help IMMENSELY. SteveBaker (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally - In the interests for fair disclosure, I hope ESoule understands that:

1. He may not post other people's copyrighted text here...but perhaps in his position as "Director of Information" for Newman Energy Products, he has obtained the right to do so from the original author. Such a long quotation certainly couldn't be justified under "Fair Use" provisions. If no such explicit permission exists - he should delete these long passages of quotation ASAP!
2. But also - by posting them here, "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" (as it says at the bottom of the text entry box every time you contribute). So all of these long posts are available for people to rewrite, quote, misquote, mangle and do anything else they please with them (within the scope of GFDL). The same applies to any images posted.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve Baker: Let's return to your original four (4) questions above, upon which your seven (7) questions were based. I assume I don't need to repeat them here. I specifically relayed (pun intended) your four questions to Joseph Newman today. Joseph Newman's answer to all four questions is "1. = Yes., 2. = Yes., 3. = Yes., and 4. = Yes." He has done that. He has solved the "braking effect". He has proven such a closed loop. And he added: "Any credible scientist and serious investor is welcome to come and see my technology accomplish that, and much more." He stated that he is far more interested in operating his system under a LOAD and demonstrating the immediate practicality of the technology. And he is doing that right now. Those who are intellectually dishonest will argue endlessly about why the technology can never possibly work. Those who are intellectually honest will be willing to see and test the technology for themselves, e.g., the Ralph Hartwells and others shown in the above videolink. In fact, anyone wishing to see and test the technology for themselves may visit the website http://www.josephnewman.com/ and, at the top of the website is included the cellular phone number of Joseph Nolfe, President of Newman Energy Corporation. They are invited to contact Joseph Nolfe and make arrangements to check out the technology for themselves. ESoule (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! Well - that's an important statement. I don't believe it's true for one minute - but a VERY convincing demo would be to stand the machine on top of a big block of lucite so that you can easily see all around it, over and under - and see that there is no external power being applied - and set it running for (say) a month in a public place - the foyer of a science museum or a well-known public university. Perhaps put the thing into a big glass case with locks on it so nobody (neither Newman, nor the sceptics) can get inside to mess with it. If the machine ran continuously for anything like that long without replacing batteries or anything like that, you'd have an extremely powerful demo that would impress even the greatest sceptics. Obviously, a machine operated by a teeny-tiny bank of batteries can't run for a month unless something very special is going on. I personally don't believe it'll do it. But I'd have to sit up and take notice if such a demo was done cleanly and openly, in the light of public scrutiny and without any interference. The ability of a machine to operate "perpetually" would be the most solid proof imaginable...MUCH better than the public demo's you guys have done in the past where Newman messes up the math or exaggerates the numbers.

But you've got to do the demo right - or people will cry foul and your credibility will be busted again. Good luck with that one! I'll bet you a hundred dollars that it won't make it for even a week under properly controlled conditions. I believe in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and that you can't convert part of the mass of the machine itself into energy without there being some kind of nuclear reaction taking place. SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Chemical reactions convert much less of the atoms' binding energy into mass than do nuclear reactions. The "gain" of binding energy corresponds to a "loss" of energy in the form of radiation as well as a loss of mass. But the value is so small many don't know that mere chemical reactions do in fact convert mass into energy. The differences are so small they are almost impossible to observe in experiment.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 06:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I'm soooo very grateful for your "Woohoo" and best-of-luck wishes. And I know you mean that sincerely from the bottom of your heart. Of course, your comment about a "nuclear reaction" being necessary for the conversion (actually transference) of "mass" to "energy" within the energy machine demonstrates that you do not understand the technology... but that's all right. Your heartfelt encouragement is always appreciated. And, as I wrote above, those interested in checking the technology for themselves should contact Mr. Nolfe. ESoule (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kmarinas86's videos of Newman Machine replicas

I thought you might be interested in this. I have made pseudo-Newman machines. They don't have fancy commutators, and they are much smaller. Absolutely nothing important in the machine is not shown :).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NOKB393Kvg - Latest video I uploaded a few hours ago, by the time which my latest motor had spun 21 hours without recharge. It has now done 26 hours of run time without recharge. Since each battery here has a 2500 milliamp-hour rating, I would figure that after 26 hours it must be using less than 100 milliamps. Since the AA-series pack is around 12 to 10 volts, I'd figure that only a watt is being used to run the motor at continuous speed. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2506654B08626453 - List of my pseudo-Newman Machine videos on Youtube, beginning with my first.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 10:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen those videos (and an awful lot of people have made them and posted them on YouTube - there are even detailed "HOW TO" guides for building one yourself). All they prove is that you can make an electric motor and run it off of a battery. The technology that I see in those videos is nothing more than an "inside-out" (but VERY conventional) electric motor. If you pull apart a traditional electric motor you see a coil spinning inside a permenant magnet using a commutator to flip the direction of the current every half or quarter rotation (depending on how the coils are wound). Having the magnet spin inside the coil instead of a coil spinning inside the magnet really is no different at all - certainly it doesn't violate any laws of physics. You guys haven't even built a Newman machine yet! You've just build a hand-made electric motor of a slightly unconventional design. It's pathetic to see this wild enthusiasm - but even Newman would have to admit that you haven't come close to reproducing one of his machines. (I can't believe I'm defending Newman...but here goes...!)

As I understand it (and I *DON'T* believe it) - the ENTIRE point of the Newman concept is that the time between voltage reversals in the commutator is less than the speed-of-light travel time of the electricity through the coil. So you send some electrons off into one end of the coil wire - and BEFORE IT COMES OUT THE OTHER END you switch the direction of the voltage using the commutator and electrons are pumped into the other end of the wire. Newman claims that this causes a buildup of energy in the wire. He calls them gyroscopic massergies - but "electrons" is what I'd call them. He claims that they build up in the coil to produce some kind of mass-to-energy conversion - I claim that the equal and opposite electric fields largely cancel out and all you get is some vicious spikes of voltage (as observed by the NSB team that tested one of these machines.

But what that means that you need literally MILES of wire (which is why a real Newman machine weighs half a ton!). Electricity flows at the speed of light - 280,000,000 meters per second - so if the motor turns at (say) 6000 RPM your commutator is reversing the field 12000 times a minute or 200 times a second - so for your machine to be a "Newman machine" the coil has to contain enough wire to keep the electricity flowing along it for 1/200th of a second. That's about a million meters of wire! That's why it has to be built "inside out" with the magnet spinning instead of the coil...you don't want to be spinning five miles of wire! So ALL of these videos of small "Newman machines" are even more pathetic than Newman himself. You guys aren't building Newman machines - you're building small toy electric motors that bear no resemblance to a Newman machine AT ALL! Even if Newman Is right (which he most certainly isn't) - your machines will never produce more energy than they consume.

The reason your handmade electric motor runs for so long is that it has fairly efficient bearings and it doesn't have any kind of a load on it - not because it's a Newman machine! With hardly any friction and no load whatever, it only has to overcome air resistance and it doesn't take 100mA to do that! Let's see your motor do some work. Have it drive a small generator to produce electricity and lets see the electricity charge up a battery. If it's a Newman machine (and if Newman machines actually worked) it'll charge the output battery faster than it depletes the input battery - and you'll be able to run the machine like that indefinitely by swapping the two batteries every time the input battery goes dead. Either that or give it some work to do - make it drive a toy car or something - I guarantee it won't out-perform a commercially made motor of similar specifications. The magnetic coupling between your rough windings and 'lumpy' magnets mean that the motor ought to produce very little torque - so without lots of gearing, I don't think it'll even drive a toy car on a couple of AA batteries...but maybe it can.

Our very own Mr. Soule' should be able to confirm what I'm telling you...perhaps he could even get a statement to that effect from Newman himself confirming the huge amount of wire you need.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to express my appreciation to Kmarinas86. Regardless of how Mr. Baker and assorted Olympians may choose to criticize your actions, you are willing to experiment for yourself. That takes intellectual honesty.

It would be interesting to have a energy machine system with a rotary that spins at 14,400 rpms (for instance) with commutator break/field reversals occurring 2,000 times per revolution. I believe that even with a 300-lb (or smaller) coil, the resultant energy generation would be significant.

At far smaller rpms and lower voltage input, the larger coil -- as in one of his present units -- enables impressive back-emf spikes to be generated as the system operates.

When Newman began his research in the mid-1960s, he asked three questions which in turn led him to his understanding of the gyroscopic massergy.

Those three questions are:

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

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

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

A discussion of those questions may be found at: http://www.josephnewman.com/A_New_Paradigm.html

As I've said before (and will likely repeat), if one would like to check out Newman's technology for themselves, then they should contact Mr. Joseph Nolfe directly. ESoule (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1) It doesn’t.

2&3) I could repeat any textbook’s explanation... or you can look it up yourself. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1) It does. 2) & 3) Please be so kind to provide the weblink to the textbook explanation or the name of the specific textbook that provides a fundamental mechanical explanation for Fleming's Rule and Magnetic Attraction/Repulsion. You are welcome to send that information to: josephnewman@earthlink.net ESoule (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Scientific Method

It's quite riduculous to require a mechanical explanation for something that relates to fields and electroweak interactions. When you get into the realms of the very small (electrons and such), mechanical explanations cease to be meaningful. This is one of the principle reasons why mainstream science doesn't take Newell's ideas seriously. The entire concept of things spinning (let alone hitting each other and such) at the scale where quantum effects rule is completely off the charts as regards a modern view of reality. There are plenty of NON-mechanical explanations of Fleming's rule - but obviously there are no mechanical explanations because it isn't a mechanical phenomenon. As for (1) I'm not sure I even understand the question. But even so - why is it so hard to understand some action at one speed causing some effect at a different speed? That's what happens in the gearbox of my car or wind a clock. SteveBaker (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Having a mechanical description of these stochastic phenomenon is not necessary. However, having a mechanical explanation would help to serve those who wish to see a simple underlying principle behind all matters in existence.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2) Gearboxes and clocks operate mechanically. Structurally, the pieces of these machines move on each other because of the electric repulsive force which prevents materials from passing through each other. While this makes sense to Newman, passing a magnet at a distance from a wire, causing current to flow a certain direction seemed to involve no kind of mechanical advantage. When Newman says "mechanical", he thinks of the force of leverage, hence his decision to describe magnetic fields as mechanical entities.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Baker: In the first place, the name is "Newman" not "Newell". In the second place, I find it ridiculous that you think it is "ridiculous" to seek a mechanical explanation for (electro)magnetic phenomena. We live in a physical universe ... with mechanical characteristics. Fleming's Rule as it is conventionally defined provides a superficial explanation for an (electro)magnetic phenomenon but, as you state above, it does not provide a mechanical explanation for what IS fundamentally a mechanical phenomenon. Joseph Newman does provide an explanation for Fleming's Rule and it specifically explains on a mechanical level why Fleming's Rule occurs. Such a mechanical explanation is very valuable in arriving at a more profound understanding of such a phenomenon. That understanding, in turn, enables one to more precisely understand magnetic attraction and repulsion. And that understanding enables one to more precisely understand the mechanical foundation of all (electro)magnetic fields. When one more precisely understands such a mechanical foundation, one may begin to have an insight into innovating an electromagnetic system that can optimally harness the kinetic energy resident in that system.

Joseph Newman completely agrees with Michael Faraday when Faraday described the lines of force as physical. Like Faraday, Newman emphasizes the importance of mechanical models and a mechanical understanding of (electro)magnetic phenomena such as Fleming's Rule. Joseph Newman also agrees with James Clerk Maxwell when Maxwell wrote, "The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is MECHANICAL energy." And, most importantly for purposes of this discussion, Newman agrees with Maxwell when he 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." (Emphasis added.)

Back in the 1960s, Joseph Newman knew that it was essential for him to master a precise mechanical understanding of that matter-in-motion within the space in the neighborhood of electric or magnetic bodies --- if he really hoped to understand the fundamental mechanical nature of (electro)magnetic phenomena. His investigations led him to realize that the matters-in-motion comprising (electro)magnetic fields have a characteristic mechanical signature: a gyroscopic spin. Moreover, those matters-in-motion originate from the atomic domains of the atoms comprising the conductor (in a coil utilized in a Newman motor/generator). Once those atomic domains are aligned, the gyroscopic matters-in-motion moving in fields within each of those individual atomic domains suddenly merge by physically extending beyond the original boundaries of each atomic domain. The kinetic energy resident in such fields of gyroscopic massergies is real, continual, and can be harnessed and mechanically transformed into output electrical and/or mechanical energy with the properly-designed system. The precise, mechanical understanding of such matter-in-motion is key to harnessing such kinetic energy with the greatest possible production efficiency of that system.

When Newman first learned about Faraday's Generator, he realized that -- as you state above -- "...some action at one speed caus(ed) some effect at a different speed." At first, it superficially appeared to him that such a phenomenon suggested that one was "getting something from nothing", i.e., an action at a slow speed produced an effect at a fast speed. It was precisely because Newman did NOT believe one could "get something from nothing" that he sought to understand what was fundamentally and mechanically happening with respect to the simple phenomenon of Faraday's Generator. The next step was the recognition that something was ALREADY moving at that fast speed --- Maxwell's matter-in-motion within Faraday's physical lines of force --- and the slow motion of the hand-held copper conductor through those physical lines of force was simply deflecting that matter-in-motion (in accordance with the principle of gyroscopic action) out of the magnet's magnetic field and onto that copper conductor when it continued to move at a fast speed as it was previously doing within that magnetic field comprised of kinetic energy, i.e., Maxwell's moving matters-in-motion. Speaking of that gearbox in your car: those gyroscopic massergies mechanically/physically interact with one another just as "gears". The result of that mechanical interaction is magnetic attraction & repulsion. ESoule (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for the Newell/Newman mixup - I've been working on an article about Martin Newell and my mind flipped out for a moment there!)

Yeah - we've all heard this stuff before - but just because someone with zero scientific knowledge can come up with a half-assed idea about how the universe MIGHT work - doesn't mean that's how it ACTUALLY works. To prove a theory like this - you have to be able to explain ALL of the phenomena we've observed in hundreds of years of experiments. Look at some of the weird things that happen in Quantum Chromodynamics - these are things that have been shown in actual experiments - they fit perfectly with the math of Quantum theory...I don't see ANY work you guys have done to explain at an EXACT NUMERICAL LEVEL what happens in these situations with your theory. You claim to have supporters who are mathematicians and physicists - where are their calculations? It's not enough to merely go on about how this gyroscopic particle affects that one - you need NUMBERS...you need numbers that can be plugged into equations that can reproduce all of these amazingly strange experimental results. If you can't do that - then you have a mere flight of fancy that's popped into some guy's head that bears no resemblence to reality. It's really easy to come up with wild theories that DON'T predict all of reality as we know it - it's a really TOUGH job to produce one that does...with math - things you can use in practical engineering.

In fact, the "mechanical" nature of the universe that most physicists (including many whom you quote) believed 100 years ago turns out to be merely a macro-scale illusion. In truth we have a universe that's made up of quite abstract forces and fields - even the things we once though of as little solid particles turn out to be fuzzy statistical clouds. Our human-scale "mechanical universe" turns out to be merely a rough approximation to the truth. That's why we're now able to produce miraculous effects like superconductivity and superfluidity - macro-scale events that make no sense whatever in a mechanical universe. This is a profoundly weird thing - but it's the ONLY explanation we have that covers all of the experiments we've done over the past 100 years.

Things like the photoelectric effect, quantum tunnelling, quantum entanglement - all of which are used in real life, practical devices - simply can't be explained my mechanical means. I can understand the strong DESIRE to bring the universe back to a state where simple mechanical explanations work - to get back to the time of Newton when the world seemed a simple, orderly place - but we've passed that point. The ability for particles to appear and disappear at random - to simultaneously appear to be waves that can interfere with each other and point-like particles - these are things that REQUIRE the statistical nature of the universe. I don't think you guys have a clue how to do something as simple as to CALCULATE the colour of light that a hydrogen atom emits when stimulated...yet quantum theory can calculate it precisely - and it agrees with experiment perfectly. Quantum theory has the power to predict the outcome of experiments - Newman's theory has (as far as I can tell) produced zero actual numerical demonstrations of real effects. Heck - the guy can't even figure out how long the batteries in a golf cart last!

SteveBaker (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Baker: I had assumed that you were capable of communicating without juvenile insults, but I see my assumption was incorrect. Joseph Newman has developed a single, integrated mechanical explanation for magnetic attraction/repulsion, heat, light, gravitation, planetary motion, and inertia. It is your opinion that he has "zero scientific knowledge". And it is my opinion that your opinion in that regard is very wrong. So big deal: We've now expressed our very divergent opinions. (At least I could do it without recourse to initiated, juvenile insults.)

Mr. Baker, mechanical models have historically preceded mathematical models -- and the former can be no less "scientific" in principle than the latter. Michael Faraday was anything but a conventional mathematician. But he was a scientific genius who developed mechanical models. Actually, Maxwell considered Faraday to be "a mathematician of a higher order." I believe the integrated mathematics to complement Newman's mechanical model of the gyroscopic massergy will come in time. But its ABSENCE at this point in time does not NEGATE the importance of Newman's mechanical model which is very useful in understanding physical phenomena. Those scientists and engineers who have endorsed Newman's technology were under no "orders" or "expectations" that they would be the ones to innovate an integrated mathematical model that quantifies (among other things) Newman's mechanical model. That said, I remain hopeful that mathematician Dr. Al Swimmer may succeed in developing to whatever extent such a mathematical model, since he has expressed to me his interest in that pursuit. ESoule (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But if you can't also explain photoelectric effect (which makes LED's work), quantum tunnelling (which makes flash memory work), quantum entanglement (which has been demonstrated as a means of providing secure data transmission), quantum electrochromodynamics (which you can see producing some strange effects around the edges of mirrors - if you have a sufficiently powerful microscope)...and a whole raft of other well known and experimentally demonstrable effects - you don't yet have a theory. You have maybe 1% of a theory. You can't simply shrug those things off. If you wish to demolish 100 years of progress - you have to at least replace all of that stuff with equally compelling answers. Responsible scientists go off and prove their theories well before they attempt to promote them to the public! SteveBaker (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Photoelectric effect: "By the law of conservation of energy, the electron absorbs the energy of the photon and if sufficient, the electron can escape the material with a finite kinetic energy. A single photon can only eject a single electron because the energy of one photon can only be absorbed by one electron. The electrons that are emitted are often termed photoelectrons." A more fundamental explanation than the conservation of energy would be the conservation of angular momentum. Because of the conservation of angular momentum there is conservation of energy. Consider what happens when angular momentum is transfered from one system to another. The faster angular momentum is transfered, the higher the torque, for torque is change of angular momentum per unit time. Torque is also energy per angle. However, when the rate change of angle is not known, such as the angle between a sports car and a geostationary point near the center of the earth, energy is used instead, and works fine since that angle is essentially meaningless.

When a photon punches an electron, the harder the punch, the more likely it is to whack the electron out of the positively charged system that tries to reel it in. The electron is attracted to the positive charges, much like how electric charges in a circuit are attracted to, and tend to stick, to the rear end of a battery. The photon coming in basically provides the electrical equivalent of "gravity assist" to the electron, allowing it to "slingshot" out of an atom at its own expense. But photons don't have charge or mass, instead, their angular momentum with respect to the positively charged system is simply absorbed by the electron, causing it to be yanked out in a predictable direction.

The "Newman particle" is reification of the "quantized angular momentum" or quanta.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantum entanglement: "For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible, in general, to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it." My answer: This is simply due to an extension of the conservation of angular momentum. Since the particles are in a closely matching reference frame, the back reaction would leak into similar environments, such as those experience by the particles most likely to be entangled with the altered particle. Just as is the case for wireless electricity, the sending of information is still limited to the speed of light. Some forms of wireless electricity involve coils that are of matching dimensions such that electricity (changing magnetic fields) can travel between them.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Electrochromodynamics: Quarks and gluons have asymptotic freedom. But freedom comes at a price. Forces are so strong at the nuclear level that as quarks and gluons approach each other, much of their E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 is lost as energy waves. Thus as quarks get closer to massless gluons, they lose much of their mass and angular momentum to rest of the nuclear environment. Thus as they approach, the forces between them decreases. Such interaction would be typical for matter constantly traveling near the speed of light, where the magnetic forces approach similar levels to the electric force. Since much of the observations at the quantum level are stochastic in nature, group phenomenon are more likely to be observed than individual phenomenon. This does not mean that Newman's concept of gyroscopic particles does not apply because certainly any particle theory related to magnetic fields may have the capacity to explain group behavior, while tracking individual particles in of themselves may be of limited scientific value. With regards to its relation to Quantum Chromodynamics, let me just say that I know very little about magnetic fields within the atomic nucleus.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No good enough! All you've done (above) is to roughly restate the standard theory of how these things work. Newman doesn't accept that stuff. His explanation is a literal, mechanical one. Let me quote what Soule says (above) "...those gyroscopic massergies mechanically/physically interact with one another just as "gears""...so your explanation can't resort to all of the means of modern quantum theory in which particles are mere probability clouds. If you are in Newman's universe you have to explain all of these phenomena in terms of little spinning gyroscopes that "mechanically/physically interact"...so, I'm sorry - but you aren't using Newman's theories in your explanations. For example, the standard explanation in Chromodynamics relies on "a sum over paths" - that a particle simultaneously takes every possible path from source to destination. That's reasonable if it's a probability cloud - but not if it's a physical, mechanically spinning object. SteveBaker (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

True. But the key is that Newman is more interested in the mechanical implications of his theory. He came up with his concept that could be used to make applications of macro-scale phenomenon. We will not use Newman's concept when studying very specific "natural" cases of his principles, which are made of, and are affected by countless entities of gyroscopic(?) particles acting in specialized roles in complex systems such as atomic nuclei and biological systems. Instead, his theory is intended for those wanting to getting maximum benefit out of the electromagnetic fields, whose connotation obviously refers to the practical kinetic energy that comes from scientific knowledge. To get things traveling in a straight line, you rely less on probability and group transformations and more on force, leverage, and power.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The proof is in the operation of Newman's energy machine. If it operates as he states, that provides credence to his theory of the gyroscopic massergy. So that takes one back to the energy machine. You do not believe it works. I do believe it works. Skeptics do not believe it works. Supporters do believe it works. All he has asked for is a patent ... a patent that would not cost taxpayers anything. But instead, the patent bureaucrats have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting against his patent rights. And then there was that PTO bureaucrat who originally labeled Newman technology "perpetual motion". His name was Donovan F. Duggan and his "knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities" according to a Federal Court. Additionally, under oath in a different Federal Court, Duggan was unable to define the basic concept known as "electrical hysteresis" and at one point during the patent examination process Duggan admitted to reading Newman's patent application in a cursory manner. Fortunately, that character is no longer with the patent office. I should add that Newman has no desire to "demolish 100 years of progress" (as quoted from above); there have been occasions in the history of science when new theories don't automatically "demolish" earlier theories but may add to or refine such theories -- or replace portions of the earlier theories while enhancing other aspects of such theories. ESoule (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Science is not about belief. Science is about controlled, verifiable, and repeatable experiments. As in anything else, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fact is that after "40 years of research", all Newman has is a truck that goes really slowly for a few minutes, a failed attempt at a patent, and a bunch of "sworn affidavits" from singularly unimpressive people. SteveBaker has done an excellent job of analyzing Newman's claims, showing them to be grossly exaggerated, and you have as yet no response to this. Your statements regarding voltage, current, and power establish that you, personally, have no scientific training, so your opinions are of no weight. In the end, you have nothing, will never have anything, and it's very sad that someone with as much energy as Newman has wasted his entire life.Prebys (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL!! Prebs: Thanks so much for being thoughtful enough to provide Newman's obituary --- but you're a bit premature. Once again you are long on YOUR belief but short on the facts. You wrote above, "all Newman has is a truck that goes really slowly for a few minutes". Since you like "facts", your statement is factually incorrect. He has powered lights, home appliance fans, TVs, drills, table saws, automobiles, and water pumps with a variety of different-sized energy machine prototypes. Naturally, I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Baker's job of claim analysis; Mr. Baker has demonstrated that he does not understand Joseph Newman's technology in the first place. [BTW, he'll likely disagree with my assessment of his assessment -- but then, we're all entitled to our opinions and beliefs.] And thanks for letting us know that science is about controlled, verifiable, and repeatable experiments. That, by the way, is called the scientific method which consists of four steps. Step 1 deals with observation for purposes of data gathering; Step 2 deals with hypothesis formulation; Step 3 is extrapolation; and Step 4 repeats the function of observation, but this time for purposes of corroboration of the hypothesis. (Plus Occam's Razor.) Twenty-four years ago I applied the SM to Newman's theory of magnetic attraction/repulsion and formed a hypothesis based on observations of examples of magnetic attraction/repulsion. An extrapolation was made and that extrapolation was subsequently corroborated by observation. And I disagree with your opinion-of-no-weight regarding those who have endorsed Joseph Newman's work. IF they are "singularly unimpressive" then that makes you less-than-singularly unimpressive because each one of them demonstrated an important characteristic of a true scientist: intellectual honesty. They had the intellectual honesty to set aside their prejudices and preconceptions and examine the FACTS by testing the technology using oscilloscopes, voltmeters, etc. To repeat: Those who would like to see/test the technology for themselves and then come to their OWN conclusions are welcome to contact Joseph Nolfe to make such arrangements. [His cellular phone number is referenced above.] ESoule (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should add that science IS about "belief". During Step 2 of the scientific method, the scientist believes that his hypothesis may be correct, but he does not know that it is until it has been corroborated in Step 4. The concept of belief is an integral part of the development of science. ESoule (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, in that post alone, you've listed at least four very commercializable products, so it seems like rather than waste your time fighting losing battles on Wikipedia, you could build just *one* these things (say, a decent power drill that ran on AAA batteries), get rich, and make us all look silly. But you never seem to get around to doing that, do you? And in fact, you never, ever will. It was about twenty years between the very first lab demonstration of solid state lasers and the release of the modern CD player. Newman claims to have had a working over-unity motor for *more than thirty years* - a product that makes the laser diode look like a new flavor of toothpaste, and yet he hasn't built a single practical product based on this. Why do you think that is?Prebys (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand "Step 1" of the scientific method. Step 1 is indeed "observation". If you were merely going to make a tiny modification to an existing and well established theory - then that observation might be as little as a single aspect of an obscure experimental phenomena that doesn't fit with existing theory. You can then apply some small modification to the standard theory to make that fit - and you leave the rest of the theory alone. THEN you have something important to say.

BUT if you are planning on an upheaval of pretty much all of physics (as Newman must if he is to be taken seriously) then your "observe" step has to be the observation of ALL pertinent experiments - not just some strange effect you've seen in a home-made electric motor. Your hypothesis has to fit ALL of the observations that physicists have ever made - or else your "hypothesis" step isn't done yet.

If there is even one teeny-tiny aspect of reality-as-we-know-it that your hypothesis does not yet explain - then it's not ready for prime-time yet. Right now - Newmans' hypothesis doesn't take in all of the observed facts of the universe - just one or two of them...and hence he has not yet completed the "observation" step - let alone finished the hypothesis! How does Newman's theory explain the photoelectric effect? What colour does it predict hydrogen gas will glow at when excited to a particular energy state? What temperature is absolute zero? How does superconductivity work? Until your hypothesis can explain absolutely all of the existing observations that the theory you intend to replace currently explains - then you don't even have a hypothesis - you have a wild-assed guess! Furthermore - you have to encompass the observations not just qualitatively (eg magnetic fields push and pull at each other) - but also quantitatively (when a kilogram of iron is placed into a magnetic field of 'x' gauss the force on it will be 'y' Newtons in this directions according to this equation... which you'll have to be able to derive from your theory). Once you have a hypothesis that explains everything we know about the universe - you have a theory thats as good as current physics knowledge. Then (and only then) can you reasonably move on from the hypothesis stage to the 'extrapolate' step. In that step, you use your theory to predict the result of some experiment that has not yet been performed - your theory predicts one result - the current theory predicts another. You do the experiment and voila! We have a winner - whichever theory predicted the result correctly must be the right one.

But until your hypothesis explains all that we currently know - you aren't ready to extrapolate yet because the moment you wave your shiney new theory at the world - they're going to say..."Hold on a minute - before we start testing it - how does it explain the photoelectric effect?"...and if it doesn't - your screwed - because the existing theory does a very good job of doing that. Who in their right mind would toss out a perfectly good theory that explains pretty much everything we know from observations in favor of a theory that (by necessity) throws away ALL of that useful science and replaces it with something that only explains one teeny-tiny piece of reality?

Look at it from the perspective of a mainstream scientist. You're effectively saying to the scientific community: "We have this theory for magnetism and a couple of other things - BUT it violates thermodynamics, quantum theory, relativity, the standard particle model, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc...AND we don't actually have any mathematics whatever to back it up (although there is this rather pretty diagram)". The scientific world comes back to you and says: "Well, that's all very well, but we already have a perfectly good theory that explains magnetism quite neatly - and it explains deeply weird effects like quantum tunnelling, chromodynamics, black holes, superconductivity...etc. Your theory doesn't buy us anything we need. Goodbye."

That's exactly what happened a few decades ago - and still, you haven't shown one single equation, or used your ideas to explain any of the standard effects of quantum physics, particle physics, chemistry, relativity...nothing...except (perhaps) magnetism. Is it any surprise that you're still being laughed at?

I don't understand why YOU don't understand that your position is completely untenable.

I suspect (because you keep doing it) that you compare Newman's situation with the early physicists of the 1800's. They had an easier time of it. Since the theory of the universe was pretty basic at the time - and it was based on a limited number of observations - it was pretty simple to come up with a viable hypothesis that explained it all and which could compete with the current world-view. Nowadays, our current theories are backed up with spectacularly exacting measurements of all manner of peculiar phenomena - and it all hangs together: the Physics that we believe is correct does indeed allow us to manipulate matter to make deeply peculiar things like Flash memory chips (which rely on quantum effects in order to function).

You can't just come along and say "I deduce that the universe must be made of little spinning gyroscopes because I think it provides an alternative explanation for magnetism." - that's a terrible way to proceed! If it doesn't explain everything else as well - then it's not even a viable hypothesis yet.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References