The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perpetual motion machine:
The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

Diagram of a Newman Motor
Disciplines physics
mechanical engineering
pseudoscience
Core Tenets Electromagnetic energy can be rendered useful by means other than atomic or chemical chain reactions. Specifically, a rotating permanent magnet spinning inside an electromagnetic pulsating conducting coil utilizes the coil's mass-energy and turns it into torque.
Year Proposed 1984
Original Proponents Joseph Newman
Current Proponents Joseph Newman
Roger Hastings
Theory violation The claims are said to violate the law of Conservation of Energy and the Laws of Thermodynamics because they involve output power exceeding externally derived power.
The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman is reportedly a perpetual motion machine. Such machines violate the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman is a DC-fed electric motor consisting of a rotor stacked with permanent magnets surrounded by wide turns of an electromagnetic coil. The basic operation is relatively simple: when the electromagnet (stator) is switched on the magnet (rotor) spins end-over-end. Unlike conventional DC motors, Newman machines produce motive power chiefly from the dangerous high-voltage inductive back spikes whose voltages are in excess of the voltage of the real power supply.[1]

In the 1980's Newman attempted to patent the device was rejected by the United States Patent Office. When the rejection was later appealed, the United States district court requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The consistency checks done by NBS allowed it to conclude that the input power, equal to the product of the average voltage and current from the batteries, was greater than the output, equal to the product of the average voltage and current leaving the Newman machine. The test results were published in June 1986 and concluded that that it was not a perpetual motion machine,[2] and the patent was again denied.[3] Newman later withdrew the patent.[2] Critics of Newman's ideas about electricity and magnetism argue that his claims are false and pseudoscientific.

Contents

[edit] Operational design

In a Newman machine, one end the voltage source is connected to one end of an electromagnetic coil and the other is connected to a commutator. At the other end of the coil is a brush that contacts a metal axle. The axle carries one or more aligned permanent magnets. As the axle spins inside the commutator, the commutator controls the opening and closing of the electrical pathway.[3] Whenever the circuit is closed, an electrical potential is applied to the coil from the batteries, causing an expanding magnetic field that interacts with the permanent magnets in the rotor, producing torque.[4] For this to occur, the magnetic axes of the electromagnet and the permanent magnet(s) are set perpendicular to the bar. The inventor claims that particles (c.f. virtual particles) come outward from the atoms of the electromagnet in spiral paths around its lines of magnetic force. According to Newman, these particles are to be called "gyroscopic particles".[5][6]

In a more sophisticated Newman machine, the commutator flips the current direction twice every magnet rotation and it also connects and disconnects the circuit 24 times for each rotation.[7] According to Roger Hastings (a proponent of the machine and past business partner of Newman), the commutation allows the machine's very large magnetic field to collapse, producing a high-voltage surge of current that turns the rotor with the abruptness of a "karate chop".[3]

Classical electromagnetism predicts, on the contrary, that a DC permanent magnet motor cannot derive net work through the inductive coil back spikes in excess of the input voltage and current supplied by batteries even though inductive back spikes can and do exceed the voltage of the batteries. Such back spikes are associated with a high risk of fire as well as permanent damage to the circuit. It is not recommended that inductive back spikes be used to run a motor. Thus, Roger Hasting's claims are not supported by standard engineering practices.

Nevertheless, if an inductive back spike was indeed causing the rotor to turn in its general direction, the inductive back spike may raise the rms values of voltage and current measured at the input above the battery's voltage and current draw, which would invalidate the interpretation that the input power consisted only of power drained from the battery. Examples of experimental approaches in which a Newman device was officially tested can be found in a 1986 document by the National Bureau of Standards.[2]

[edit] Claims by the inventor

The inventor of the machine claims his device transfers energy in excess of electrochemical energy drawn from the batteries. Newman makes statements contradicting mainstream science where he assumes electric field potential (voltage) applied to a material (such as copper) will cause that material to produce magnetic flux; to him, the current is merely a "side effect" which has been confused for the cause of the magnetic field, while scientists think the electric current produces the magnetic field.[8] Since voltage leads current in an inductor, the current will not rise as quickly as the voltage. This results in a phase difference, resulting in a lower power factor, as one would expect in an inductor. Newman argues that magnetic field expansion rate is due to the voltage level and the mass which is subjected to those voltage levels, and that energy flow that produces the magnetic field comes from energy contained in the atoms in the conductor themselves.[8]

The crucial part is when the mechanical commutator breaks the circuit, removing the applied electric field. The magnetic field collapses, causing a sudden change in magnetic flux so immediate that it causes the charges to reverse their direction at a higher voltage and speed than when they were going forward. The magnetic field due to the implementation of the back voltage would therefore be the primary means by which the rotor turns. While the back spike occurs, heat is also produced from the charge flow in opposition to the battery voltage.[9] According to Newman, energy conversion between different forms allows the machine's mechanical rotor output to be greater than what would be suggested by energy drained from the battery bank, while still not being a perpetual motion machine.[10][11] Newman's theories have no scientific basis and have not been published in respected textbooks or peer reviewed journals. They are in direct conflict with classical electrodynamics.

[edit] History

[edit] U.S. patent battle

A United States Patent and Trademark Office patent application[12] for Newman's electric motor was rejected, which set off a lengthy court battle involving conflicting expert opinions. For example, in the spring of 1986, Sam Taliaferro (a therapeutic magnet salesman[13]) claimed that he had built his own version of the Newman machine and observed what he though was evidence for a high-efficiency mechanical output.[3] On the other side, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), by request of the patent office, tested the device and got negative results. By using various methods to gauge the electrical forms of power coming into and from both ends of Newman's machine in conjunction with a load, they were able to conclude that "In all conditions tested, the input power exceeded the output power. That is, the device did not deliver more energy than it used." The NBS report was later submitted to the U.S. District Court.[2] In response to the NBS report, Taliaferro (who claimed to have built a working replica of the device), questioned the measuring techniques used by NBS, saying that NBS might have ignored the mechanical output of the rotor.[3] Newman's lawyer, John P. Flannery II of Leesburg, Va., stated that Newman and his representative could not afford continuous presence for much of the testing period.[3] The lawyer called three expert witnesses, two engineers and a physicist, to appear and testify in court.[14] The witnesses made the following claims regarding not only the electrical efficiency of the devices they tested, but also the mechanical efficiency, something which NBS did not include in its report:[3]

  • Milton Everett, according to Science magazine, was a mechanical engineer and director of the biomass program for the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation.[15] According to Discover magazine, Everett said that he and two Electrical Engineering professors from Mississippi State University, compared a Newman motor to a standard motor and found it took in one-tenth as much current while pumping water at a comparable rate. Everett described how a Newman motor with a 90 pound rotor was hooked to a worn out flashlight battery. The witness claimed it ran longer than four hours, after which he finally gave up, shut it off, and went home.[14]
  • Ralph M. Hartwell II, an amateur radio operator[16] who identifies himself as a provider of broadcast and electronics consulting services (since 1976),[17] made an appearance on Discover magazine article of May 1987. The article claimed he was a television station engineer who was called to connect a small standard electric motor to some nearly dead penlight batteries. The motor ran for one minute and 15 seconds before the battery was drained. Discover magazine claims Hartwell then hooked that same battery to the 90 pound rotor Newman motor which proceeded to run normally. After 75 minutes, Hartwell unhooked the battery from the Newman motor and re-connected it to the standard motor. This time the standard motor ran for 2 minutes and 25 seconds before the battery gave out.[14] According to the Science magazine issue in February 10, 1984, he was one of two television station engineers of WWL-TV who were called to do this task.[15]
  • Dr. Roger Hastings, who was a solid-state physicist for Sperry-Univac Corporation,[15] said oscilloscope traces showed more energy coming out then going in. He also said that he hooked a standard motor to a pump and ran it for six minutes until it exhausted the batteries running it. Using the same pump and identical batteries, he hooked the pump to the Newman motor and it was still running and pumping oil after eight hours. Hastings explained the essential feature of the Newman motor to be the extremely long wire used to wind the coil - 55 miles in one version, with many thousands of turns. The wire was so long that the charges didn't have time to reach the end before the flow is reversed by the commutator as the rotor turns.[14]

Dr. Hastings concluded that the NBS failed to measure the energy in Newman's machine although it had the machine in its possession for 150 days, adding that the NBS didn't know what they were doing.[18] In his evaluation, Dr. Hastings wrote that the NBS "results reflect a total lack of communication between the NBS and Newman or any other expert on Newman's technology." Dr. Hastings said in his evaluation that the NBS allowed energy to escape from the machine and then, instead of measuring its output energy, they measured the power consumed by resistors "placed in parallel with the Newman motor, and called this power the output." Dr. Hastings concluded, "The primary r.f. (radio frequency) power was shunted to ground." As for measuring output, Hastings said the NBS's test was "equivalent to stating that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by a light bulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit." Hastings claimed that by grounding the device, NBS failed to follow their own test schematic and protocol.[18]

In Hastings' view, no valid test was conducted by NBS during the 30-day test period authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The defendant's position was that all actions taken by the Patent Office and NBS after February 24, 1986 (the end of the 30-day test period as authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals) — when his property was confiscated by lower Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson — were performed illegally in violation of the U.S. Court of Appeals Order.[19]

The court gave the following statement in its final decision:

“ "We conclude that Mr. Newman had a duty to raise objection, before or during testing, to any defects in the test protocol that he knew or believed would impair the results. He had a clear chance to obtain a definitive test, and to the extent that he did not take it, he can not now impeach the results that were conducted by procedures of which he had advance knowledge. If there were flaws in the NBS protocol, we do not now give controlling weight to objections that could have been raised at a time when any errors could have readily been corrected. We conclude that Mr. Newman waived or acquiesced in any purported defect in the test procedure by remaining silent throughout the test period."[20] ”

[edit] Subsequent demonstrations

According to an article for the May 1987 issue Discover Magazine, Newman had received mild support from from Rayovac Corporation's director of product development, Pat Spellman. The company staff supplied batteries to run the Newman machine and inspected them afterwards. Spellman said he had seen enough to be convinced that something unique was going on. Discover Magazine quotes the director, saying, "It's not at all clear to us how the batteries get rejuvenated when they run a Newman motor. Beyond that I'd rather not get into it." In another event, Rayovac prepared a special battery pack for Newman's car. The circuit for the car contained sixty-eight 250 Volt batteries connected in series, which according to the editor of the article, delivered 20 milliamps at 17,000 volts, or 340 watts.[14] The car was to be demonstrated in the Mississippi Coliseum, but just before the demo it was announced that it was damaged in the trip up. The car was rolled out anyways and Newman came out holding up a single transistor radio battery, and climbed into the car. The right wheel, which has been jacked up off the ground, began to turn. Newman claimed the car was running off the single transistor radio battery, but there was no independent verification of this. In Feb 4, 1987, Newman demonstrated the car again in Lucedale, Mississippi. Using the 17,000 volt battery pack he drove at around 4 mph for about a mile. In March 11, the car was driven at similar speeds for about two hours in an arena in Biloxi, Mississippi.[14] Quoting the magazine's comments about Newman's claims:

“ The power required to propel an 1,800 pound car at four mph is about 0.29 horsepower or 215 watts.[21] The Newman car used a battery pack that delivered about 20 milliamps at 17,000 volts or 340 watts. The hulking 550 pound Newman motor thus transformed 340 watts of battery power into 215 watts of driving power, for an efficiency of 63% - a decidedly miraculous figure, inferior to that of a conventional electric motor.

But the question is, How long can the car be driven at that speed? Newman says the batteries will never run down. Rayovac specs list the energy capacity of the battery cells at 518 milliamp-hours. Since the Newman car draws 20 milliamps, physics says the batteries should be exhausted after 25.9 hours. Until Newman drives his car at four mph for more than 25.9 hours, he'll remain within the realm of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.[14]

 ”

Following the failure of his attempt to patent the machine in the USA, Newman went on to successfully patent a variation of the device in Mexico (Patent number MX158113, "MEJORAS A UN SISTEMA Y METODO PARA GENERAR ENERGIA" granted in January 1989).[22] After that, Newman revealed his belief that God had chosen him make the discovery and to be "the good steward for the gift".[23] By 2001, he claimed that machines using his techniques were already being sold by other manufacturers and that they were getting more than 100% efficiency, but that they were covering up this fact to avoid paying royalties. He also claimed that the device would produce ten times the amount of electricity required to power it and explained that you could "Put one in your home and never pay another electricity bill.",[23] but there is no record of any being sold or used for that purpose. In 2006, Newman claimed that his machine was not only capable of pumping water out of a well, but also capable of passing them through a desalination filter. His website links to videos of his machine actually pumping water, though whether there is a hidden bank of batteries capable of delivering the horsepower required in his demonstrations is unclear.[24]

[edit] Perpetual motion controversy

See also: Mass–energy equivalence and First law of thermodynamics

Regardless of the exact mode of operation, if the output power is higher than the required input electrical power, those skeptical of Newman's device argue that it should be capable of running "closed-loop", producing excess power without external batteries.[25] Newman does not accept the classification of his invention as a "perpetual motion machine" and insisted his machine's energy output was limited by the conditions of the matter and energy it contained.[10][11] Mainstream electromagnetic theory does not account for mass-to-energy conversion through electromagnetic induction, regardless of the radiation emitted by an electrical system.

Newman tried to account for energy release by proposing that the concept of "gyroscopic particle" be added to our understanding of already defined fundamental particles such as the electron, which for example he describes as being composed a swarm of innumerable "gyroscopic particles".[12] Proponents of Newman claim that his theory of gyroscopic particles was developed over the course of fourteen years (since the 1960's) and predates the invention itself.[26] In the 1980's, Newman attempted to patent an "energy generation system having higher energy output than input".[12] Because of resistance by the United States Patent Office against applications depicting "perpetual motion machines", Newman was not granted a US patent for his invention.[12]

[edit] See also

v • d • e
Electric motors
Broad Motor Categories
Conventional Electric Motors
Novel Electric Motors
Motor Controllers
See also

[edit] Bibliography

  • Newman, J. (8th ed.).(1998). The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Scottsdale, AZ: Joseph Newman Publishing Company. 0-9613835-8-5

[edit] References

  1. ^ Hastings, Roger, MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS OF JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ENERGY GENERATOR, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 25 April 2008.
  2. ^ a b c d US National Bureau of Standards (June 1986). Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device. The National Capital Area Skeptics. Retrieved on 2008-01-12.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Peterson, Ivars, (5 July 1986). NBS report short-circuits energy machine - National Bureau of Standards. Science News. Retrieved on 2007-12-24.
  4. ^ Will Joseph Newman's energy machine revolutionize the world?. Atlanta Journal-Constitution (1986-06-14). Retrieved on 2007-12-13. (highlight)
  5. ^ Inventor speaks to LSU audience on controversial "energy machine". The Advocate (Baton Rouge). (1986-02-26). Retrieved on 2007-01-24. (highlight)
  6. ^ Joseph Newman's Theory. JosephNewman.com.. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
  7. ^ Newman Energy Machine: Introduction, National Capital Area of Skeptics. 1986. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
  8. ^ a b STATEMENT BY JOSEPH NEWMAN, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 24 April 2008.
  9. ^ The rms values for current would be significantly greater than their average values, although the average values are what determines how much charge is drained from the battery.
  10. ^ a b Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around. The Washington Post (2000-01-12). Retrieved on 2007-01-01. (highlight)
  11. ^ a b Peterson, Ivars, (1985-06-01). A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'.. Science News. Retrieved on 2008-02-26.
  12. ^ a b c d Newman, Joseph (1983-03-17). Patent Application: "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT" (failed). Retrieved on 2008-01-12.
  13. ^ Henson, Steve. "Fair vendor sells magnets supposed to cure anything", The Pueblo Chieftain, September 03, 1994. "Taliaferro is president\CEO of Magnetic Engineering Inc. of Manitou Springs. His company, which has a booth at the Colorado State Fair just north of the Palace of Agriculture, sells various products based on the principle -- or theory, if you're a skeptic -- of bio-magnetics. (A full quote may be found here)" 
  14. ^ a b c d e f g The Energy Machine of Joe Newman Abstracted from an article in the May 1987 issue of Disco. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
  15. ^ a b c Marshall, Eliot, Newman's Impossible Motor The patent office does not believe that Joseph Newman has built a generator that is more than 100 percent efficient, Science magazine. 10 February 1984. Retrieved 24 April 2008. (highlight "Milton Everett") (highlight "Ralph M. Hartwell") (highlight "WWL-TV staff") (highlight "Roger Hastings")
  16. ^ Hartwell, Ralph M. Amateur Radio at W5JGV, Welcome to the Ham Shack of W5JGV. 2001-2007. Retrieved 24 April 2008.
  17. ^ Hartwell, Ralph M. Spectrotek Services, Spectrotek Services. 2002-2005. Retrieved April 24, 2008
  18. ^ a b In Re Newman, 782 F.2d971, 974-75 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
  19. ^ In Re Newman, 782 F.2d971, 974-75 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
  20. ^ US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case #88-1312, Newman v Quigg.
  21. ^ 215 watts is equal to 184 kilocalories per hour or about twice the basal metabolic rate of the human body - far less than what is burned while running track (http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm). Another way to look at this is maximum force that would be produced at 215 watts and 4 miles per hour, assuming 100% mechanical efficiency. In physics, you would divide the 215 watts by 4 miles per hour, and you would get 120.2 newtons, equivalent a mere 27 pounds of force, far less that what is actually needed to push a car at 4 mph. That was said in total ignorance of the rolling resistance coefficient. A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.03 for a 1800 pound car would require 54 pounds of force to get movement in the first place. At four miles per hour, the power consumed by rolling resistance alone would be 429 watts.
  22. ^ "Mexican Patent Search at infopat.com. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
  23. ^ a b Park, Robert, L (2001-08-31). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0195147100. 
  24. ^ Newman, Joseph W., The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 24 April 2008.
  25. ^ See, for example, see this discussion at an online bulletin board
  26. ^ LETTER FROM COL. THOMAS BEARDEN, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 24 April 2008.

[edit] External links

[edit] Supporters

[edit] Objectors